1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Two Ref's

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by missing_something, Mar 14, 2009.

  1. missing_something

    missing_something Active Member

    +0 /0
    I know they needed to police the ruck better but in the games I've watched so far it seems too much like touch and the methodology of get a quick role on.

    Pretty sure I hate the new rules.

    it didn't make such a difference in  the manly game being wet but it has in the others.

    Touch is Touch - league needs to be Tougher and the new rules stifle that.

  2. Berkeley_Eagle

    Berkeley_Eagle Current Status: 24/7 Manly Fan

    +2,125 /14
    it just means more peanlties
  3. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    +1,324 /37
    The problem ive seen with is so far is that one ref polices one team 1st half, the other ref polices the other team. Then it changes second half.

    Both refs are obviously meeting at half time and discussing with one another what need to be watched for. So and so team is doing this, keep an eye on it.

    Then you see the ref in the second half, not being of the same consistency given another bloke has told him what to specifically watch in the second half.

    If your going to have two different guys be consistent the whole game, you need to keep them separated at half time. One ref can't change the way the first ref has gone in the first half.

    The only way to keep it up to standard is have the main ref and an assistant. Not swap positions every time attack changes hands. Its so ****ing random.
  4. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    +516 /14
    We'll have to adapt to playing against 15 men instead of 14.

    Maybe the Marlins could play opposed to us at training to help out.
  5. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    +2,376 /60
    Human beings are biased by nature, as much as they may tell themselves they are not.

    In the US there is reportedly a conscious and subconscious system of police "profiling" people to identify violations.  If one US policeman is looking to find what laws an African American driver has violated, he will find only so much.  If two US policemen are doing the same they will find more.

    If there is a cultural bias, more officials increase the impact of that bias.
  6. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    +5,615 /203
    2 res = twice the penalties against us and half the penalties for
  7. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member

    +516 /0
    Rex is correct.  It means from now on that we will be targeted more than other teams, ala tonight's game.  Knowing this, we need to work on our discipline and tighten our defense, as we will always be on the bad end of the penalty count.    Kitey and Ballin....Why?
  8. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    +2,376 /60
    Bit extreme to say we will ALWAYS be on the bad end of the penalty count, DSM.

    When someone steps on egos, so doesn't comply, have you watched ego knee-jerk reactivity rule? Short term biases can sometimes temporarily rule over long term ones.

    Interesting how Waldron and Bellamy and Smith watched on as Manly got a rare benefit of the doubt decision on the Slater slide tackle Robbo try.  And not even determined to be benefit of the doubt.
  9. Chip and Chase

    Chip and Chase True Supporter Staff Member Administrator Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    +8,573 /80
    Well between the two of them last night they couldn't stop the Bulldogs players walking off the mark when playing the ball. It annoys the hell out of me how they choose to ignore that rule. The first 20 minutes of last night was embarrassingly bad, the Dogs were literally running through and around our markers to play the ball...............deathly silence from the two morans with the whistle.
  10. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    +516 /14
    It was pretty clear to me that they had decided Manly would be guilty of slowing down the play the ball and penalised accordingly.  The Bulldogs were flopping third man in repeatedly and also slowing things down but were not penalised at all.

    Orford asked for consistency but we didn't get it. 
  11. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member

    +516 /0
    Two refs?  I'm not a fan.  What I hate about the union is the befuddled and inconsistent nature of penalties, amongst other things, and now we go an import that stuff into our game.  My pet hate is forward passes especially of the ruck and the Dogs got away with a few last night.  Also I agree with the comments about walking of the mark.  Annoying.
  12. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    +972 /7
    C&C is spot on about the Doggies walking off the mark. With two sets of eyes surely they could control and penalise that play.

    I am worried because I think the way it is being policed at the ruck will mean that a rangy tall powerful style of forward is going to succeed. It stops the all-encompassing tackling technique which allowed us to dominate and then we are left with wrecking ball types like Hall that won't get a head of steam up. We got away with it for the first 10 then it was over. Time will tell.
  13. ssar

    ssar Well-Known Member

    +220 /4
    Re: 2 Refs on the NRL field in 2009..

    I like it.

    Sure, sometimes they let the plays run on a bit fast, but generally much of the game is better when permitted to flow a bit faster.

    And some of them have been a bit too pedantic in some calls.

    But by & large the accuracy of the officiating has improved, and both refs are able to communicate warnings and what they expect from the players better, which is good.

    There is less illegal hands in the ruck and sly grapples & stuff in tackles, and the refs can see more of the play and judge more of it more accurately.

    Tweak some of the ref guidelines, encourage:
    Effective and appropriate usage of playing advantage,
    Letting the game flow as much as practical,
    Being less harsh on a bit of push & shove.


Share This Page