What does Stuart Cummings do at the RFL?

[gpartin]

robjoenz posted:

Where've you heard that one?

You can take a quick 20 m restart if you're team is onside and you are in the middle of the 20 m line (unless you have Aussies playing because they don't like them).

Tap penalties are taken as soon as the referee sets the mark. If he needs to administer a warning then there's be a delay in setting the mark.

Sorry maybe its interpratation rather than a rule. 99% of the time 20m restarts are taken quickly without an issue, 99% of the time quick penalties have to be re-taken. Just seems like its the wrong way round. Shouldn't advantage to the team which has been impeded take precedence over any warning given?

[Mike]

robjoenz posted:
Sorry, Mike... that one got lost on the page cross-over.

...

It seems then that the information is avialable for referees to do a very effective post-round evaluation. However, it seem like the refs don't actually do this together in one session. This is absolutely vital if they are to start becoming more consistent. You say that consistency is not a problem, but for me thats the single issue that comes up time and time again. To get the referees on the same wavelength, they have to do this stuff together and discuss any issues that could appear to have been interpretted differently by different refs.

I don't subscribe to the opinion that refs are out to get Wigan (although I do think very strange descisions go on at the disaplinary committe - but thats a different matter), however I really don't think the mindset the referee's and the director of referee's is sutable to get a constant improvment of standards. They are far too defensive which must foster a them-and-us mind set. The seemingly strange decisions to award match after match to a pair of referees that were culpable in the biggest refereeing cock-up in recent memory is bizzare to me and sends out the wrong messages to the clubs and the fans.

[Mike]

robjoenz posted:

The RFL seem to go gung ho early on with new rules and then they are enforced inconsistently for the remainder of the season.

I don't think it's inconsistency, it's that they are enforced applying common sense rather than giving everything with the slightest hint of an infringement.

You've got to admit that throughout this season, every now and again a referee would go back the start of the season's obstruction interpretation for seemingly no reason. The rest of the match would have any hint of a player being behind his own team with the ball awarded as a penalty despite no obstruction occuring. You never knew when a match was going to be refereed like this and when it wasn't until it happened. Its probably down to the ref making a very strict obstruction call and then having to ref the rest of the game in the same way. However, elsewhere in the same round, other matches were being refereed with a very much more leinent (i.e. standard) obstruction interpretation. Its this type of inconsistency that infuriates.

The amount of confusion this caused this year with this one rule was total stupid and should never have happened in a professional organisation.

[robjoenz]

gpartin posted:
Sorry maybe its interpratation rather than a rule. 99% of the time 20m restarts are taken quickly without an issue, 99% of the time quick penalties have to be re-taken. Just seems like its the wrong way round.

Penalties are only brought back if the referee hasn't set the mark. You think they'd learn eh.

Shouldn't advantage to the team which has been impeded take precedence over any warning given?

The penalty is the advantage, otherwise play would have been allowed to continue.

I know where you're coming from but if the penalty offence is severe enough that it has prevented a try, for example, it'll result in a sin-binning which is to the non-offending team's advantage.

[Mike]

robjoenz posted:
If you look at slowing down the play-the-ball there are undoubtably more than one thing going on. Do you recall Fielden getting sin-binned at Leeds in the league? Thackray had Fielden's arm between his body and his own arm. Fielden, however, milked it and made no attempt to remove his arm from the ruck and having been warned, was sin-binned. The referee had to decide which player was taking the mickey the most. On watching the replay Fielden made no attempt to move his arm so Silverwood probably made the right decision, how many Wigan fans will agree with that though?

Thats not common sense - that an example of an infuriating descision. In that situation when clearly its a 50-50 call why the hell do you sin bin anyone! It beggars belief. Common sense would be to penalise if you have to and warn both players about what they were doing (ideally you don't have to and you can just warn the players on the run). Picking one side to penalise so severely in the 50-50 situation you described is totally wrong. You reward the Leeds player for cheating and punished the Wigan team severely for a very minor offence. I would have said the same were it the Leeds player that got sin -binned as well.

[robjoenz]

Mike posted:
It seems then that the information is avialable for referees to do a very effective post-round evaluation. However, it seem like the refs don't actually do this together in one session. This is absolutely vital if they are to start becoming more consistent. You say that consistency is not a problem, but for me thats the single issue that comes up time and time again. To get the referees on the same wavelength, they have to do this stuff together and discuss any issues that could appear to have been interpretted differently by different refs.

The fulltimers do meet together and review games. They review them with Ray Tennant, Stuart Cummings and Tony Brown too.

The lower grades also meet up for meetings. I went to Carnegie just two weeks ago for a meeting. Before the meeting we were watching the grand final with referees' audio.

What areas of the game do you think suffer from different interpretations?

I don't subscribe to the opinion that refs are out to get Wigan ... however I really don't think the mindset the referee's and the director of referee's is sutable to get a constant improvment of standards. They are far too defensive which must foster a them-and-us mind set.

More often than not referees get decisions right despite popular belief to the contrary.

The seemingly strange decisions to award match after match to a pair of referees that were culpable in the biggest refereeing cock-up in recent memory is bizzare to me and sends out the wrong messages to the clubs and the fans.

What should have been done then? Sack them?

The mistakes made in themselves, were minor. Klein gave information he thought was correct and Ganson forgot to check something that in 99.9% of other games would never have come into the equation. The contentious issue is that Klein shouldn't have spoken to Ganson because it was against policy. However, how many times during the game was information given to Ganson which resulting in him correcting something?

Ganson's mistake makes me chuckle whenever I am reminded of it now. I've seen so many games at ALL levels from SL to kids RL where the referee has told the attacking line to remain behind the kicker at a kick at goal. This, a direct improvement as a result of a high level mistake.

No-one can dispute that Ashley Klein was the best referee for the latter half of this season. He fully deserved both cup finals he got. It would have been unfair on everyone involved to remove him from contention for the big games.

[robjoenz]

Mike posted:
Thats not common sense - that an example of an infuriating descision. In that situation when clearly its a 50-50 call why the hell do you sin bin anyone! It beggars belief. Common sense would be to penalise if you have to and warn both players about what they were doing (ideally you don't have to and you can just warn the players on the run). Picking one side to penalise so severely in the 50-50 situation you described is totally wrong. You reward the Leeds player for cheating and punished the Wigan team severely for a very minor offence. I would have said the same were it the Leeds player that got sin -binned as well.

Do you recall the incident?

Wigan (I seem to remember Fielden specifically) had been warned for slowing things down after a couple of penalties in quick succession. Then Fielden deliberately stays atop Thackray appealing to the referee that he cannot remove his arm when it is clear he is not even trying (when your arms are that muscly it's easy to see when they tense and when they are relaxed).

Having penalised twice already, the time for warning on the run will have passed. It wasn't a 50-50 decision, Fielden was trying his luck.

Where do you stand on ball stealing (applying the existing rules)... a player carries the ball loosely and the tackler has his hands on the ball to prevent the offload. The balls comes free... it's a 50-50 in many peoples eyes... you can't just play-on and have a chat on the run.

[GeoffN]

robjoenz posted:

Where do you stand on ball stealing (applying the existing rules)... a player carries the ball loosely and the tackler has his hands on the ball to prevent the offload. The balls comes free... it's a 50-50 in many peoples eyes... you can't just play-on and have a chat on the run.

Personally, I think that's one of the greyest areas. As you say, it's very often 50/50, yet the ref's decision makes a massive difference to the outcome Possession to the defence or penalty to the attacking side, for what could, as you say, easily go either way.

I think the only way to get rid of the doubt in that scenario is to completely legalise ball-stealing, as in the NFL. OK, it might reduce offloads, but it would make things much fairer.

[robjoenz]

GeoffN posted:
I think the only way to get rid of the doubt in that scenario is to completely legalise ball-stealing, as in the NFL. OK, it might reduce offloads, but it would make things much fairer.

I think that's what you want to avoid, reluctance to offload.

It's all down to interpretation... does the ball trickle out or fly out. Was it carried loosely or firm against the chest.

[cpwigan]

Rob seriously just STOP. It has been statistically proven that teams are awarded more penalties / decisions at home than away. Not only in RL BUT all sports. It is just a fact. No agenda.