World Cup proves that the NRL does not need two on-field referees to officiate each game
THE one thing we have learnt from the opening weekend of the World Cup is that one referee is the way of the future in the NRL, writes Phil Rothfield.
NRL
Don't miss out on the headlines from NRL. Followed categories will be added to My News.
THE one thing we have learnt from the opening weekend of the World Cup is that one referee is the way of the future in the NRL.
On Friday night referee Matt Cecchin blew just three penalties in the Kangaroos v England game and the match flowed beautifully.
The outside backs ran more metres than the forwards, a rarity these days. Josh Dugan ran 271, Billy Slater 220, Dane Gagai 190 and Will Chambers 152.
It was the same for England wingers Jermaine McGillvary and Ryan Hall, who made a combined 400m. (Isn’t McGillvary an outstanding player?)
If that’s not a great advertisement for fast, open and free-flowing rugby league, what is?
On Saturday night I did a poll on Twitter. Who is liking the one referee?
Yes: 84% No: 8%. Not sure: 8%. Now that’s about as overwhelming as you get.
Bill Harrigan has forgotten more about refereeing than most of us know. He is the best of all time. He, too, supports the one referee.
“(Refs boss) Tony Archer has bastardised the two-refereeing model,” Harrigan said. “It doesn’t work.
MORE BUZZ: Highlights, lowlights, talking points
“The big thing is consistency and taking responsibility for all decisions.
“When you’ve got two and one of them makes a decision you don’t necessarily agree with, you’ve got to wear it even as the lead ref. Let the games flow and give one man full control of his decisions.”
Harrigan said fitness wouldn’t be an issue. They train so hard as full-time professionals with almost as much sports science available to them as the players.
“They can hardly get any fitter,” he said. “To say that one referee couldn’t keep up with the game is rubbish. That’s why they are all full-time professionals. If they are not fit enough to do a game one-out they shouldn’t be refereeing.”
One referee would also give the touch judges more responsibility.
And seriously, what do they do know?
Put them in charge of policing the 10m like in soccer. Make it a consistent 10m.
We’d have a couple of weeks of high penalty counts until players and coaches got the message.
The one referee can then concentrate on the ruck and the wrestling.
The other important issue is the cost saving.
The NRL has 18 full-time referees and 12 touch judges. There’s an emerging referees squad of 13. Others come in from time to time.
And it pays for about eight video reviewers over the weekend in the bunker.
All up the officiating costs are $6 million a season.
The cost savings of millions of dollars each season could go towards grassroots funding.
Most importantly, though, is the improvement to the product. Right now rugby league is over-refereed.
You can get an impression that two referees sometimes try to justify their roles and existence by blowing penalties. There’s too much nitpicking. Unless Chicken Legs Cecchin is in charge.
Of course, Archer remains in favour of the two referees.
But at least Todd Greenberg has vowed to undertake a full comparison review of one ref v two refs at the end of the World Cup.
It will compare the key differences — the physical load on the ref, consistency of the 10m and mistakes — at the end of the 28 games. And then compare that with the NRL competition.
The two-refs system came into the NRL in 2009.
It happened mainly because everyone agreed that one referee could not keep an eye on things such as the grapple and wrestle and still keep a decent 10m.
It hasn’t worked and it’s time for change.