Harrigan and Raper sacked

[stsae]

I dont think they did that mate, they interpreted the rules!

They aslo went out targeting players based reputation and preprepared lists! Hense they focussed on teams like us whilst missing what the opposition was doing and thats why we got away with nothing and the opposing team scott free for the same offence or they got 10 warnings and we got none.

They need to make it simple follw the rules, not thee rubbish ie Inglis SOO try which was an interpretation!

Agree with all that mate.

I do believe the rules for many things are wrong, like obstruction and grounding, and are left open for interpretation.

The Vidiot and two reffs cause a lot of that though, there is no one official in charge anymore, it's a consensus now which will always produce different interpretations.

IMO we need to at least get back to one reff who is solely in charge. Restrict the Vidiot to over the try line only, what happens in the field of play is solely the reffs responsibility. They can only use their touchies to help with on field play.

Until we do that and revert back to the rules we had before two reffs and Vidiots whoever is their Boss is doomed.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Thank god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chook 56]

Good riddance.

Hopefully we can get back to the rules of the game & stop this interpretation rubbish.
As others have said, one ref to have control. Video ref to be in goal only.

[John Corey]

It does not matter who you put in the position. They will always come under fire because for as long as the sun rises each day, there will always be bad officiating. To go with the good officiating.

So many rules come down to personal interpretaton, obstruction, forward passes, knock ons etc. People's opinions differ.

You could have 10 referees view the same possible obstruction play and u can guarantee they will be divided on it. It's a no win situation for whoever gets the job.

I accept there will be blunders. All I ask is that they put a person in charge who is prepared to confirm that the ref stuffed up. In my opinion, harrigan fell down in this area. He continually tried to bullshit the public by justifying some of the clangers that we all knew were crap decisions.

[Kingbilly]

Harrigan is an incredibly self centred idiot, sacking is barely good enough
I feel sorry for Raper being lumped into the bundle with him.

[Jan]

They wont be missed, hopefully they will put someone in who is impartial, knows the game & the rules 1st & foremost.
Not jobs for the boys

[Juggler]

Harrigan is an incredibly self centred idiot, sacking is barely good enough
I feel sorry for Raper being lumped into the bundle with him.

Arrogant wanker comes to mind.

[SConcierge]

It does not matter who you put in the position. They will always come under fire because for as long as the sun rises each day, there will always be bad officiating. To go with the good officiating.

So many rules come down to personal interpretaton, obstruction, forward passes, knock ons etc. People's opinions differ.

You could have 10 referees view the same possible obstruction play and u can guarantee they will be divided on it. It's a no win situation for whoever gets the job.

I accept there will be blunders. All I ask is that they put a person in charge who is prepared to confirm that the ref stuffed up. In my opinion, harrigan fell down in this area. He continually tried to bullshit the public by justifying some of the clangers that we all knew were crap decisions.

There lays the problem "interpretation" this is Harrigons doing! we need to get back to the rules cut and dry obstruction IS obstruction blow the penalty not interpret IF a player was or was not going to mke the tackle.... we need to get back to the rules like the old days.
If you look at most of the dodgy calls this yr they were down to interpretation

[Guest]

I get the feeling ex players dont find the the job of referee's boss very appealing, so I dont know how many would put there hand up for the position. You need to have pretty thick skin maybe Chris Anderson? The person has to be able to stand up to the coaches. Not easy.

Im not a referee hater nor do I blame them for the end results in games but I have to say this year the Roosters were given some pretty harsh decisions against them which resulted in at least 3 losses.

[Burnt Rooster]

After giving it more thought, I would prefer them to go back to the one referee , controling the game, and having the two in goal judges, solely to assist the referee on the grounding of the ball, but in the end, its the ref's decision. The two referee's experiment has never really for me, two different people have different ideas on the game, and ref accordingly, thus creating more confusion to the players, what was ok with one ref, you were getting penalised for by the other one, etc.
So in summing up, punt the video refs altogether, and go back to in goal try assist judges, to assist getting the calls right.

[SConcierge]

After giving it more thought, I would prefer them to go back to the one referee , controling the game, and having the two in goal judges, solely to assist the referee on the grounding of the ball, but in the end, its the ref's decision. The two referee's experiment has never really for me, two different people have different ideas on the game, and ref accordingly, thus creating more confusion to the players, what was ok with one ref, you were getting penalised for by the other one, etc.
So in summing up, punt the video refs altogether, and go back to in goal try assist judges, to assist getting the calls right.

I dont think the two refs is a probem at all, the game is too fast for one guy and he will miss too much especially in the ruck. They just need to follow the rules and stop interpreting them so its always the sme conclusion and a level playing field.

[Guest]

I dont think the two refs is a probem at all, the game is too fast for one guy and he will miss too much especially in the ruck. They just need to follow the rules and stop interpreting them so its always the sme conclusion and a level playing field.

SC if you watch a game closely the refs could blow a penalty each tackle every ruck but they dont because League is about a fast pace continual flowing game so IMO the 2 refs dont really keep the ruck any cleaner than what 1 ref would.

I believe by having 2 refs you increase the chance of mistakes not decrease the chance.
Rules are 1 thing SC but how humans interpret the rules & act on it are 2 completely different things.

I think the 2 refs the refs mike's & the video ref should all be punted. I would have 1 ref 2 touchies & they will still make mistakes like all humans do but at least the NRL only has to pay 3 of them rather than 5 of them for probably the same result.

[stsae]

SC if you watch a game closely the refs could blow a penalty each tackle every ruck but they dont because League is about a fast pace continual flowing game so IMO the 2 refs dont really keep the ruck any cleaner than what 1 ref would.

I believe by having 2 refs you increase the chance of mistakes not decrease the chance.
Rules are 1 thing SC but how humans interpret the rules & act on it are 2 completely different things.

I think the 2 refs the refs mike's & the video ref should all be punted. I would have 1 ref 2 touchies & they will still make mistakes like all humans do but at least the NRL only has to pay 3 of them rather than 5 of them for probably the same result.

Agree Lickey, rules are interpreted differently by different humans. That's why having more than one in charge is a form of passing the buck. 2 reffs and vidiots are the problem IMO then the new rules that have accompanied those changes.

Every new rule we create or alter we open a can of worms. Coaches will find ways to exploit them as will players. And reffs will find different ways to interpret them. Having 5 interpretations and none of them solely in charge of owning decisions is the problem.

There hasn't been a single game in history where mistakes haven't been made by a reff. Harrigant has been telling us all along the new rules and increases in reffs and technology will make officiating closer to perfect. That has been an epic fail and why he has lost his job.

The question for me is has the game learnt to dump an idea that isn't working now???

I know with NewsRL it as one of my biggest problems with that company owning the game, they couldn't admit they were wrong. They couldn't admit they had made the wrong rule changes or listened to the wrong people about some area in the game. They always ignored logic and debate when making changes, forcing the fans to put up with things that don't work, all the while forcing us thru their media arm to accept they knew better and were saving us all and they were so right and we were so wrong.

This is a REAL test for this so-called independent commission IMO. If they can get this sorted, the 2 reffs and Vidiot and subsequent rule changes that followed, I will believe they have the games best interests at heart.

We shall see.

[SConcierge]

I dont agree mate u need the second ref for the wrestle in the ruck and to keep the opposing side in check its too fast for one guy.. As for the rules I dont see why they need to be interpreted off side is always off side a knock on is always a knock on, if the rules were applied black and white would there have been any discussion or 10 looks at the inglis SOO try? NO it would have been knock on and play on first time up.

I have a mate who won Jr ref of the yr thats his theory when we watch games together he points it out to me and each time there is a clanger if the rules were applied black and white the correct call would have bee made first look! In the old days refs did NOT interpret thee rules they applied them.

[stsae]

I dont agree mate u need the second ref for the wrestle in the ruck and to keep the opposing side in check its too fast for one guy.. As for the rules I dont see why they need to be interpreted off side is always off side a knock on is always a knock on, if the rules were applied black and white would there have been any discussion or 10 looks at the inglis SOO try? NO it would have been knock on and play on first time up.

I have a mate who won Jr ref of the yr thats his theory when we watch games together he points it out to me and each time there is a clanger if the rules were applied black and white the correct call would have bee made first look! In the old days refs did NOT interpret thee rules they applied them.

I understand what you are saying mate, and don't disagree in theory, reffs should just make calls according to rules black and white.

But reffs are human and they will make errors and will have different interpretations of say a forward pass. That's something that hasn't changed in the game.

IMO having 2 reffs and Vidiots hasnt improved their performances, in fact it could be argued reffs are performing worse now. Reffs have always made errors and we were promised with more officials working as a team we would see dramatic improvement. That simply hasn't occurred.

I use the test matches of the last few seasons as an example, one reff often a Pom, and I can't remember a game decided by blatant wrong officiating, other than a forward pass call which can happen even if you had 5 reffs, that's pure interpretation.

Wrestling hasn't stopped or slowed since the introduction of 2 reffs, it's got worse. It's also got smarter, coaches and players have found less blatant ways to slow the play the ball down, which are more effective. If we reward good low one on one defense by allowing that sort of tackler longer to hold down and penalize 2 or more tacklers that don't release instantly, I guarantee the wrestle would basically end as would the gang tackle and prowler style tackle.

What I have a real problem with is the rules we've seen altered since the introduction of the extra officials. The changes to the Shepard rule, the grounding rule, the double movement rule and the play the ball are all left open to interpretations and that is where we see the most controversial decisions being debated.

IMO it's because of the extra officials and the subsequent rule changes that we are discussing these interpretations. The officials are a team in themselves now, they are encouraged to confer and reach a decision on rulings that are open to interpretation. With one reff in charge his call stands, whether it's right or wrong, and the game moves on. One reff backs his judgement on what he sees not what someone else thought they may or may not have seen slowed down frame by frame then applied to their interpretation.

The more simple we make the reffs job the better chance we have of him officiating with minimum of error.

Good debate.