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.