Wasn't it a 50/50 vote, with the RFL making the decision by proxy? That's what I read anyway.





Unless you work for the RFL and have access to that kind of information, no-one will truly "know", but this is a discussion forum and people are entitled to discuss ideas. Personally, I think if you make the officials part-time again (as there definitely hasn't been a significant increase in standards to justify the money), that would free up enough to pay a second referee at games.

And he already answered your question about where they'd come from, something I agree with. It's a cop out to use the "not enough referees of standard" argument if the referees are going to be halving the workload. The standard wouldn't need to be as high as they wouldn't have as much to do, so there'd be plenty available.





The word has two meanings. Looking at the context, it's pretty obvious what meaning was meant. Wind your neck in.

We have a TV pundit here who appears on our major mid-week TV NRL show who said the worst thing that has happened in the game here in recent times has been the introduction of 2 referees and we should go back to one. He is an ex-Australian and NSW Blues player called Mark Geyer. Referees are currently under scrutiny here too especially after State of Origin 1.

what's been the general consencus in Oz regarding the Inglis try ? Did the pundits & general public in Oz generally agree or disagree with the decision ?



over here it whipped up a healthy debate on the forums and I think it's fair to say that the majority thought the it was a definite NO try !

Just been reading what is now my local paper the St. Helens Star. In it there is a piece written by Jon Wilkin talking about the farcical decision to allow Dobsons try. It also says that Ganson asked his touch judge if it was ok and the touch judge said it was.

Still a c***

The majority of the panel on this show said it was a try. The only general Public poll taken a day after the match that I have seen, conducted by a major Sydney newspaper, was 65/35 "no try".( About 1500 respondents).

MG's an idiot, passionate about RL but an idiot.

Harrigan told Trent Barrett that it wasn't a try, then backed his ref's in the press conference.

Who witnessed this conversation between Harrigan and Barrett? Harrigan admits he walked to the car park with Barrett and they discussed aspects of the match but denies saying he told Barrett he thought it was not a try. Barrett said he did, so unless there was a third party present who knows the true facts? Surely your post should have began "Harrigan allegedly told Trent Barrett........."

Well were not in a court of law.



Harrigan's hanging on by his finger nails.

Unlike you I am not in the habit of calling anyone an idiot but will agree about his passion for RL.Out here in the Penrith area he does massive work for the School and youth teams and is highly commended and respected in this activity. Admittedly he has some controversial views which is probably the reason he is currently on the NRL Fox show. His comment about a return to 1 referee was typical MG and he is in the minute minority I believe!

He jumps on headlines without reading them through.



The games to fast to go back to one ref.



I'm not knocking him on his work with youth and in the community though.