One Referee

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Good.

The less officials in the pie the better.

[bondi.boy]

Good, less cost.
Good, one referee to blame for any errors, seemed bias, and any foul play and/or thuggery let go.

[Rooster1908]

Game was better under one ref

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Good...autonomy, no power struggles on the park.

[Old Man Rooster]

If one referee means less stoppages and confusion then great. The bunker or video ref (same shit, different names) is fine as long as they can make a fast decision.

[Mickie Lane]

Whether their is one or two refs there will always be whinging.

[zac]

imagine if they'd been only 1 ref in the GF. Sutton's call of 6 again would have stood, we would have kept them out for that 6 and raiders fans would have had nothing to whinge about.

[Hawkeye]

Whether their is one or two refs there will always be whinging.

this !
they whinged when there was one ref. Now they whinge about 2 refs ….. give us 3 ref's or go back to 1 ...doesnt matter everyone will still whinge. Whilst ever a human holds the whistle and there are plenty of cameras watching their every move, there'll be whinging.

[JAF]

Good move - this should at least result in more consistent interpretations of the rules for the entire 80 mins ...

[Mad_Rabid_Rooster]

This is good, for a few reasons:

1. Having one ref worked for 100 odd years. We didn't need to change (just like doing away with drawn games);
2. There is less chance of us getting a referee that we don't like / is notably biased against us;
3. Brings us back into line with the rules of the international game;
4. Saves some money at a time when it really needs to be saved; and
5. Hopefully it will lead to less confusion and fewer contradictions during a game.

[SupermanSupportsEasts4Eva]

I think the game was better with one ref.

Only concern is with so much camera footage there's going to be more criticism of mistakes. There's no way the bunker will be fast enough to overrule mistakes in the ruck/forward passes/off sides etc.

[Mickie Lane]

This is good, for a few reasons:

1. Having one ref worked for 100 odd years. We didn't need to change (just like doing away with drawn games);
2. There is less chance of us getting a referee that we don't like / is notably biased against us;
3. Brings us back into line with the rules of the international game;
4. Saves some money at a time when it really needs to be saved; and
5. Hopefully it will lead to less confusion and fewer contradictions during a game.

Good luck with the on side & the play the ball all happening at once. The media will whinge even harder because 1 ref will miss more small things & fans will just whinge because thats what fans do.

[The Skeez]

Good luck with the on side & the play the ball all happening at once. The media will whinge even harder because 1 ref will miss more small things & fans will just whinge because thats what fans do.

There may be less whinge from the media I f we rid Channel 9 from the game.

It is hard to think of a sports rights broadcaster in another sport that continually denigrates a sport as incessantly as Nine do with rugby league.

[Johnny Brass]

I think the games too quick for one referee these days , the players are too athletic and it will only lead to more problems in the play the ball.

[JAF]

With one ref, the touchies will need to be more active with helping police the ruck and offside infringements.