Is it just me who thinks it is at it's lowest standards ever at the moment?

There just seems to be a total lack of solidarity, confidence and straight forward officiating at the moment which is only made worse by the introduction of some pointless new rules and tweaks every season. There's on going issue's such as clarity of dummy running/obstruction and intentional/unintentional knock ons as well as inconsistent video refereeing calls which aren't being addressed what so ever and confidence in officials must be at an all time low amongst RL supporters.

The NRL season has started this week and out of the 6 games or so I've watched I can't once remember any particular remotely dubious decisions or any that has caused confusion with regards to the referee or VR making the correct decision.
With Stuart Cummings working as officials ''Director'' you don't hear nor see much of him and criticism usually lands directly towards the referee. Quite a cushy job, eh?

In Super League there seems to be a current trend of promoting within with regards to coaches and players but with regards to refereeing, I think it's time to look at Australia and bring somebody in to Super League with recent experience as Stuart Cummings idea's and processes isn't getting the best out of the current officials.

If the above isn't the right solution, what is? Or is everything fine with the tools we already have. (Excuse the pun)

I'd agree that something is wrong. My main issue is consistency. You will see one team get penalised for a certain offence, then see the opposition commit the same offence and get away with it. The same stands for the VR, particularly the obstruction rule where Referee's interpretations seem to differ greatly on similar incidents from one week to the next.

Watching the Souths game this morning there where maybe 1 or 2 bad calls... but it was literally just so few. In the SL every match there seems to be countless dubious decisions.

I have no idea what Stuart Cummings job officially entails, but something needs to be change or he needs to be shown the door because it clearly isn't working.

The amount of small rule changes being made is getting tedious but it seems to be sometimes when watching games that some Ref's don't even know how to apply particular rules.

Watched 3 games over weekend, the 2 sky games and ours yesterday. All 3 games the officiating made a big impression on the game which should not be happening. They are there to inforce the rules consistently, not steal the show. I sometimes wonder if the referees think that we have paid to go and watch them because they seem to cause more talking points than actual rugby itself.

Video refereeing is a very big concern for me.

What I totally fail to understand is the motivation behind it. The Catalan try that won the game against St Helens is a case in point. The video ref went through every inch of that long, complex move, clearly trying to find anything he could by which to disallow it.

I'm must bamboozled by this. Who authorised him to do that? And why?

At any game where the Sky cameras are in attendance, you never know whether a try will be given or not, because so many of them go to the video ref, often for the most spurious reasons (the new interpretation of dummy runners 'obstructing' being a classic example), and yet this is a vitally important facilty (in the words of Wiggy) which we apparently don't need at non-Sky matches. I mean, go figure.

In Aus, it is available at every match, and yet is used very sparingly and very simply. Did he get the ball down properly - yes or no? Not, did he get the ball down, was he onside, was there an obstruction in back-play, what direction was that dummy-runner headed in, was that a double-movement, did he get downward pressure, was he feeling someone's ar2e at the time, etc etc.

And then you get exactly the opposite, as in the famous Tommy Martyn try, when he clearly knocked on and yet the match-winner was awarded because a Wigan finger-tip may have brushed the ball out of his grasp.

The whole thing is just a joke. We're better of not having the technology at all if we can't use it properly.

I think there have probably always been "characters" in the refereeing world who like to take centre stage, but it's now out of control.

Cummins - a notoriously controversial and non even-handed referee in his own time - is the one responsible for this, yet we never hear any official criticism directed against him. Is he answerable to anyone at all?

Great post.

I think it's come to a point now where the video referee system must be used at every game otherwise not at all. On average there must be what, 3 or 4 VR decisions a game that non-televised games do not have the benefit of? A single VF decision alone could decide the outcome of a game, the table, the playoff structure and Grand Final winners therefore it should be consistently used (or not) at every game week in week out.

Cummins was a poor ref so how he can be in charge of the rest of them baffles me

Unfortunately, the whiff of 'jobs for the boys' exists at many levels in RL.

He needs to go and the job itself needs to be one on a fixed term contract so that staleness and favouritism does not develop. Without a new pair of eyes on the job I just do not see how he can improve standards year on year. What does he do to ensure his refs are up to speed with his contemporaries in the NRL?

I read somewhere he was the main reason why a lot of [uamateur[/u refs from this side of the Pennines hung up their boots because he insisted they attend meetings in Yorkshire on weekdays after work.

The same is true for Nigel Wood. They are both part of the problem and the tinkering we see with the competition format and the rules these two seemingly like to introduce on a regular basis look to me like they are justifying their job by be being seen to do something whether that something is good for the game or not. Usually it's not IMO because the pair of them have run out of steam and so come up with pointless ideas for the sake of it rather then well thought out ways to improve the game.

The idea of if it ain't broke don't fix it does not seem to apply to these two but while innovation is not normally a bad thing, change for change sake is and these two are specialists in the latter IMO.

Bang on. Wood is another of those seemingly permanent fixtures at the top of the game, yet whose contributions never seem to help us progress.

I have said it before about the refs.

they will carry on with their half ar"sed performances each and every week because they know the week after, they will be back on the field..until we get competition for places with the refs and the risk of losing there SL place the week after. the standard will not get any better.

Been saying this all weekend. The standard is most definaltey declining. I agree with what Wigan Knight says in regards to competition for places as in there isn't any.

However in the same way the RFL looks at players and has a open disciplinary process why not for officials and by that I mean ref and tjs. Obviously it would be difficult to ban them etc but surely warnings and possible fines for persisitant bad decisions, or missing forwards passes, or offsides - the little things you take for granted in a game.

It's the inconsistencies what get me, they will cripple 1 team and then let the others off with the same offence, on TV you hear them warn 1 player they are offside/not square then penalise them for being involved, but at other times just make it up and say they have made the 10 when they aint. Penalty counts favoured to 1 team, then give 5 on the trot to even it up, do they think we are blind? plus they seem to let a lot go 1 game then the next they don't take the whistle out of their mouth. It is just terrible at the minute, very poor refs and touch judges that aint any better, plus wrong calls from video refs, which go unpunished, I remember a fw years ago in the NRL a vid ref making a huge balls up ( can't remember the incident ) but he was sacked the next day... Stu Cummins needs to resign and get someone in who knows what they are doing, as for Ian Smith tutoring the video ref side of things...Christ

who would want to do it though?

if you look at the type of personality that you need to be to be a good referee - strong character, good communication skills, intelligence, quick thinking, good judgement, and empathy - then people with those types of characters will more than likely have a "proper" job in the real world, earning a damn sight more than the £35k on offer to be a SL ref.

What would the likes of Bentham, Silverwood and Childs be doing in the real world if they were not full time refs.

What a great question!!!



Please keep any answers on the right side of the libel laws...

Well, the video ref on that particular night was St Helens' own Steve Ganson... but even he couldn't find anything wrong with it despite 5mins of trying.

Personally I just think the style of refereeing varies from game to game and from referee to referee. SL seems to favour a pedantic style of refereeing so the refs have too much influence over the momentum of both teams within a game. Because they're instructed to look for small infringements, they often either miss things or get it wrong. And because they have so much involvement, their egos are completely out of control.

Added to that you have linesmen who rarely get involved except when players step on the line and so we have loads of forward passes. Then the video ref, who is only there when Sky cover the game, is grossly over-used in SL and seems to disallow any try that involves dummy runners.

Someone posted a newspaper story where coaches stated how unhappy they were with Cummings - he can't go soon enough for me. The inconsistency and grandstanding of the officials are exactly how he was as a ref himself - no wonder that Salford fan stuck one on him

I will have a go at that

.

James Child - Traffic warden (gives out penalties for f**k all)

Thierry Alibert - Prime minister (not a clue what hes doing and doesnt really listen to anybody, just does what he wants)

Richard Silverwood - Tax officer (If in doubt just guess and manage to nearly always get it wrong)

as far as i,m concerned, refereeing standards have hit the deck since Cummings took over. he was a crap referee to start off with, so to put him in charge of referees will only bring reffing standards right down
we should have an Aussie in charge(ex nrl) to bring reffing standards and consistency up to above a satisfactory level
well that's my opinion anyway

You could bring in all the technology in the world and while the rules are still subject to interpretation and human interaction, misjudgements will occur.

Having said that, I strongly believe we should have the VR at every game. It's a farce that it's only available at selected games as and when the Sky gods deem it necessary. I don't have too much of an issue with the VR being used for certain tries that involve dummy runners as another poster has mentioned, because the rule is there for a reason as we saw in the Wire game with the cynical blocking off of the Bradford defender that was righty ruled out by the VR.

The touch judges need to get involved more and assist the refs when it comes to forward passes and offsides, otherwise it places too much pressure on the refs and their performance is bound to suffer. The in-goal judges were supposed to be brought in to act as VRs of sorts to assist the refs, but all I've seen of them so far is them standing there looking bored/cold and not really doing much.

instead of moaning about refs why the hell dont u lot go and pick up the whistle yourself . then we will have fantastic refs give it a go and lets see how good you are .£35,000 a year must be worth ago

Assuming that even refs are human and liable to make mistakes, has anyone actual stats to back up claims made that they are all cr*p???

Are they for instance more prone to gafs than refs in other sports (cricket aside)??

I know that when I watch a game as a neutral, the refs always appear to get most things right, most of the time but when I watch any game Wigan are involved in, all I remember are the mistakes.

They put themselves forward for this. No-one makes them do it.

Silverwood is a better ref than I would be. That's not the point. I don't pretend to be an expert at refereeing!

If you put yourself forward to be a top ref then you have to deliver excellent performances. If you don't then you are going to get criticised...

What bugs me about this whole forum is that many people who know nothing about the match officiating system want to comment on the roles of touch judges and in goals.

ur right no one makes them do it just that there wouldnt be any 7,8,9, amatuer rugby as the coaches have to do it .so if know one put themselves forward there would be no rugby league end of .