I think what fans moan about the most is when they perceive that the ref is being inconsistent.
This seems to me to be especially the case at the PTB - not surprising I suppose when they are the most frequent events in any game.
Your side seems to be penalised for flops or hands on the ball whilst the opponents don't.
Being biased I think that Ablett & JJB get penalised for such offences far more than Roby or O'Loughlin for example who to my mind are equally culpable.
I actually agree with the poster who said that Child has improved this year but I'd always rather watch a game reffed by Thaler who apperas to let the game flow more & has a better rapport with the players.

Interesting thread. My take on it is that all the teams try to bend the rules and each ref has his own Interpretation of keeping the 10 and just how long he will allow the defenders to hold down without calling a penalty.The team who does these things right to the limit generally win the game I'd say?Hull/Radford have Bentham on a string this year and seem to play him spot on,added in the Fonua hip hop routine every time he's tackled milking penalties generally simulating football style. Enjoy the semi final and good luck

The reason for poor quality is because they are not accountable. They can put in what ever performance and they continue the week after. There isn't enough of them. The move to full time doesn't work, they haven't improved any since that move. Have more available, and make them accountable, and an improvement would be quick.

For over 60 years I have never felt the standard of RL referees has been good enough or they are as good as RU referees.

I would call for the refs to apply the rules sympathetically which means not blowing up for first offences that are not affecting play but warn the player concerned that he will penalise next time he sees it. Above all they should be consistent and maintain fairness. I favour having second referees and having help from the VR. If there is doubt in a try being scored the question posed of the VR is simply 'is there any reason for not awarding the try'? and this should include forward passes.

I agree with a few different people on this thread. Personally I don't think there's been a decline in the quality of refereeing, I just think it could be better. However there are, I think, some unreasonable expectations put on to referees. They are expected to get every single decision right in every game because every decision is scrutinised minutely and, due to the way the game has evolved, every decision is important due to the impact it has on possession and field position. I think this is unreasonable for 2 reasons. 1 - the speed of the game and 2 - the referee has literally thousands of decisions to make in every game.

When you start looking at how many decisions a referee has to make it's no wonder they get sone wrong and miss some. A ref has to decide if all 13 defenders were onside, if all attackers who touch the ball are onside, if every pass is forward or not, if every tackle is below the head/neck, if there was interference or holding down, if the ball was played correctly and if every contact from both defender and attacker is legal. On every single tackle/play-the-ball which there must be what? 350+ per game.

I think there are obviously issues with recruitment and retention of referees, we've heard on here previously stories about how little support refs are given lower down the system and of course it's well known how much unnecessary abuse they receive in the amateur leagues.
However I think Gotcha has a point on the full time nature of the officials. Either we need a lot more of them full time and need to pay them significantly more so that we don't lose them to other professions, or go back to part time.

Personally I also think the game is too fast for 1 man to adequately referee. I think we need some kind of "2nd ref" system to help the referee out.

We could also do with Sky not focussing so much on every single decision. It's frankly laughable that they have Stuart Cummings as part of the commentary team and shows what their aim is for their production.

Unfortunately RL is pretty unique, in my opinion, in sport. It has far, far more decisions for a referee to make than say football but unlike Union where many "wrong" reffing decisions are hidden from view in the rucks and mauls, RL is open for everyone to see when the ref gets something wrong.

plus every decision nowadays is magnified on tv, as in other sports.

thought child had another good game today too

Not seen today's game yet, but it felt like BBC were avoiding any possible refereeing controversy (where possible), enough to notice.

That seemed to stand out, versus Sky commentary team I usually hear picking as much fault as possible whether it's there or not. I don't remember noticing similar watching NRL.

Having said all that, I've just seen the Wigan v Salford game today and I have no idea why a penalty try wasn't given when Tomkins was sinbinned.

Thaler rightly identified Tomkins as interfering with the Salford man before he got the ball but that is absolutely, 100% a penalty try. That's a silly and big mistake.

Ive said this before but there are four things wrong with refereeing in RL.

1, there arent enough referees. Too few at all level of the games leaves us with a position where we the refs we have are the best we have got but unfortunately there arent of a high enough quality. This is because not only do too few start and too many stop at a low level but also because we lose a ridiculous amount of the few elite ones we have.

I've mentioned before, as part of academy contracts all players should be trained to be referees, should have to referee youth/amateur games which would not only give them an idea about what its like to referee a game, but also some of those who don't make it will have a natural affinity for it and naturally some will filter to refereeing as a way of staying in the game.

2. The rules themselves. They are written and officiated in a way that invites controversy. We sometimes try and force rules to be black and white and that sometimes forces a referee to make what feels to everyone like a wrong decision.

3. We hamstring ourselves with the process we take. Take for example the VR. He is a fully trained, fully qualified referee. He is probably of a high position to the touch judges. He should be consulted constantly. On Report seems a bit mental when you remember we have someone sat there with all the angles doing nothing other than watching incidents. What is the benefit of saying hang on lets look at that later when it can be done now?

4. The ruck. its a mess. A complete lottery. I think its random nature builds a lot of the resentment towards refs.

Id like to add i thought Child had a pretty good game today and Bentham had a decent one yesterday aswell.

Id also add that Thaler/Child came in for a bit of criticism today regarding the Tomkins sin-binning but it was a very brave and very correct decision but it also felt a very harsh and a very impactful decision. Had Tomkins been the attacking player and had the same contact with the opposition fullback before he scored it would have certainly been ruled out and nobody would have argued with it. I remember a game winning try Briscoe scored after the hooter v Hudds once after numerous kicks and offloads which was disallowed because of a 'push' on Brough which had far less contact than Tomkins had. It should be the same for the attacker as defender which means it was a penalty, which means it was a professional foul. Saying that i would be frustrated as a fan as it would feel like the punishment fit the crime.

Ha, you must have posted whilst i was writing. It was a very correct decision by Thaler and a very brave decision by Child. It was exactly right.

The reason i dont think it was a penalty try is that they couldnt be sure he would both have caught the ball and got it down. Though i could be convinced by a good argument that we should change that very high standard.