Not sure if this has already been posted but I thought this was a well written and interesting article.

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/oct/12/super-league-grand-final-leeds-st-helens[/url

I am not sure it is that fair to be so critical given that the NRL was significantly slower at the ruck than SL prior to this season and indeed that this was our biggest problem at the World Cup! Now they have introduced two refs and sped up the ruck we have indeed slowed ours down and allowed the wrestle to creep into the game.

The worry for me now is that I am totally unsure how the 4 nations NRL refs will interpret the rules! Are we now going to be caught out and penalised for slowing things down, when at the last World Cup we were frustrated by there total lack of action?

Finally, he talks about it not being as good a spectacle and then says we should start and give the benefit of the doubt to the defending side... hang on, that does the opposite does it not!

In that case the score line on Saturday would have been 12 - 4 to Leeds... how does that work or make it more exciting?

Typical AW negativity.
Great, close game, could have been won by either team and the winner in doubt for the vast majority of the game described as "an appropriately downbeat end to an underwhelming Super League season"

Improved defence that prevented any tries being opened up by simple passes put down as a refereeing problem.

Dismissing any prospects of success against Australia or NZ.

Not sure how he's expecting "a wholly unnecessary controversy that would have been avoided if the benefit of the doubt was always given to the defensive team" to be an improvement - you would just have the same controversy as seemingly good tries were disallowed. The VR decision, that requires clear evidence to disallow a try, is fine as it is now.


Personally, I have been an advocate of using 2 refs for some time.

I think you are spot on. He talks about Try's being scored from kicks but of the two tries not scored from the result of a kick on Saturday, under his system of benefit to the defeding side, only one would have been a try and Saints would have only scored from penalty kicks and not scored a try at all!

Yes it has declined.

How many times in a set of six do you see a defender looking back over his shoulder at the referee waiting for the 'move' call? The referees are allowing the slower PTB.

I've seen the two ref system in action and don't see what they do that one referee can't do already if they are fit which being full time they certainly ought to be.

Fast or slow PTB's is down to one man.

We, as spectators, have to be patient.

The slower PTB's were meant to give the defence a chance to get set, take too much dummy half scooting out of our game and increase play making abilities of our teams as a means to break down defences.

It will take more than one season for the fruits of this policy to bear.

Patient?

I’m a rugby league fan and not a rugby union one at!

...

The play the balls all year have been artificially slow. I have no problem with them being more structured like the NRL's have always been, but the poor referees in this country have taken the advantage given to the superior side largely out of the equation. Obviously the lineup of teams for the final shows they always come to the fore eventually, but it was an unsightly and messy struggle to get there.

I don't mind my team suffering to improve the sport, but the ref's need to base the time allowed at the play the ball on who is winning the general flow of the game. I'm sure the intention from the top was for more structured, tidy and attractive play, but it ended up being too slow and unbelievably hard to watch at times.

It's always been the case that you judge how long the ref will allow you to hold down in the tackle, and play to that. Just this year, they're allowing a bit longer than the last few. Still, nothing close to the messing around we got prior to the late 90s.

The real difference two refs gives is that one can watch solely the PTB, and from the attacking team side of the action, whilst one sees the other side of the PTB but can also pay more attention to the defensive line.
Perhaps touch judges should do more, but whilst limited to the touchline, they are often too far away to get a good view, and that view will often be obstructed.

For me the issue with Saints is the quick PTB was their only attacking option as soon as this was taken out of the game they had no plan B.

Rather than complaining that the game isn't played in a way to suit Saints maybe they should develop alternative strategies to break defences down.

Potter has obviously realised changes are required but given the personnel at his disposal it isnt that easy to effect

Yep, their only alternative was the pass behind a couple of support runners, now that everyone has snuffed that out they dont have anything left.

Potter should be ashamed of himself if its taken him all season to realise that the PTB is slower this year.

I agree its' not been pretty to watch this year at times but am hopeful it will be worth it if teams starting playing better rugby to break down defences rather than just quick ptbs.

I also concede your point that its' easier for me to be philosophical as my team has achieved success during this transitional period.