THE RL1908 BLOG

News, Reviews & Opinion - Sean Fagan - RL1908.com

A recent article ("Two refs better than one") points towards the NRL's determination to trial a two referee system in the NYC later in 2008.

My initial concern is that there could be consistency issues, particularly over the 10m rule and how the ruck is policed.

Having imagined how this will look on the field and on the tv screen, raises a bigger concern - well, at least to me it does...

With what I'll call a "ruck referee" standing over the top of the tackling and play-the-ball, all I get is a mental picture akin to a scene from a boxing contest or World Championship Wrestling.

It just seems to me that rather than finding ways to eliminate the wrestling as much as we can from our game, we are instead going down the path of managing the wrestling problem.

Are we comfortable having a referee jump into the middle of our tv screen at every play-the-ball? That is about 400 times every game!

There he'll be, standing over the protaginists barking out instructions to break the clench - and no doubt, we'll get to hear all this incessant chatter as well (not just on tv, but in radio broadcasts too).

The need for a 2nd referee at all has only evolved following the 10m rule and a mistaken belief that it was about creating a faster game, when really it was just about creating space.

Still, we are where we are, and referees at all levels now have much higher physical demands placed upon them.

To me, the perceived imperitave to have a "ruck referee" provides further confirmation that the play-the-ball process - once merely a means to re-start the game - is now the game itself. We all hear "winning the ruck battle" repeated over and over as the new dogma of the game.

The great Frank Hyde - as fine a student of the game as any - argued when the 10m rule was introduced that there was no need for it. "We already had 10m!" he would say.

Hyde pointed out that the rules had not only required the defence to stand back 5m from the ruck, but the attack to stand back 5m as well.

To me, many of the criticisms of the modern game's blandness, wrestling, lack of speculative passes, chip-kicks and off-loads, and increasing predicability of play, all stem from the 10m rule, and the free 10m that the attack is gifted at each play-the-ball.

It is a sad reality that it is a better option to succumb to a tackle rather than chance an Arthur Beetson-like off-load. It is better, if you want to win, to play mindless, no-risk footy from the dummy-half, hit-ups and fifth tackle kicks.

If we are to have a trial of two referees, lets keep the 10m space, but put the play-the-ball dead in the middle, and have a referee standing with the defence and the attack, ensuring each team is 5m from the ruck.

This two referee system (with a 5m/5m rule instead of 10m) should remove the need for defenders to wrestle and "dance" with attackers etc. It would also force attack to work laterally into space, instead of cheap dummy-half scoots and one-off hit-ups looking to eat up the easy 10m on offer at each tackle.

Put 2 referees out there - one on each 5m line - and they can easily patrol the ruck from that distance - and the 2nd set of eyes might just mean less need for a video ref.

I think Frank Hyde new the answer was there all along.