I don't know if they have actually deteriorated at all. I've watched the game for 60 years and never has there been such close scrutiny from multiple cameras, constant public criticism from all and sundry, and neither set of fans happy. They make mistakes, but they always did. Why would anyone want to be a ref in such circumstances?
I think RU has the right idea, get the video ref more involved in live play, but could that happen only in televised games?

Having said all that, I've just seen the Wigan v Salford game today and I have no idea why a penalty try wasn't given when Tomkins was sinbinned.

Thaler rightly identified Tomkins as interfering with the Salford man before he got the ball but that is absolutely, 100% a penalty try. That's a silly and big mistake.

Ive said this before but there are four things wrong with refereeing in RL.

1, there arent enough referees. Too few at all level of the games leaves us with a position where we the refs we have are the best we have got but unfortunately there arent of a high enough quality. This is because not only do too few start and too many stop at a low level but also because we lose a ridiculous amount of the few elite ones we have.

I've mentioned before, as part of academy contracts all players should be trained to be referees, should have to referee youth/amateur games which would not only give them an idea about what its like to referee a game, but also some of those who don't make it will have a natural affinity for it and naturally some will filter to refereeing as a way of staying in the game.

2. The rules themselves. They are written and officiated in a way that invites controversy. We sometimes try and force rules to be black and white and that sometimes forces a referee to make what feels to everyone like a wrong decision.

3. We hamstring ourselves with the process we take. Take for example the VR. He is a fully trained, fully qualified referee. He is probably of a high position to the touch judges. He should be consulted constantly. On Report seems a bit mental when you remember we have someone sat there with all the angles doing nothing other than watching incidents. What is the benefit of saying hang on lets look at that later when it can be done now?

4. The ruck. its a mess. A complete lottery. I think its random nature builds a lot of the resentment towards refs.

Id like to add i thought Child had a pretty good game today and Bentham had a decent one yesterday aswell.

Id also add that Thaler/Child came in for a bit of criticism today regarding the Tomkins sin-binning but it was a very brave and very correct decision but it also felt a very harsh and a very impactful decision. Had Tomkins been the attacking player and had the same contact with the opposition fullback before he scored it would have certainly been ruled out and nobody would have argued with it. I remember a game winning try Briscoe scored after the hooter v Hudds once after numerous kicks and offloads which was disallowed because of a 'push' on Brough which had far less contact than Tomkins had. It should be the same for the attacker as defender which means it was a penalty, which means it was a professional foul. Saying that i would be frustrated as a fan as it would feel like the punishment fit the crime.

Ha, you must have posted whilst i was writing. It was a very correct decision by Thaler and a very brave decision by Child. It was exactly right.

The reason i dont think it was a penalty try is that they couldnt be sure he would both have caught the ball and got it down. Though i could be convinced by a good argument that we should change that very high standard.

I agree on the sin binning. Though if you look at the rules it doesn't say they have to be sure. That's an interpretation that has been brought in for some reason. I don't see why they have to be 100% sure. The very nature of a penalty try pretty much precludes that ability to be certain a try would be scored. You have to go with what is most likely. On very few occasions do players knock on in those situations. For me, if that's not a penalty try then nothing is.

Absolutely spot on. The strictness of what is a penalty try is poor imo.

The disbelief on Noble and Wilkin that it was a penalty and sinbinning was laughable. "He's got a right to compete for the ball"......yes but the Salford player didn't have the ball no need to touch him instead of going for the ball. It should've been a penalty try.