WiganWarriorsFans.com

gpartin wrote:

robjoenz wrote:
TJs only go with the ruck when play is within 20 m of them or when a kick is expected, e.g. on the last.

Been going to rugby all my life and have no idea what that means, please can someone explain in layman's terms?

Touch judges only stand in line with the play the ball when the tackle is within 20 m or so of them, otherwise they stand in line with the defensive line. They move as the ball is played though and they make sure they are in line with a kick.

robjoenz wrote:

gpartin wrote:

robjoenz wrote:
TJs only go with the ruck when play is within 20 m of them or when a kick is expected, e.g. on the last.

Been going to rugby all my life and have no idea what that means, please can someone explain in layman's terms?

Touch judges only stand in line with the play the ball when the tackle is within 20 m or so of them, otherwise they stand in line with the defensive line. They move as the ball is played though and they make sure they are in line with a kick.

and do see forward passes and knock ons lol,ohhh unless wigan do 1

robjoenz wrote:

gpartin wrote:

robjoenz wrote:
TJs only go with the ruck when play is within 20 m of them or when a kick is expected, e.g. on the last.

Been going to rugby all my life and have no idea what that means, please can someone explain in layman's terms?

Touch judges only stand in line with the play the ball when the tackle is within 20 m or so of them, otherwise they stand in line with the defensive line. They move as the ball is played though and they make sure they are in line with a kick.

Thanks Rob, wasn't being funny just genuinely didn't understand.

warrior49 wrote:Whilst Super League as a product is growing, why isnt the investment of training and producing class and quality officiating being or ever will be realised?

The standard of officiating last week was the worsed I have ever seen.
Ever!!!

They were a disgrace.

RL clubs will not invest in officials

Listening to BandA, Phil said the ref was fair to both sides with regards lying on at the ruck, this is true but this helped Huds as that was there game plan, and when we did it we saw no gain from doing so.

The guy Bentham is a numpty and should have set his stall out from te first lie on and gave a penalty. This should have sent out the message that it will not be tollerated, but instead he lets it go on and on and on. We end up with a full scale brawl and a P$$$ poor game on a freezing night. We as fans from both teams deserve better than this. We pay to watch it,Bentham gets paid to cause it


Anyway rant over,

Ste.

cpwigan wrote:

warrior49 wrote:Whilst Super League as a product is growing, why isnt the investment of training and producing class and quality officiating being or ever will be realised?

The standard of officiating last week was the worsed I have ever seen.
Ever!!!

They were a disgrace.

RL clubs will not invest in officials

But why should it be up to the clubs? That's the RFL's job, surely? I understand they're making a profit these days.

The profit the RFL makeis very small Geoff. However, let's say the RFL said to its member clubs we have a new idea it will be brilliant but we are going to deduct 2% from your annual slice of the cake. The answer would IMO be no every time.

cpwigan wrote:The profit the RFL makeis very small Geoff. However, let's say the RFL said to its member clubs we have a new idea it will be brilliant but we are going to deduct 2% from your annual slice of the cake. The answer would IMO be no every time.

I'd quite like Rob's input on this; is it that the RFL won't pay for any more full-time refs, or is it that there simply aren't enough people taking up the posts? Would more people take up refereeing if the money was better? How much are they paid anyway, full or part-time? Could they maybe encourage ex-players; I've often found it odd that none seem to go into officiating - it would be ideal for someone like Gaz Hock, say...

GeoffN wrote:

cpwigan wrote:The profit the RFL makeis very small Geoff. However, let's say the RFL said to its member clubs we have a new idea it will be brilliant but we are going to deduct 2% from your annual slice of the cake. The answer would IMO be no every time.

I'd quite like Rob's input on this; is it that the RFL won't pay for any more full-time refs, or is it that there simply aren't enough people taking up the posts? Would more people take up refereeing if the money was better? How much are they paid anyway, full or part-time? Could they maybe encourage ex-players; I've often found it odd that none seem to go into officiating - it would be ideal for someone like Gaz Hock, say...

Geoff that was a good un for this time of night/morning. Hocky and exams lol.

Rob is obviously better qulified to speak on this but I think being full time reduces the number of referees rather than increases them. Hewer for example has a very good job at BNFL I think and will not give it up to go full time. There are others like that too.

Saw an interview with David Gallop re 2 referees. He said that one of the reasons they opted for it was that it allowed the NRL to blood younger referees because having 2 referees places less onus on a single referee reducing pressure upon younger referees, reduced fatigue, fatigue he said is the biggest cause of officials making errors.

Ex players? Possibly the ones just missing professional contracts would be a good target group.

shut up ref you cant see at all!