Are we dealing in facts or something that didn't happen ?
It proved that having refs from the same countries as one of the teams doesn't matter. No issue for me.
Darren, just because you don't have an issue with it, doesn't mean to say that others won't have an issue with it.
Me personally....I think it's a joke. You have officials from England, Australia and New Zealand, but yet after week 1, the appointments are based on "the best referee" and not "neutrality".
If that was the case, why wasn't week 1 appointments based on "the best referee". From week 2 when Bentham wasn't given a game (after reffing Aus v NZ) and Sutton was given Aus v Eng, are you seriously telling me that Sutton had a better performance when doing Eng v Samoa because I watched both games, and Bentham was by far the better referee.
Which still poses the question.........why was Sutton picked for Aus v Eng. The cyncial person may believe that because Australia were on the brink of elimination, they needed all the help they can get.
My opinion is that Tony Archer is just as useless and inept as a match officials director as he was a match official. But with Luke Watt acting as his NZ lapdog, any decision he made was always going to go his way.
You have obviously not seen Matt Parrish's recent interviews.....he is fuming with the situation, and I'm sure this morning wouldn't have been any easier for him when not only was the referee Australian, both touch judges were Australian too.
Only in Rugby League though eh.....:D
What needs to happen is that referees from other nations need to come onboard, need to be trained up and have the ability to referee in this leagues, go through the system. The difference is, whereas Super League will embrace this, the NRL/ARL won't. They only want Australian referees. Yes, people will say Henry Perenara referees in the NRL and he was afforded a chance being a Kiwi, but what about the likes of Leon Williamson, Shame Rehm, Glen Black recently and in the past David Pakieto, Bill Shrimpton, Darren Hopewell. All NZ officals, all never given a chance in the NRL/ARL.
Glen Black ended up coming over to England because Super League were willing to take a punt on him. He reffed in the top league, yet was blocked by none other than Wayne Bennett because he was unhappy about how "inexperienced" he was. Yes, a coach having a say about a referee appointment. Williamson has refereed matches in England because Super League allowed him to. They allowed Thierry Alibert to upskill and referee in SL, Richard Frileux has refereed in SL in the past and Mohammed Drizza has refereed in the Championship.
That's what annoys me about all this "best official for the job" rather than "neutral referees". If Australia were willing to take these guys onboard and train them up, then there may not be a problem. But they are quite happy sticking with their own refs who quite frankly, are not as good as they think they are. Sutton is an awful ref, Shayne Hayne is so far up his own arse, he blows his whistle by farting. Ben Cummings is an awful referee, so is Gavin Badger. And Perenara is shocking also, but because he has a job in the NRL, then he will be NZ's representative until he retires.
In fact, the only decent referees that Australia have ever had have been Steve Clark and Sean Hampstead.
The referees are there......they just need the opportunity.
But nothing happened. Your argument is 100% based on supposition.
No nothing did happen, which is good. That's not the point I'm trying to make.
I am saying that the fact that the people in charge opened the game up to such a possibility shows that they aren't doing things in the full interest of the game.
Say you are walking across a level crossing and the barriers start to come down. You're late for a meeting and need to get across. For you the best time to cross is now, despite the possibility of what might happen, because you can get to your meeting faster. Do you do it and open yourself up to the possibility of getting hit?
It's an extreme analogy I know, but can you not see the point? I see yours, and fair enough nothing happened, if you don't count the hall no try which would have involved a somebody overruling his own brother and causing his country to lose a game....
My problem is that it happened, not the consequences of it happening. Human psychology is a hard thing to predict and you can't say 100% that decisions were not made that were affected by:
-Not wanting to do setting against your own team
Or
- Not wanting to make it look like you are favouring your own team by penalising them when you might not normally.
No nothing did happen, which is good. That's not the point I'm trying to make.
I am saying that the fact that the people in charge opened the game up to such a possibility shows that they aren't doing things in the full interest of the game.
Say you are walking across a level crossing and the barriers start to come down. You're late for a meeting and need to get across. For you the best time to cross is now, despite the possibility of what might happen, because you can get to your meeting faster. Do you do it and open yourself up to the possibility of getting hit?
It's an extreme analogy I know, but can you not see the point? I see yours, and fair enough nothing happened, if you don't count the hall no try which would have involved a somebody overruling his own brother and causing his country to lose a game....
My problem is that it happened, not the consequences of it happening. Human psychology is a hard thing to predict and you can't say 100% that decisions were not made that were affected by:
-Not wanting to do setting against your own team
Or
- Not wanting to make it look like you are favouring your own team by penalising them when you might not normally.
But, at the risk of repeating myself again, nothing did happen so lets move on.
But nothing happened. Your argument is 100% based on supposition.
Did you actually read the whole of my post? Especially where I pointed out a possible solution, or did you skim over that because you've got it in your head that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that "nothing happened" as you put it? What if something did happen? Just because it "never happened" in one game, who's to say it won't happen in another.
Gerard Sutton will no doubt be refereeing the Four Nations Final. Who's to say he won't make a blunder that will cost New Zealand the game?
So anyway, if it's okay to remove neutrality from officiating in Rugby League, then why is it not okay to do it in football? Why can't Mike Dean referee Liverpool? He's from the Wirral, but he's not going to show bias so why shouldn't it be okay? Why can't Anthony Taylor referee Altrincham, even though he is an Altrincham fan and represents the Manchester Referee's Society? Clattenburg refereeing Newcastle?
Or what about Rugby Union? Why doesn't Nigel Owens referee Wales? Wayne Barnes not refereeing England? Jerome Garces for France? Alain Rolland for Ireland? Craig Joubert for South Africa?
If all referee's are impartial and don't have any hint of bias, then why can't they referee the country where they are from?
Did you actually read the whole of my post? Especially where I pointed out a possible solution, or did you skim over that because you've got it in your head that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that "nothing happened" as you put it? What if something did happen? Just because it "never happened" in one game, who's to say it won't happen in another.
Gerard Sutton will no doubt be refereeing the Four Nations Final. Who's to say he won't make a blunder that will cost New Zealand the game?
So anyway, if it's okay to remove neutrality from officiating in Rugby League, then why is it not okay to do it in football? Why can't Mike Dean referee Liverpool? He's from the Wirral, but he's not going to show bias so why shouldn't it be okay? Why can't Anthony Taylor referee Altrincham, even though he is an Altrincham fan and represents the Manchester Referee's Society? Clattenburg refereeing Newcastle?
Or what about Rugby Union? Why doesn't Nigel Owens referee Wales? Wayne Barnes not refereeing England? Jerome Garces for France? Alain Rolland for Ireland? Craig Joubert for South Africa?
If all referee's are impartial and don't have any hint of bias, then why can't they referee the country where they are from?
I did read your post but as i keep saying "nothing happened" so i dont understand why you are all banging on about "what might of" ( but didnt ) happen.
I dont care about the other situations because i am talking about rugby league's four nations, not football, rugby union, cricket, tiddlywinks or kabadi. I am talking about what actually DID happen and not what might have.
Had it gone belly up then we can all come on here and say how wrong, but it didnt so lets move on. More important things to worry about like picking a 13 to win it next time.
PS - I do know what you are saying though Madsocks but my philosophy is that it worked so lets not keep going on about it. But yes it could have gone tits up with spectacular results. Thankfully it didnt.
Yes, epic game. Looked like the Kiwis would run away with it at times, but fair play to the Aussies for keeping it tight down to the end. Best RL tournament I can remember, anyway. Now a long wait, fortunately I still have about 50 unwatched NRL games saved on my PC to tide me through till February.
It was a fantastic final. How the stadium wasn't full I don't know.
Well Wellington isn't as much as a rugby league city as Auckland but its a place where the NRL should look to expand to get another side from NZ in the competition.
Sam Burgess has been named as a sub for Bath RU in their match against Harlequins tonight, so West Country people will get a chance to see what a real rugby player looks like.
Comments
Darren, just because you don't have an issue with it, doesn't mean to say that others won't have an issue with it.
Me personally....I think it's a joke. You have officials from England, Australia and New Zealand, but yet after week 1, the appointments are based on "the best referee" and not "neutrality".
If that was the case, why wasn't week 1 appointments based on "the best referee". From week 2 when Bentham wasn't given a game (after reffing Aus v NZ) and Sutton was given Aus v Eng, are you seriously telling me that Sutton had a better performance when doing Eng v Samoa because I watched both games, and Bentham was by far the better referee.
Which still poses the question.........why was Sutton picked for Aus v Eng. The cyncial person may believe that because Australia were on the brink of elimination, they needed all the help they can get.
My opinion is that Tony Archer is just as useless and inept as a match officials director as he was a match official. But with Luke Watt acting as his NZ lapdog, any decision he made was always going to go his way.
You have obviously not seen Matt Parrish's recent interviews.....he is fuming with the situation, and I'm sure this morning wouldn't have been any easier for him when not only was the referee Australian, both touch judges were Australian too.
Only in Rugby League though eh.....:D
What needs to happen is that referees from other nations need to come onboard, need to be trained up and have the ability to referee in this leagues, go through the system. The difference is, whereas Super League will embrace this, the NRL/ARL won't. They only want Australian referees. Yes, people will say Henry Perenara referees in the NRL and he was afforded a chance being a Kiwi, but what about the likes of Leon Williamson, Shame Rehm, Glen Black recently and in the past David Pakieto, Bill Shrimpton, Darren Hopewell. All NZ officals, all never given a chance in the NRL/ARL.
Glen Black ended up coming over to England because Super League were willing to take a punt on him. He reffed in the top league, yet was blocked by none other than Wayne Bennett because he was unhappy about how "inexperienced" he was. Yes, a coach having a say about a referee appointment. Williamson has refereed matches in England because Super League allowed him to. They allowed Thierry Alibert to upskill and referee in SL, Richard Frileux has refereed in SL in the past and Mohammed Drizza has refereed in the Championship.
That's what annoys me about all this "best official for the job" rather than "neutral referees". If Australia were willing to take these guys onboard and train them up, then there may not be a problem. But they are quite happy sticking with their own refs who quite frankly, are not as good as they think they are. Sutton is an awful ref, Shayne Hayne is so far up his own arse, he blows his whistle by farting. Ben Cummings is an awful referee, so is Gavin Badger. And Perenara is shocking also, but because he has a job in the NRL, then he will be NZ's representative until he retires.
In fact, the only decent referees that Australia have ever had have been Steve Clark and Sean Hampstead.
The referees are there......they just need the opportunity.
No nothing did happen, which is good. That's not the point I'm trying to make.
I am saying that the fact that the people in charge opened the game up to such a possibility shows that they aren't doing things in the full interest of the game.
Say you are walking across a level crossing and the barriers start to come down. You're late for a meeting and need to get across. For you the best time to cross is now, despite the possibility of what might happen, because you can get to your meeting faster. Do you do it and open yourself up to the possibility of getting hit?
It's an extreme analogy I know, but can you not see the point? I see yours, and fair enough nothing happened, if you don't count the hall no try which would have involved a somebody overruling his own brother and causing his country to lose a game....
My problem is that it happened, not the consequences of it happening. Human psychology is a hard thing to predict and you can't say 100% that decisions were not made that were affected by:
-Not wanting to do setting against your own team
Or
- Not wanting to make it look like you are favouring your own team by penalising them when you might not normally.
But, at the risk of repeating myself again, nothing did happen so lets move on.
Did you actually read the whole of my post? Especially where I pointed out a possible solution, or did you skim over that because you've got it in your head that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that "nothing happened" as you put it? What if something did happen? Just because it "never happened" in one game, who's to say it won't happen in another.
Gerard Sutton will no doubt be refereeing the Four Nations Final. Who's to say he won't make a blunder that will cost New Zealand the game?
So anyway, if it's okay to remove neutrality from officiating in Rugby League, then why is it not okay to do it in football? Why can't Mike Dean referee Liverpool? He's from the Wirral, but he's not going to show bias so why shouldn't it be okay? Why can't Anthony Taylor referee Altrincham, even though he is an Altrincham fan and represents the Manchester Referee's Society? Clattenburg refereeing Newcastle?
Or what about Rugby Union? Why doesn't Nigel Owens referee Wales? Wayne Barnes not refereeing England? Jerome Garces for France? Alain Rolland for Ireland? Craig Joubert for South Africa?
If all referee's are impartial and don't have any hint of bias, then why can't they referee the country where they are from?
I did read your post but as i keep saying "nothing happened" so i dont understand why you are all banging on about "what might of" ( but didnt ) happen.
I dont care about the other situations because i am talking about rugby league's four nations, not football, rugby union, cricket, tiddlywinks or kabadi. I am talking about what actually DID happen and not what might have.
Had it gone belly up then we can all come on here and say how wrong, but it didnt so lets move on. More important things to worry about like picking a 13 to win it next time.
PS - I do know what you are saying though Madsocks but my philosophy is that it worked so lets not keep going on about it. But yes it could have gone tits up with spectacular results. Thankfully it didnt.
Why is it under Mcnamara you get these indiciplined happenings.
Nah, he's shot. I was dreading Leeds signing him.
As it is, we're aren't signing anyone. Looking at a poor year. Again.
Do a decent job for us
Would think you would sign a few before start of season
Not looking likely:
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/leeds-rhinos/leeds-rhinos-put-faith-in-youth-1-6947444
And I trust our coach to know how to handle the youth coming through as much as I trust my ability to beat him in a boxing match.
Fair play to you maybe a bit of a gamble no one wants to finish 9-12
I can't wait for next year's kiwi tour.
Shaun Johnson is one hell of a half back, what a try!!!
Just a shame that International RL does not have a proper calendar so we get more of this.
Well Wellington isn't as much as a rugby league city as Auckland but its a place where the NRL should look to expand to get another side from NZ in the competition.
Big announcement at leigh sat 10 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30205542