Two Refs

2 Refs.. Good Idea?

  • Total voters
    21
K

knight-no-7

Moderator
Stuart backs plan for two refs
February 22, 2008

AUSTRALIAN Test coach Ricky Stuart has backed the NRL's contentious experiment to introduce a second referee.

Voicing the concerns of fellow club coaches, Stuart said alternative models needed to be investigated to help match officials cope with the increasing pace of modern-day rugby league.

The concept evoked a mixed response after it was revived during last weekend's first round of trial matches, but Stuart believes the code cannot ignore the heightening physical demands on a single referee's capacity to adjudicate.

"We should be helping the one referee, who is under an awful amount of stress with all the pressure on teams to win matches," the Sharks coach said.

"If we can assist the one referee, which we have not looked at aside from technology for 100 years, I can't see any damage in that."

Stuart and the other 15 NRL coaches were taken aback when they learned recently of the physical demands being made on referees over the course of a first-grade fixture.

Figures presented at the end-of-season coaches conference revealed that, on average, each referee's heartbeat reaches a rate of between 170 and 240bpm for almost a third of the game. Medical experts have attested that, when placed under that level of fatigue, an individual's judgment is impaired - raising the prospect of poor decisions that could turn a game.

After viewing the data, which was collected via heart-rate monitors worn by various referees over the past two seasons and GPS tracking equipment, Stuart and Penrith coach Matt Elliott joined a working committee to investigate ways to alleviate the referee's fatigue.

"If there's a way we can take any fatigue or stress away from the referee, we should look at it," Stuart said.

"We talked about some different options, but the referees are supportive of (having a second match official).

"They've now created a model with a bit of credibility.

"I'm not saying it's the complete answer, but we should be trialling it."

Although not the first time a second referee has been mooted, this year's trials are being conducted after intense testing during the off-season.

NRL referees boss Robert Finch yesterday said his 14 full-time whistleblowers had spent "a lot of time" over the summer simulating the concept, which involves one official policing the defensive line and the other ruling from behind the play-the-ball.

It features in another two trial matches this weekend, and Finch is hopeful the experiment will continue during the National Youth Competition and perhaps even a late-season NRL game of no consequence to the finals race.

"We've now got players who can go helter-skelter for 80 minutes and (the referees) have got to match that," Finch said.

"We can train as hard as them, but we don't get to inter-change. That means the mental drain on decision making is fairly sizeable."



Share this article: Digg this Post to del.icio.us Post to Newsvine
Font size: Increase font size Decrease font size Send this article: Print this article Email this article
Click to expand...
 
I think one idiot running around on the field is enough. Imagine the time delays etc if there were two of them. It would be chaos.
 
seabass14 said:
I think one idiot running around on the field is enough. Imagine the time delays etc if there were two of them. It would be chaos.
Click to expand...

Yea but on the other hand it could work well... ie AFL. But then again we play on a smaller feild. Anything that will reduce ref mistakes, im up for.
 
Hasn't this been tried before in trials and been deemed a complete and utter disaster?

You get a warning from one ref for one thing, then the other doesn't penalise it ... it'd create more problems than it would solve.
 
As long as there is consistancy, it could work, it could solve some problems and could be quicker than referring some things to the Video referee.
 
knight-no-7 said:
As long as there is consistancy, it could work, it could solve some problems and could be quicker than referring some things to the Video referee.
Click to expand...

Yeah but these days reffs go to the video ref for the hell of it anyway, even if its a blaitent try.
 
as long as both refs know distincly what theyre duties are then itll be fine, unless we have referee burnout during mid season :P
 
Two refs better than one as NRL trials new system
Adrian Proszenko | May 11, 2008

THE NRL will move a step closer to employing two referees for next season's matches when the concept is trialled in the National Youth Competition in coming months.

Whistleblowers were in the headlines again after Ben Cummins was struck in the head by a miniature foam football after Parramatta's controversial win over Penrith last Saturday. And last weekend's Sun-Herald players poll revealed 70 per cent of players felt the momentum of the game was slowed when video referees adjudicated on strips - and, more often than not, they reached the wrong decision anyway.

To help officials cope with the increased scrutiny and physical demands on match officials, an extra referee will be introduced in first grade in 2009 if NRL coaches deem the coming NYC trial a success.

The two-referee system had a mixed reaction from players and coaches during pre-season trials but the NRL is pressing on with the initiative to minimise errors and ease the physical workload on officials.

An independent review will soon finish collating data from the trials but the initial feedback is positive. The NYC trial is slated to begin two-thirds into the season.

"Two referees mean less physical demands on a referee but also another view," referees boss Robert Finch said.

"A lot of people watching at home would say 'why didn't he see that?' It's probably because it's come from a camera angle 180 degrees from where he was standing. [Another referee] allows another angle for us as well.

"There are more positives than negatives in having two referees.

"The demand on officials today, with heart rates and the like, are triathlete stuff.

"People don't understand they are running with their heart rates above 160 beats per minute for well over 50 per cent of the game. It's a massive effort to process information under that sort of physical pressure."

Cummins knows all about pressure after the ball-throwing incident at CUA Stadium.

"It was a bit eventful. It wasn't much to me, although there was a bit of fuss over it all," he said.

"I travelled the next day, so I didn't hear much about it. It was a pretty soft object. I was joking to the security guards to send the touchies in first as a decoy.

"The main thing is it wasn't something else. A bottle could have been more serious.

"At the time I just said 'make sure you get that bloke' because it doesn't send a good message to the kids out there, that sort of stuff."

Asked what he thought would be an appropriate punishment for the culprit, Cummins said he would leave the matter to the NRL.

"Obviously, catching the person who did it and putting on a penalty they feel will suffice will stop other people from doing it," he said.

Fellow official Steve Lyons added: "There's no place in the game for that type of stuff.

"I know supporters out there are fanatical and love their team - and maybe the person who threw it realised it was only a mini football and wasn't going to do any damage but still, it could have hit him in the eye and anything could have happened."

Last weekend video referee Graeme West took more than three minutes to award a try to Panthers captain Petero Civoniceva.

Finch explained the officials weren't always given the replays they requested, an issue the NRL is working through with broadcasters.

"Sometimes the replays sent to us aren't the ones we're looking for," Finch explained. "It looks like he's having a look at it again but he's already signed off on that and wants to go to something else. There's a bit of a process issue there."

However, Finch claimed 97 per cent of last year's video referee decisions were deemed correct and the figure was comparable this year. However, the former Dragons centre conceded it was taking too long to rule on strips.

"We need to do it quicker but it's like anything new, it takes time," he said. "Again, we are relying on the speed of the replay and the picture they deliver us. We are only allowed two replays and if they don't show evidence of a strip, we'll go with the existing decision.

There are teething issues and I think the process will get better as we move on."
Click to expand...

Source: The Sun-Herald
 
I dont see a problem them testing it in NYC for a possible stint with NRL.

But it looks as if theres going to be bad calls here, there, everywhere and refs will get it wrong.
 
Two refs would be one of the worst ideas to happen in Rugby League. Imagine two De la Heras's on the field at the same time? **shudders**

There should be no need for refs to go to the video ref so often. They just need to remember that they have a pair of cajones and make calls that might be marginal. They're no longer the bloke in charge on the pitch but some kind of agent for the video ref, who seems to be the bloke who's really in charge.

Two refs bad, one ref good..............one confident, competent ref better.
 
Last edited:
One major flaw I see with this is the standards that each individual ref has. Most games, the team has to adapt to how lenient the ref is, and with two of them, it just makes it frustrating if one ref has certain standards for one rule while the other has completely different ones.
 
Today in the Sea Eagles v Broncos Toyota Cup match the ref was shocking. He ruled that the Broncos were short one time when the ball was on the line (might have been no try, but it was so close). And the other time, he ruled the Broncos scored when in my opinion it was a double movement. I suppose it evened itself out, but still..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top