Ive been watching some old matches last few days from the 90's and it struck me that the reason todays games are not as entertaining is the refs have spoiled the game. The PTB back in the 90s was much scruffier and a lot of lying on but it made for a more exciting game without the ref interfering. Players just got on with it without the diving and complaining and the game flowed much better with less stop starts. Defences could get into the opposition without getting called offside for being too eager, again less penalties and the game flows quicker. You barely noticed the ref in those days, the players were allowed to get on with the game as humans rather than robots.

I don't think you'll get too many arguments with this one.

I've been watching the game a long time, and I've never seen such poor standards of refereeing or judiciary in British RL as we have at present (and believe me, I've seen some crap over the years). But I also agree that much of its comes down from the top. The routine incompetence that seemed to find its way into the game under the likes of Bentham and Silverwood and which is now endemic across the board doesn't help at all, but it's also the case that our refs are now coached to look for the slightest thing (and yet somehow still manage to apply it inconsistently). It repeatedly ruins the momentum of game and drives the fans mad.

The only solution is a wholesale clear-out of the entire crowd. But that obviously isn't going to happen. Sadly.

Yes, they are over sterilising the game. I watched some old Challenge Cup games and the difference in the speed and flow of the game was like night and day. The refs were barely noticeable compared to todays game where the ref is part of the game and teams are looking for a penalty at every PTB.

It’s easy to blame the refs but they are there to act on the players actions and they are following the laws of the game, it’s their job.

Whilst I appreciate the refs are part of the problem I think the laws of the game need a review and the players and coaches, who rarely seem to get blamed for this, also need to be held accountable.

A ref can’t not call an offside. Wigan in particular have a gift of ramping up the pressure and then get carried away and give away a penalty for being too eager. It’s got to the point where I can call it at the start of a set and in 80% of the cases I’m right and we give away a penalty on the 3rd or 4th tackle.

I agree some of the refs need to let a bit more go, but they are under massive levels of scrutiny by their bosses and if they start letting stuff slide then they won’t be full time refs for very long.

All the people who are directly involved on a match day need to be held to account, I think it’s a bit too easy and unfair to just level it at the man with the whistle.

And the Referee's in the past did not allow players to have a go them about any decision, were called 'Sir' and made it clear that they were the boss on the field.

Oh, for a return to the days of Eric Clay, Ronnie Campbell, John Holdsworth, Joe Jackson, Eric Lawrenson, Fred Lindop, Ronnie Moore, Mick Naughton, Billy Thompson, Robin Whitfield etc.

Referees like today who were called rotten at the time, but in retrospect were better than some of the present match officials.

These are fair points, John, but never in all my time watching RL have I been as infuriated by some refereeing decisions as I have been in recent times.

The fact that so many games are televised now allows us fans to watch the 'offences' in close detail, usually several times, and there are far too many that are literally nothing - a slight and accidental contact between arm and head, or a hand on a forearm during a tackle which then inexplicably leads to a knock-on and is immediately penalised as a ball steal. And yet, even then this isn't the outcome every time. The whistle is blown inconsistently and indiscriminately during matches, which inevitably hampers the efforts of some teams more than others and leads to suspicion that it isn't just incompetence we're dealing with.

Add to that the mission that our video refs then seem to go on to try and disallow tries. The worst example I've ever seen was the disallowed Dan Sarginson try that came at a vital time in an important game last year, when a solid tackle dislodged the ball and Sarge then ran 70 metres to score ... only for the video refs to spend a good 6 or 7 minutes trying to find a reason to cancel it out and award the scrum to the opposition, finally opting for the ludicrous decision that it was a Wigan knock-on. Even Jim Mills, who was never a close friend to Wigan, tweeted that it was a disgraceful decision and went completely against the spirit of the game.

It's an honourable thing to try and defend these guys against what is often a baying mob of discontent, but many times they don't help themselves.

By the letter of the law, it was a knock on. The problem is (similar to VAR) that technology allows you to check every miniscular detail. Oh, and don't forget the try we got 2nd half that wasn't.

The Tony Clubb no try at Wembley was a shocker.

The fact that refs weren't microphoned up and there weren't 5 or 6 different cameras on the the game at any one time, plus you didn't have commentators scrutinizing every refereeing decision during a game, probably affected most people's perception at the time.

its the rules that have changed some of the hits in them days were 10-12 week suspensions now

The problem often lies with the rules themselves and how the interpretation changes over time. The stripping rule would be a good example of this. It used to be that there had to be a definite "stripping motion" from the defender but this has, over time, come to be no more than "hands on the ball" or similar. By definition this makes it harder to be consistent with the adjudication as the refs are having to make judgement calls on intent which is far harder to know with any certainty.

A return to it being the attacker's responsibility to secure the ball unless there is a definite stripping motion would make this rule far easier to officiate. I just think sometimes we make it unnecessarily difficult by constantly changing the interpretation. Obstruction would be another example where the interpretation is constantly changing with no obvious benefits or clarification.

Anyone who's seen a re-run of that 2004 game at KR knows that in today's game they'd have ended up 7 a side.

The rules have clearly changed and some of the rule changes have been to protect players. This is sometimes interpreted as "sanitising" the game. Really RL could not have continued with 2004 as the norm

The rules have changed and so have the way referees have to run the game. The way refs are talked about IMO is unfair and unrealistic. We now have endless replays and super zoom cameras endlessly re-showing the least of controversial incidents. Mike Stevenson didn't do refs any favours with his "that's a penalty" "that's a red/yellow card". Always of course after he's seen at least four re-runs.

If we want to improve the game then we've got to accept that if we change the rules and/or the interpretation then refs have to change their decisions.

As for Eric Clay etc. He used to referee games wearing a jacket with brass buttons. He may have been a sergeant major in a previous life hence his nickname but was unfit and was nowhere as fit as today's refs.

Improve the game by all means but don't knock the refs when it doesn't end as we want. They need to improve their game same as players, coaches and their tactics.

The game may have problems but referees are most certainly not the sole problem.

On of the things that always amazes me about referees is how many times they get things right. I have refereed quite a lot at school boy level and I was crap by anyone's measure so I admire those who stand in the middle and generally get things right. Once upon a time we expected the ref to get things wrong and you took it on the chin especially if the ref was not independent. Today everything is on camera and the pressure on refs is immense. Another thing is that we have different standards today and if the game is going to survive we have to adapt. Letting the game flow could also be described as turning a blind eye and what is the point of having laws/rules if they are only implemented some times? A ref should never be lambasted for doing what they have been asked to do. If we want refereeing perfection we can go to the video ref for everything and become like American Football but personally I think that we need to allow for mistakes for the sake of the game.

I’ve been watching since ‘73 and I couldn’t disagree with you more strongly, those referees were shocking but due to lack of tv coverage got away with murder (not literally...as far as I know).

A famous apocryphal tale concerns Frank Collier and Eric Clay.

During a tense Wigan v Saints game, Frank and Vince Karalius kept having pops at each other off the ball. Vinty got one really good shot in and Frank went down, immediately complaining to Eric Clay that this was just too much. Eric said that he hadn't seen anything. A minute later, Vinty took Frank down again in fine style. When he came back to his senses, Frank complained to the ref again, and this time Eric said: "Yeah, I saw that one. But I can't blow the whistle now. I'll tell you what ... you can have one smack back, but after that you're off."

The double movement for a try is another with some Referees giving different versions of the rule. I was always taught that if the ball carrying arm touched the ground, it was a double movement.

The 'problem' as so called is a difficult one. The oft used argument that if refs penalised every infringement the game would last as long as an American Football game is misleading. Yes it would have a detrimental impact for a couple of weeks but then the players and coaches would learn and it would improve to a large degree. The coaches and hence the players are constantly looking to bend the rules as far as possible even going a little further sometimes to seek an advantage. The law makers or law interpreters are always in 'catch-up' mode. For me, one of the biggest problems is the inconsistency of implementation of the rules not only between refs but also in single games. I know there is a human element in all this but more consistency would help.

We all like to see an open game with minimal whistle-blowing, but then again, we hear a lot of complaints nowadays (here too) that the p-t-b is untidy, it's better in the NRL, etc etc. But in fact the p-t-b in the 'good old days' was frequently a right shambles! We can't have it all ways. I do agree that they seems to be a lot more 'milking' penalties nowadays, and I wish the refs were wiser to it. I like it when I hear the NRL refs shouting "Milking, milking!", and making them just get on with the game.

Just a question. When did the ptb first become an almost certain way of recycling the ball? I have been looking through some old Pathe film from before ww2 and more often than not the player with the ball would hack it forward at the ptb.

How Skerret was not given a 6 month ban by nearly killing the ref in the Fev cup in 1994 is beyond me

I don't know off the top of my head. I often wonder what the rationale was to stopping players p-t-b to themselves. Was it phased out in two stages? You could only do it if there was no marker,and you had to do it backwards,not forwards? I never saw the benefit of stopping the practice, anyway.

Part of slowly killing the game like the lack of dummy runners and a quick tap

The modern game can still be a great watch, but I certainly don't think all rule changes have been for the better.

Classic games are getting more and more rare IMO

The rules are tinkered with far too often and not replicated across all leagues. It feels to me like there are two separate codes of RL; the NRL and SL (I know we’re a long way off that). Then we’ve got international rules too.

If rules are being changed they need to be done and agreed at IRFL level, not governing body level. It just seems ridiculous to me and difficult to follow for us RL fans never mind casual fans.

I don’t sign up to the thought that the quality of games in the modern era are far less than those of the so called “golden era”. There were often poor games then as there are now with just as often a top drawer game. The game has evolved in fitness and offensive and defensive tactics, likewise has football, RU, boxing etc. If we stayed stuck in the 80’s type rugby we’d be moving backwards and against the tide. Instead of losing 6-0 in a WC to Australia we’d be smashed by 30pts plus v Tonga/Fiji/Samoa and annihilated by the Aussies and Kiwi’s. The sport in the UK would be as good as dead. If sport doesn’t evolve it doesn’t change or improve. It’s that simple for me.

Many have not, and one of the best examples is the scrums which are now a farce with anyone packing down and the ball never going near the hookers!