Quote ="SmokeyTA"there you go www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 38,00.html'" So halway through a season where he could see the Writing was on the Wall? Where are the links to him moaning in 2009/2008?

Quote ="SmokeyTA"there you go www.skysports.com/tv_show/story/ ... 38,00.html'" So halway through a season where he could see the Writing was on the Wall? Where are the links to him moaning in 2009/2008?

And theres been a hundred reasons identified previously as to why they have "better skill levels than us".
Each one of them we changed and it was supposed to resolve the problem, it didn't, and "Speeding" up the PTB won't solve it either.

Writing on the wall? Having just dumped your lot out the cup things looked pretty rosy at that point.

To you maybe, The rest of us could see it though, Even El Presidente!

In your opinion of course. Needless to say it's not one I share.

The second on field official flitting in and out of the tackle area like a demented flea adds nothing to the spectacle or the speed of the game that a competent official couldn't achieve on his own.

The RFL should arrange meetings during the close season between the referees controller, referees, professional coaches and even any interested CEO's with spare time on their hands, thrash out a plan of how the laws will be interpreted during the following season.

If possible through the media, internet, trade papers, early match day programmes etc publicise the directives and then hope enough fans are able to take on board the collective will of the game and how it should be played and presented to the public.

That's good stuff tvoc but would they stick to it?
Every season we have a tweak of the rules here and there and by wk15 it's either ignored or implimented as an after thought when the whistle blower can be @#ed!

Obviously not just my opinion of course, as the NRL did exactly that.

The phrases "frightened of change" and "stuck in the dark ages" come to light with what you put.

The game's changed, embrace it and move on with it. Everybody keeps saying we are so far behind the Aussies. The speeding up of the game in Australia due to their been two refs, is only going to take them further away, unless we match what they have done.

I can see why you would want to stick with one ref, but I can't see any logical reason why anyone would say one good ref would ref a game better than two refs. Unless of course neither of those two refs knew the rules.

It's not necessarily speeding it up, it's just making it "right"
Sometimes we'll see better enforcement slowing the game down. Defenders who get good position in the tackle and finish in a dominant position in control of the ball carrier should rightly be allowed control of the PTB. Our current system of asking a referee to stand ten metres from the PTB and watch that whilst simultaneously watching the defensive line is never going to give clear control of both the PTB and the defensive line.

Hetherington is all over the place with this.
He wants to improve the spectacle, so what does he mean by that?

One of the best games of the season as a spectacle for me being a Wigan fan was the 10-18 win at Saints. One of the worst as a spectacle was the 0-46 win at HullFC. Not so much that Wigan were very good, which they were, just that Hull were spectacularly awful.
A lot of points scored doesn't mean you've just seen a quality game.

Hetherington is an influential figure in the game and should be coming up with specific ideas. Does he mean by improving the game we should go to 5 points for a try and 3 for a conversion? A new points system as they have in the Championship?

Trouble is International wise we should be concentrating on defence. At the World Cup we were dreadful and the recent four nations no better. It is obvious Super League as it is at present does not produce rugby of the quality which allows us to compete at International level. Hetherington, given the leading figure he is, should be addressing this problem.
We need the lack of quality problem resolving not "the spectacle".

He's pretty specific in the article. He wants to see a reduction in the amount of wrestling after the tackle. He proposes that two referees be used to police it.

It's nothing to do with the quantity of points scored in a game. Just because a game is made more free-flowing doesn't mean there are going to be loads of points scored. All it means is that the players won't be spending 2 minutes a tackle rolling around on the floor, with the defenders slowly getting up one at a time. I think he probably wasn't happy during 2008 and 2009, but whilst the club had the same coach, he couldn't come out to the press and say that he doesn't like his coach's brand of rugby.

This shouldn't be seen as a dig at Wigan either. What Wigan achieved last season was impressive. How Wigan achieved it was clever. Other clubs not understanding how they achieved it allowed them to win the league.

However, just as some of the cases in the MP's expenses scandal, just because something isn't wrong, doesn't make it acceptable.

At what point does the value of winning overtake the value of enjoying watching a quality game?

This is the point where somebody refers back to the first half at the KC a few years ago where neither Leeds nor Hull FC put a point on the board but there was some terrific rugby played at a good pace and well officiated.

It was introduced in the NRL 1st grade level in 2009. Two years on has it been adopted anywhere outside the NRL?



The phrase 'a waste of money' also comes to mind.



We've been trying to copy the Australians for at least thirty years, what has that achieved so far?



Probably because whether there is one or two referees out there only one is in charge at any given moment. The advent of an extra pair of eyes has arguably led to less use of the video referee in the NRL (still available at every game) which in some instances has led to terrible blunders being missed that would otherwise have probably and rightly been picked up on referral.

Could the extra on-field official be primarily a NRL solution to a NRL problem?

We've imported the NRL problems though.

Nobody can tell me that the play the ball over in Oz isn't now cleaner and faster than ours under two referees. It reached a stage a few seasons back where the PTB was farcical, in a Wigan pile-on-peel-off kind of way. It annoyed the fans over there and they did something about it; we should too.

That's not to say there isn't scope for clever defence and getting the tackled player onto his back etc etc, but the several second delay after a ref has called held whilst players deliberately let go one by one is just plain daft in my opinion.

Also interesting that Wigan fans often profess that this slowness is preferable to the "talentless scooting", but they ran from dummy half more than any other top6 team in 2010 .

The slowest play the balls (probably by far) last season was in a game featuring Melbourne Storm.

Call held if upright sooner, drop the call of move on the ground (which only invites players to lay on until they hear it) and if the player's push their luck, then penalise. (All this after giving clear instructions prior to the season starting at the culmination of the joint meetings proposed earlier.) You don't need two referees to do that, just one good one. The players and the coaches will soon get the message.

I agree the NRL PTB appears cleaner and is more correct (I've only noted Darius Boyd as a serial offender in the (less skillful and should be illegal, IMO) roll back/step over pretend PTB method) but where can I find the comparison stats as to whether it is any quicker overall? ie. number of PTB's completed in eighty minutes.

My source at Red Hall leads me to believe that the RFL have looked at the PTB in depth over the off-season and are set to introduce a new way of controlling the tackle.

It involves rewarding ball-carriers for 'winning' the collision by instructing tacklers to move immediately. This is a separate call from the dominant and surrender calls already in use and the RFL have been visiting all professional clubs to explain how the changes will work in practice. Whilst this won't necessarily stop the tactics of some of clubs, including ours, of wrestling opponents, it will speed the game up considerably.

I expect to see a LOT of penalties for lying on and interference in the first few weeks of SL, as teams get to grips with this new interpretation.

I think that sounds a reasonable way of going about it.

I think it is one of the biggest challenges in the game to clear up the ruck whilst not removing the contest but that seems a fairly straightforward, fairly easy to understand system

one of the hardest things i find when watching the game with potential new fans is explaining the ruck, because a lot of the time it is a lottery where penalties are given for some, but not for others with no discernible difference between them.

I think calling a 'winner' of each tackle would see us have a much clearer ptb, understand the referees judgement better, and clean up the game somewhat in this area. I have to say i would be very much in favour of that interpretation.

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 71,00.html Good stuff! Simmons is talking out of his backside. Take Leeds' 2004 and 2005 seasons, we played some bliss rugby league with fast play the balls, and it was far from up the middle rugby. Even if Saints do play up the middle it will still be entertaining. Defence will be pulled into the middle and like Saints won't then be temped to go out wide (AKA Bulls under Noble,) , it would be dumb not to, that will be entertaining.

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 71,00.html Good stuff! Simmons is talking out of his backside. Take Leeds' 2004 and 2005 seasons, we played some bliss rugby league with fast play the balls, and it was far from up the middle rugby. Even if Saints do play up the middle it will still be entertaining. Defence will be pulled into the middle and like Saints won't then be temped to go out wide (AKA Bulls under Noble,) , it would be dumb not to, that will be entertaining.

Correct and an interesting, pertinent point.

Just to ask a little question, people are saying that it is difficult for one referee to watch the PTB area and keep an eye on the defensive line, could this not be a job of the touch judges? can they not be trusted?

The fact that they're limited to standing on the touchline means they're too far away and often have an obstructed view. Let one on the field of play....and there's your second ref.

I think you've just hit the nail on the head. If the touch judge has an opstructed view of the defensive line at the PTB, they're offside!

Touch judge's officiating offside makes sense to me. Leaves the ref to watch the PTB.

Is it correct though?

Just because the Australians do it first does not mean we are just copying. Perhaps it is the right thing to do and we should have done it ourselves first.

Look at RU copying League on lots of things these last few years, have those choices been wrong?

Who's offside? The player getting back into position who isn't interfering with play? The player in the middle of the field, 30 metres from the touchjudge? Let them onto the field, and they'll see a lot better.

With the communication systems between referee and touch judge they have in place, the TJs are effectively policing offside anyway- listen closely to the ref's microphone on televised games and you'll hear them telling players that the TJ keeps picking them out for offside so to make more of an effort getting back.

Personally I'm in favour of only having one person making decisions out on the field however. Getting more people involved in the decision making process can add to inconsistency and confusion rather than provide clarity - see the final play of the playoff game away to Wigan last season as a perfect example of TJ, referee and video ref working in anything but perfect harmony.

I agree with Gotcha and Richie. This is worrying.