French

[Charriots Offiah]

Making a wrong decision is not a crime in my book, I do it every day. It is the inconsistency and not learning from mistakes that is the killer. Having said that, the RFL need to make things simpler for both the match officials (who have an incredibly difficult job to do) and disciplinary panel.

[morley pie eater]

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, Caboose. My point of view is simply that I accept that referees and disciplinary committees are there to do a job. It's perfectly valid for a fan to question their decisions, but it doesn't make an ounce of difference.

So my personal solution is not to waste my energy getting upset or angry over these things - I'm just a fan who cheers my team and celebrates when they win. And, after all, it's only a game.

[Mike]

Making a wrong decision is not a crime in my book, I do it every day. It is the inconsistency and not learning from mistakes that is the killer. Having said that, the RFL need to make things simpler for both the match officials (who have an incredibly difficult job to do) and disciplinary panel.

Simplification can only mean fixed criteria = fixed penalties can't it? I think that lack of flexibility can produce the same amount of fan frustration as inconsistency. The borderline cases are treated the same as the egregious cases.

[moto748]

Same as with reffing. Fans demand 'consistency'. So what we get a black and white ruling, with no room for the ref's discretion, as with the obstruction rule. Personally, I'd be happy to give the on-field ref much more latitude to judge each situation as he sees it on the spot, but this leads to complaints of inconsistency and bias.

[Firestarter]

Same as with reffing. Fans demand 'consistency'. So what we get a black and white ruling, with no room for the ref's discretion, as with the obstruction rule. Personally, I'd be happy to give the on-field ref much more latitude to judge each situation as he sees it on the spot, but this leads to complaints of inconsistency and bias.

I would make the obstruction rule as simple as possible.Going off the leigh win would odonnell have stopped the try? No he misread the play and wouldnt have got to field anyway.Would french have got to gildart? No, not even with his pace.Now if theres passes to other players involved afterwards then that HAS to come into the mix of who could of tackled who

[Firestarter]

It was criminal to disallow fields try as it was not just a genuine try but a fantastic one.Do the rfl not realise how stopping these great moves are killing it for the fans and the endless replays are just boring

[Mike]

Same as with reffing. Fans demand 'consistency'. So what we get a black and white ruling, with no room for the ref's discretion, as with the obstruction rule. Personally, I'd be happy to give the on-field ref much more latitude to judge each situation as he sees it on the spot, but this leads to complaints of inconsistency and bias.

I would make the obstruction rule as simple as possible.Going off the leigh win would odonnell have stopped the try? No he misread the play and wouldnt have got to field anyway.Would french have got to gildart? No, not even with his pace.Now if theres passes to other players involved afterwards then that HAS to come into the mix of who could of tackled who

This type of "simple" is very very subjective. Better to have a rule about getting through the line, inside and outside shoulders etc. Much less subjective and therefore easier to be consistent. Even if the fans disagree with whether it should have been obstruction or not. The simplest scenario is to allow blocking - problem solved! (and lots of new ones created)