The use of one referee will send the game backwards

Peter V'Landys' decision to drop to one referee will send the game back to where it was more than a decade ago. Where the wrestle was worse and teams got away with murder in the ruck.

The dual referee system has been in effect for over a decade. It's now become a regular part of NRL games and in many respects it has helped to clean up the ruck speed.

Whether or not you like the pocket referee floating in to tell the defenders to move is a moot point. 

The dual referee system allows for greater control of the ruck as one referee isn't being asked to look at all the moving parts.

The era of the wrestle started around 2006 with Melbourne utilising it to great effect along with some creative accounting to play in four consecutive grand finals.

If you'll recall the Storm utilised tactics such as the chicken wing and choke hold to gain control of players on the ground and slow the ruck. Rules were brought in to prevent this from occurring and in 2009 the two referees system was introduced to also help combat the wrestle.

Now, wrestling is a part of the game to an extent, but coaches have whinged about ruck speed ever since JJ Giltinan sat on the board of the NSWRL.

Really, ruck speed and the amount of wrestle allowed is up to the referees. If they're clued in enough then they can call held earlier, thereby increasing the ruck speed.

But V'Landys' decision is also the wrong one given he made it without consulting any of his key stakeholders. As chairman it is not up to him to invent and/or change the rules. 

I also fail to see how an instant call of six again solves anything. Teams have shown they're happy to give away penalties and extra sets. They specifically train to defend for multiple sets. While an instant call of six again may prevent defences getting a rest, there is no evidence this will automatically lead to players clearing the ruck faster.

Then you also have the issue of the captain's challenge. The captain's challenge can only be used at a stoppage in play, so if a referee calls a ruck infringement and awards six again incorrectly, it then cannot be challenged.

Now is not the time to be changing the rules mid-season. V'Landys, in comments in the media, has said he is not damaging the integrity of the game. However, he has done exactly that. We have played two rounds under one set of rules and now we are changing to a completely different structure.

I hope this decision is reversed in time for the season resuming.

One referee or two?
One referee
Two referees

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • This reply was deleted.
    • Isn't all international and super league controlled by one ref 

      • Yes, they are.  

        • Super League only have one referee due to cost concerns.

          • And isn't that the reason Vlandys wants to do it to cut costs.plus the reason the international games has only one is the international committee only want 1Referee

    • Agreed it's merely a cost cutting exercise. The ramifications of doing this are unknown and potentially could change the actual game substantially. Good or bad who knows? One thing is for sure, if this happens the smart coaches will quickly work out how to exploit it and adjust their styles to suit.

      I'm all for cost cutting where it makes sense but I am concerned about tampering with the on field play without some due diligence.

  • I think that there is too much "warning" by referees - whether it's one or two refs on the field. Teams are coached (some better than others) to stand offside; to slow down the play by lying all over the tackled player, hand on the ball, crowding the player playing the ball etc. These are professional players. They don't need reminders or warnings. Penalise the player in the first instance - not after repeated warnings. Subsequent infringements = sin bin.

     

    • This reply was deleted.
      • That $2.3b deal is worse than the current deal. It only benefits the broadcasters.

        • This reply was deleted.
          • Yep, you missed something. The $2.3b deal is a seven year deal that's roughly $320m per year. The current deal provides $350m per year. The current deal doesn't run out for another two years, so this is Nine and Fox utilising a pandemic to get a cut price deal ahead of schedule. They're also targeting the streaming rights which are currently sold to Telstra for about $20m so the NRL would lose that income as well.

            The only entities cheering this deal are Nine and Fox who, surprise surprise, are benefitting financially from it.

            Before the pandemic, the NRL had no debt. Nine had around $180m of debt. The whole "The NRL can't manage money" line is a myth perpetrated by Nine to try and drive the price down. This is evident given that five weeks ago Nine said NRL Digital was a waste of time and now they're saying it's a good financial investment because they want to buy it. It can't be both. It can't be both a bad investment and at the same time be a good investment. Nine just change the story to fit their narrative.

            • The NRL currently owes both Nine & Fox money for unplayed content.

              The NRL under the leadership of Todd Greenberg had to go cap in hand to its broadcasters for advances, not once but 3 times, and why .....

              Because the NRL under Todd Greenberg couldn't secure a simple bridging loan from any bank anywhere in the world, yet Peter V'Landys was able to secure a $250m LOC within 2 weeks of the shutdown to keep the ARLC afloat, all while still running NSW Racing full time.

              Under the Chairmanship of Peter V'Landys the NRL has managed to get approval from the Federal government, the NSW, Vic & Qld governments to resume operating on May 28, despite every know it all in the media and south of the Murray telling it was pie in the sky stuff.

              And yes, he has now secured the NRL's medium term future with a 3 year extension to the existing broadcast rights, which you'll notice the AFL hasn't yet managed. Yes, those rights are somewhat discounted, but they were always going to be anyway in the new environment. But instead of a full 5 year extension in 3 years time that would still have been discounted, the NRL has now bought itself at least 5 years before the next rights deal has to be negotiated, giving it 7 years to get its financial house in order. 

              His real test now is going to be reining in the Commission's wasteful spending, including the NRL's massively overrated digital arm. It is a colossal money pit that is never going to be profitable for the NRL.

              The whole "The NRL can't manage money" line is a myth perpetrated by Nine to try and drive the price down.

              Last year the Commission spent more money operating itself than it distributed to the clubs & states. It has not paid it's agreed contribution to the Players Pension Fund for the last two years but claimed in its financial reports that it had, then had the audacity to claim it had turned a profit. The whole time it has accumulated ZERO assets despite claiming these so called profits.

              Yeah, Nine have spun one huge web of lies, haven't they Super ?

              • The NRL doesn't owe Nine and Fox anything. Nine owe the NRL. The danger was the season not resuming and the NRL not being paid. Nine had already declared to the ASX it was saving $130m.

                The majority of the NRL's costs come in Matchday and event management as well as development. They spend lest money as a percentage of revenue than the AFL does.

                Did you just read what Fox and Nine wrote and take their word for it?

                Here are some facts.

                 Nine had $538m of bank debt/finance leases and another $312m in lease obligations. Greenberg, as much as you like to attack him, set up $200m of additional revenue streams. The same revenue streams V'Landys is now using to justify taking a lower value deal. If NRL Digital was as much as a waste of money as you say it is, why is Nine saying they want to buy it? If it was useless they wouldn't be trying to buy it.

                So on the one hand Nine say they want to walk away from the game, on the other they're saying they want to buy the digital arm. And the only reason is because they'd run it more "economically". But saving money doesn't ensure better quality, especially if all they do is turn it into an extension of Nine and it becomes an NRL gossip website like most of the media these days.

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

ParraPride replied to Prof. Daz's discussion R4 V TIGERS: FREUD SAYS ‘WORK THROUGH’ IT, DEAR EELS
"Definitely not!
I see it either being a close game with Parra winning or us winning by over 12 points."
15 minutes ago
RustyNuts replied to Poppa's discussion Players and Values and Judgements to make
"Personally I don't think gaining Lomax would cost us Talagi. He had a great 1st game and could possibly be better than Lomax when he gets going. He could move to the wing for some time to develop then move to the centres later. If he becomes better…"
2 hours ago
Slippery. replied to Poppa's discussion Players and Values and Judgements to make

 I totally agree with your comments regarding the importance and benefits regarding local juniors at discounted rates, however,  this is only a factor with their 1st contract if they show promise.  Once a player starts showing they have regular…"
2 hours ago
EA replied to Cʜɪᴇғ -'s discussion Big News On Lomax
"Nah Tago is a centre who may later transition into the backrow. I believe Turuva will leave the club which is fair enough. I think May will move back to the wing and the Mclean brothers will start making their way into FG. Panthers have Laurie and…"
2 hours ago
More…