Spot on James. The two Rugby codes have more problems regarding refereeing than any other sport I can think of. And the reason, I believe is because through some very poor decision making over decades, the administration of the game has allowed far too many discretionary rules to creep into the game. The game should be made a simple as possible and arbitrary decisions should be taken out of the hands of the refs as much as possible.
Part of the problem is that the technology of the game and the televising of it has gone leaps ahead of how the game is to be adjudicated. We see errors in these adjudications not occasionally, but consistently. It also leaves open the issue of bias, whether subliminal or a conscious act by those refereeing. Technology should be assessing issues far more than they do and taking the issue out of the hands of people making these discretionary decisions. One thing that has been the worst decision made by this Administration has been the two referee system. Madness. Because of the discretionary range allowed to referees, different individuals interpret the rules differently. Confuses the players. Confuses the spectators. I've always maintained that the referee should be responsible for only those matters pertaining to the ball. The side line officials should be responsible for away from the ball issues, including off side play because they have a clear vision across the field, whereas a ref needs 360 vision.
But its in the rules and the way they are administered that we have a problem. There is technology available for example to determine off side passing and take into consideration velocity of the player passing the ball. Refs get this wrong consistently, not having an understanding of simple physics. There may be a place for touch downs like the American system where as long as the ball crosses the try line, even held up, its a try. That would be far easier to assess than when half a dozen players are all over a player trying to ground the ball. Then there's the shepherding issue. Technology is far more competent at assessing the effect of what appears as shepherding, based on the likelihood of the impeded players chance of stopping the movement.
The problem with this Administration is that it is totally reactive. No imagination at all. They only act, and usually in a knee jerk manner, when something goes wrong and there is an outcry. Otherwise they just sit on their comfortable recliners and accept their undeserved wage packets. Until the game seriously looks at simplification and technology that takes as much discretionary decisions away from the adjudicators as possible, the game will continue to sink into the mire.
