NRL- Two referees?

The NRL’s annual football conference has given its support to using two on-field referees in the 2009 Telstra Premiership.

The conference has also recommended an end to the video referee being used to adjudicate on the stripping rule, further action against grapple tackles and a reduction in the number of interchanges for 2010 on. There was also agreement that a player’s carry over points should reduce by ‘five points’ with each week a player competes without charge.

Today’s meeting in Sydney brought together coaches, players, referees, former coaches, board members, administrators, league identities and key media figures.

A new voting system allowed each representative to electronically rank the key issues in the game and their opinion on whether changes should be made.

The group is an advisory one only, with final recommendations to be determined by NRL management, the NRL Board and, in the case of actual rule changes, the ARL and RLIF.

“Today was a chance to gauge the opinions of those at the game’s coal-face and it was a really positive process,” NRL Chief Executive, Mr David Gallop, said.

“Ultimately this isn’t a democracy and the votes do not determine final outcomes but they do provide us with critical input in making decisions.”

This year’s Centenary season saw the NRL introduce a comprehensive trial of a ‘two referee’ model in the closing stages of the Toyota Cup competition for Under 20s players.

While there was some debate about whether a trial should be continued further in Toyota Cup, 58% of the room was in favour of two referees in the Telstra Premiership, 17% did not have a strong view on the issue and 25% were opposed.

The presence of an extra referee added further weight to a view that video referees should no longer adjudicate on stripping penalties.

The decision to remove video referees from this area was overwhelming with 83% voting to change the rule.

There was more division, however, on whether the video referee should continue to monitor foul play. Forty percent wanted a change to prevent the video referee from being involved, 40% did not and 19% did not profess a strong view on the issue.

Debate among the coaches and players suggested that this was leading to players taking ‘dives’ to attract the attention of the video referee while others were concerned that foul play may escape undetected.

Again there was a strong view that the addition of another referee would impact on this area. Ultimately the room remain divided with 41% wanting to see the current system unchanged while 40% wanted to see it changed.

Grapple tackles were identified as one of the most critical aspects of the game and there was an overwhelming consensus (81%) in favour of referees and the judiciary taking stronger action in this area. As occurred with Dangerous Throws a number of seasons ago, the points allocated to charges under the judiciary code will also be reviewed.

Referees coach Robert Finch made it clear that he saw it as an area in which referees needed to take greater control.

“At this stage I’m fed up with it and the game’s fed up with it,” he said. “I think there is a need for more penalties and the use of the sin bin during games.”

Knights coach Brian Smith said that the challenge was up to the NRL. “We’ve given you the license to do something about it, the fact is it’s up to the NRL to do something about it by punishing it.”

Issues voted:

Remove video referee from adjudicating on stripping rule
Change: 83%
No strong view: 9%
Don’t Change: 8%

Remove video referee from adjudicating on foul play
Change: 40%
No strong view: 19%
Don’t Change: 41%

Move to two on-field referees
Change: 58%
No strong view: 17%
Don’t Change: 25%

Referees and Judiciary to take stronger action against grapple tackles
Change: 81%
No strong view: 14%
Don’t Change: 5%

Reduce Interchange numbers in 2010 season
Change: 56%
No strong view: 7%
Don’t Change: 37%

‘Experimental rule’ setting all tap re-starts 20m in from touch
Change: 14%
No strong view: 36%
Don’t Change: 50%

Introduce further measures to reduce time wasting at scrums
Change: 80%
No strong view: 8%
Don’t Change: 12%

Referees to look at providing more leniency to markers in the play the ball Change: 36%
No strong view: 18%
Don’t Change: 46%

Review Dominant Tackle call
Change: 18%
No strong view: 13%
Don’t Change: 69%

Review current obstruction rule
Change: 6%
No strong view: 1%
Don’t Change: 93%

Passive off-side - should the video referee have more discretion in judging whether a player within 10m of the receiver of a kick has interfered with play and incurred a penalty?
Change: 40%
No strong view: 6%
Don’t Change: 54%

The issues identified as being most important to the on-field game were:
· Use of the video referee
· Introduction of two referees
· Grappling/wrestling
· Interchange
· Time Wasting
· Markers

There was a lack of any general support for discussing changes to the 40/20 rule, benefit of the doubt rule, the 10m rule or the side from which a scrum is fed (currently the blind side).