Consistency of officiating

[No straw damn us]

There are a lot of thoughtful comments in this thread so here are a few (hopefully thoughtful) reflections of my own:

• The thread is about 'consistency of officiating'. I've been watching the game for well over 60 years and inconsistency has always been an issue and I guess always will be - from Eric Clay, to Billy Thompson to John Holdsworth to name but a few, right through to today's refs, I've ranted at officials during games but watching them back, find that they are mostly correct

• In some respects the tackle issue is very simple - don't tackle around the head! Interpretation will always come into play. The game is fast and tough and errors will occur by players and officials

• We, as fans, need to embrace what the RFL is doing (and just hope that it does it well) as in the litigious world that we live in there simply isn't an option to do nothing. That route would end the game as we know it.

• As an example of how players can learn to adapt, look at how very few instances we see now of field kickers being flattened by late tackles though it used to be commonplace. The game can, and will, adapt.

• The disciplinary system is too complicated. With grades A-F and levels within the grades (higher-end, lower-end etc) it's an impenetrable system to the average fan (me!). Should more emphasis be given to the 'live' decision where the official is aware of the conditions, the 'spirit' in which the game is being played, the level of on-field aggravation that is taking place etc, with the disciplinary system reserved for more extreme incidents?

• Like everyone else I hate games being 'decided' by poor refereeing decisions (on field and video). However, most games are decided by poor player decisions (aka Liam Byrne's poor tackle technique on one occasion.

• I'm more bothered by the constant player arm-waving that goes on now after virtually every tackle. This, and the potential for faking injury by players staying down after a tackle, is, at its worst, blatant cheating and makes consistent refereeing more difficult

• I wish it were possible to referee 'intent' (which it isn't) as IMHO there was far more intent to injure in Matty Lee's attack on Thompson than in either of the Dupree or Byrne tackles. If video refs are to be involved in 'on-field' decisions this should have been picked up - an area where consistency should be easier given the greater time available to them

All of that said, and despite some of the frustrations, I've enjoyed most of the games that I've seen this season so far. And I'd much prefer to see players end their careers with all of their faculties intact than them, and their families, suffer (thankfully rare) degenerative conditions long after the end of their playing careers.

Sorry, this was in reply to Wigan forever 1985
We were in the corner, directly in line with French's try. It wasn't dubious at all, just watch Benniisons and Welsbys reactions, they knew it was a try.

[Mike]

I agree that there have been a ridiculous amount of bad decisions .im shocked that nothing else has been mentioned about the trip on field.

Yeah, dodds kicks out with his left foot. Ref says feet were planted. That's just wrong. Yellow card all day long.

[Wigan_forever1985]

Sorry, this was in reply to Wigan forever 1985
We were in the corner, directly in line with French's try. It wasn't dubious at all, just watch Benniisons and Welsbys reactions, they knew it was a try.

The ball bounced back up to his hand on the slow mo replay imo only a fraction of a second and would be very difficult to see with the naked eye but there is deffo a movement down, up then down again suggesting a separation

[Firestarter]

Sorry, this was in reply to Wigan forever 1985
We were in the corner, directly in line with French's try. It wasn't dubious at all, just watch Benniisons and Welsbys reactions, they knew it was a try.

The ball bounced back up to his hand on the slow mo replay imo only a fraction of a second and would be very difficult to see with the naked eye but there is deffo a movement down, up then down again suggesting a separation

I thought the try was dubious also as were a few of there play the balls.The RFL seem to have forgotten this new rule in recent weeks

[Mike]

Sorry, this was in reply to Wigan forever 1985
We were in the corner, directly in line with French's try. It wasn't dubious at all, just watch Benniisons and Welsbys reactions, they knew it was a try.

The ball bounced back up to his hand on the slow mo replay imo only a fraction of a second and would be very difficult to see with the naked eye but there is deffo a movement down, up then down again suggesting a separation

Nah, no separation at all on the video replays. Even if it goes up as no try it gets given. They have to see separation to judge a player has lost it. Once there is separation they have to regather, but they had a good look and i didn't see any gaps between hand and ball. I'm not saying he could have stopped the ball from hitting th eground if he'd wanted to, but that's not the rule.

IMO this is not an example of inconsistency, because thats the way that interpretation has been for some seasons now.

[the pieman]

i thought players were supposed to touch or at least make a play at the ball?

Just watching the game back and a Saints set in the 1st 10 minutes after a penalty for Field taking Makinson in mid-air. 5 plays and only 1 genuine correct potb. I know you dont want every single one pulling up, but only Sironen actually played the ball correctly

to then compound it further Saints players in front of the kicker all within 10 when Miski takes the ball - Wigan already conceded penalty for that at this point

i know this is me being very pedantic and scrutinising a particular set, but at any point in that Wigan should have been given a penalty.

[Mike]

Saints attacking drive that lead to their score included a makinson/percival (I get them mixed up) step-over PTB when that player had been warned and already given up a penalty. It was a really obvious step over with not even a hint of a foot motion towards the ball. The ref should have been very much expecting it from that player as he'd been doing it all game. Should have been our ball on the half way.

[widdenoldboy]

Thing is this is a 4 page thread of inconsistent reffing that seems to centre around the red card for Byrne costing us the match.

I think it was a red in the modern interpretation but also i see no-one mention Bevans try which was incredibly dubious and our only points in the game. So you have to take the bad with the good in terms of reffing.

I think for me the issue is the pace of the players now - we no longer have any real distinction between builds of players i reckon there are props playing today who could outrun most wingers from 20 years ago and a lot of the wingers/centres are bigger than some who used to play 2nd row, Bradford i would say were the architect of this change.

As such its getting easier for people to get things wrong and for the impact to start somewhere and end up somewhere it shouldnt.

If the RFL genuinely want reduce injury my view is they need to address the closing speed of the players on impact - a reduction of the 10m rule back to 5m could help this wont solve it but could be one way of helping. Rugby League needs to understand though that the gladiatorial harshness was and is its main selling point.

I was wondering about that and maybe the constant decellerations in tackles might be worse than occasional (and painful) headshots. Football is in the news about headers right know and its a similar question?

[the pieman]

Thing is this is a 4 page thread of inconsistent reffing that seems to centre around the red card for Byrne costing us the match.

I think it was a red in the modern interpretation but also i see no-one mention Bevans try which was incredibly dubious and our only points in the game. So you have to take the bad with the good in terms of reffing.

I think for me the issue is the pace of the players now - we no longer have any real distinction between builds of players i reckon there are props playing today who could outrun most wingers from 20 years ago and a lot of the wingers/centres are bigger than some who used to play 2nd row, Bradford i would say were the architect of this change.

As such its getting easier for people to get things wrong and for the impact to start somewhere and end up somewhere it shouldnt.

If the RFL genuinely want reduce injury my view is they need to address the closing speed of the players on impact - a reduction of the 10m rule back to 5m could help this wont solve it but could be one way of helping. Rugby League needs to understand though that the gladiatorial harshness was and is its main selling point.

I was wondering about that and maybe the constant decellerations in tackles might be worse than occasional (and painful) headshots. Football is in the news about headers right know and its a similar question?

Probably a catch 22, as a 5m defensive line will be set better / quicker than a 10m line, which is sometimes / often disjointed unless the defensive team is controlling the ruck. If you think about the current game, there is quite often shouts about the players being offside and the 1st receiver getting belted by the defensive line, so you could argue that would more likely happen, however, they defensive line have only got 5m of speed / acceleration instead of 10

it certainly seems like an issue that aint going to go away, and in its current form, with what we as fans see as harsh bans for stuff we've watched (far worse in many cases) for years, there needs to be something done to protect the players, but more importantly keep the players on the pitch