Ref's are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Another week it is a barrage of criticism for ref's penalising every offence & not letting the game flow. If you let the game flow you have to accept borderline decsions are going to be ignored. I agree that they need to decide which it is going to be, make an announcement to all teams & the media, stick by it for half a season then review it.

We were poor in the first half and did'nt deserve a win, the second half improvment was encouraging. Tim Roby was not the reason we lost but he is by far the worst ref i've seen this season, one bloke behind me said we should give him a rule book in brail and i am told that the Radio Leeds comentators asked who was ref today Tim Roby or Sam Tompkins.

To some, yes, but I have this theory that actually most fans don't have that much gripe with the refs. It is just the vocal minority that just make it seem as if there's more criticism than there is.


Well, we've had the "zero tolerance" debate many times, IMHO as long as both teams are seemingly doing their best to keep to the rules, then I'd rather the benefit of the doubt be given to all marginal and all questionable calls in favour of keeping the game flowing.


Not ignored, the ref makes a decision, that decision is to let it go. Did you mean borderline infringements? I think this can be dealt with on the fly, and should be. If players are taking a bit too long in the tackle, the ref can shout warnings while not immediately penalising. Similarly with many other offences, but in context (for example, player A only gets back 9 not the full 10, if he seemed to make an effort and isn't directly involved in the play, let it go, or if in doubt, a running warning; but if he makes a tackle from there, then penalise. (I know that good refs in good form do basically often do the above anyway).


Agreed, though I'd prefer a decision for the season and, fine tuning apart, stick with it.

The criticism is a direct result of the inconsistency in approach. For example one week anything goes at the ruck and another week the pea is blown out of the whistle. As you say they need to decide what they're doing and all stick to it and let everyone know what they're doing and why. If they feel the need to change then say so and why.

They also have to publicly declare they will pay no attention to the puerile, ignorant garbage eminating from the gobs of Eddie & Stevo.

Does anyone pay any attention to them anymore?

You assume everyone is as perceptive as you and I.

. People refer to not blowing the whistle as, "Letting the game flow", when it's patently the pole opposite - how is allowing players to set up camp over an tackled attacker, "allowing the game to flow"? 'cos I'm baffled.

There is a rule book. All teams and officials should play to the rules. Any deviation will lead to:-
All officials are cheats, don't know what they are doing etc..
Players taking advantage, laying on, pinching yards etc..
Fans become frustrated, angry etc..
It should not be too difficult in these days with all the means of distributing information that the RFL can and should explain changes, interpretation of the rules etc..
It's the lack of responsibility by the RFL who leave it to the poor officials to shoulder the blame. The RFL only seem to want to take the praise and credit without any recall to what's happening in the real world.

I agree about the rule book; if you don't play to the rules you're not actually playing RL.

No-one wants to see the game stopped constantly by the whistle but the biggest reason for players transgressing the laws of the game is the doubt caused by the current way they are applied. Players aren't stupid. The the reason they don't follow the laws to the letter is simple; they feel there is a fair chance they'll get away with it, and as professionals, they'll take any advantage going.

The RFL should make a big issue of it, maybe at the start of a season. Make a major announcement tell the coaches the score and leave no room for excuses about not knowing and then come down hard on transgressions - it certainly won't take long for players to realise there is little advantage in trying to cheat, especially when they are pushed back to their try line by penalties. If it spoils the first ten minutes of next season I'll live with it.

Part of the problem is I do not know what the rules actually say, & I would wager most don't on here either. A number no doubt take their advice from the pair of cretins on Sky. So I doubt there is usually clear transgression as such & that it is being ignored, as ever it is the players, officials & fans' interpretation of the laws, which is down to human error.

Quote ="tigertot"Part of the problem is I do not know what the rules actually say, & I would wager most don't on here either. A number no doubt take their advice from the pair of cretins on Sky. So I doubt there is usually clear transgression as such & that it is being ignored, as ever it is the players, officials & fans' interpretation of the laws, which is down to human error.'" Laws of the game can be found here: www.therfl.co.uk/more/referee About half way down the page.

Quote ="tigertot"Part of the problem is I do not know what the rules actually say, & I would wager most don't on here either. A number no doubt take their advice from the pair of cretins on Sky. So I doubt there is usually clear transgression as such & that it is being ignored, as ever it is the players, officials & fans' interpretation of the laws, which is down to human error.'" Laws of the game can be found here: www.therfl.co.uk/more/referee About half way down the page.

And that's the problem. The rules need to be tightened up to remove the need for interpretation

1. The laws were translated by a Japanese-born Serbian from Cyrillic. Or at least many of them read that way. They are often very poorly expressed, and this does nothing to help interpretation. As so many past threads demonstrate.

2. I am not confident that the laws as per RFL website are actually 100% the same as whatever the laws are in the refs' handbook Does anyone know?

3. Due to (1) and due to a need to tinker and address what are seen as "problem areas" there are various directives issued to the refs, some we know about, many we clearly don't, but these of course have the effect of being revisions of the laws, or else how they naturally read; they MUSt in effect be - as otherwise they wouldn't be necessary.

So, badly written laws, and a secretive system of temporary interpretations and instructions. It is no surprise none of us can really follow it.

I've thought this for a long time. The Laws are not all encompassing (such as the "flop"icon_wink.gif and many are non specific in their terminology - such as, and not exclusive: -
The Laws require tackling players to "immediately" release the tackled player. Does this mean it should be done with the same alacrity they are capable of in game play or allowed to have a good look round first then arise from the tackle like geriatrics.
*Depends on the refs interpretation of "immediate"
The laws require tackling players to not move a tackled player once a tackle is completed. (Ball or carrying arm down)
*Depends on the refs interpretation of "completed"

Where I empathise with the Refs and Touchies is in the RFL Laws that they have to apply when deciding a forward pass.
[iDirection of Pass 1. The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass.[/i

Have you got that? I have'nt.

That is easy & obvious. There is a training video (from yawnion IIRC) demonstrating it, it has parallel lines at intervals of a couple of metres. It is therefore obvious if the receiver is behind the passer & if the initial trajectory is not forward in relation to the lines. What is also obvious is that the ball can end up metres in front of the line from where the passer passed due to the ball's momentum.

That is largely impossible & I would argue unnecessary as there isn't, in reality, that much of a problem. The problem is largely with the fans.

Quote ="Bulliac"Laws of the game can be found here: www.therfl.co.uk/more/referee About half way down the page.'" I know where to find the laws if I wanted to read them. But I am generally very happy with the sport. The day us beating the Aussies comes down to an interpretation of whether the defender has been given sufficient time to clear the ruck I might change my mind.

Quote ="Bulliac"Laws of the game can be found here: www.therfl.co.uk/more/referee About half way down the page.'" I know where to find the laws if I wanted to read them. But I am generally very happy with the sport. The day us beating the Aussies comes down to an interpretation of whether the defender has been given sufficient time to clear the ruck I might change my mind.

opinion of the referee".

Momentum is a product of mass x velocity. It is also a vector which has magnitude and direction.
Mass is the rugby ball.
Velocity the speed given to the ball when thrown/passed.
Magnitude - size, distance etc used for comparison.
Direction is direction the ball travels.
Since the ball is an inanimate object with so means of self propulsion it can only travel in the direction it is thrown/passed.
There can be no momentum rule in rugby.
The clue in the rule is" relative to the player" - backwards from the throwing/passing player - only way, all the rest is tosh.

But obviously, there is a problem, if there is a problem with the fans, often with the players, very often with the coaches even to the extent of regular fines for open criticism. If, in reality, there isn't that much of a problem - then what's all that about?

As for the "momentum" rule - it's easy. Viewing the pass from the side, just imagine obliterating the pitch, obliterate the markings, the stands, obliterate from your mind any point of reference. However fast or slow the player's little legs may be going, have him suspended in the dead centre of your mental screen, legs thrashing furiously. Then, you do not have to take his forward motion into account, you don't have to consider the pitch, or the lines, the stands, the fans, you can ignore other players, you can ignore everything else. You can concentrate 100% on the only thing that matters, does the ball go forward from the hands, or does it not.

which may be in the way.

If the players momentum is taken into consideration any ball would travel at the same speed in the same direction as the player, ie the ball is carried by the player. As soon as the player releases the ball it falls to the ground, no momentum.
External influences on the ball are tosh, the initial momentum is initiated by the player throwing/passing the ball. Any influences after the ball is thrown/passed changes the direction of the travel and possibly velocity, creating a new vector - knock on etc.,

Try dropping a ball out of the window of a moving car. Guarantee it won't drop straight to ground. It will carry on moving forwards while dropping to ground. Basic physics.

Which is exactly why momentum :um2a7v5bis:um2a7v5b taken into account - you couldn't play the game otherwise, unless you stopped everytime you passed the ball.

The ball is [i:um2a7v5bpassed[/i:um2a7v5b backwards by the player's hands but goes forward due to player's momemtum - the pass is ok [see notes in laws, aka Stevo's 'momentum rule'.
Ball is passed backwards but is blown forward by the wind - the pass is ok[ note in the laws.
These are two specific instances which are mentioned within the laws of the game to show that external influences :um2a7v5bare:um2a7v5b taken into account.
It is the direction of the pass which is important [ie, it is not [i:um2a7v5bthrown[/i and not where the ball finishes up. In the opinion of the ref, natch!