Referee Discretion = Referee Discrepancy: Why Our Rules Must Remove Ambiguity

Across every sport we’ve analysed: Touch, Tag, Rugby League, AFL, Oztag, and emerging social formats, the same pattern appears: where referees are given discretionary power, discrepancies follow.

This isn’t theory. It’s observable, repeatable, and supported by real case data.

What the Data Shows

Looking at match footage and referee reports across multiple codes, three trends appear consistently:

1. Higher Discretion = Higher Conflict
Incidents involving protest, confusion, or disagreements almost always originate from rules requiring judgment: “advantage,” “intent,” “momentum,” “sufficient effort,” or “material impact.”

2. Same Rule, Different Outcomes
Two referees with equal experience can apply the same rule differently when interpretation is subjective, and both can technically be “correct.”

3. Dispute Rate Correlates With Ambiguity
Rules with ambiguous language produce dispute rates up to 4-6x higher compared to binary rules (e.g., foot on the line, clear knock-on, incorrect restart position).

None of this is a referee problem.
It’s a system design problem.

Why This Matters for Us

Fours is fast. As fast as traditional Touch. Faster than Tag and other social sport variations of Rugby League. Decisions come at speed, with less setup time and more transitional play.

A referee cannot stand in the middle of a 4v4 counterattack and interpret intentions.
The game is not built for it.

If our rules contain grey areas, then:

• The same action could be a penalty on Field 1 but play-on on Field 2.

• Players will challenge decisions not because they disagree, but because the rule itself allows disagreement.

• Referees lose confidence because the system hasn’t given them a clear framework.

This is exactly what we are engineering against.

How We’re Eliminating Discretion-Based Discrepancy

We’ve audited every single rule within the Fours Touch ecosystem using three filters:

1. Can two referees interpret this differently?

If yes → rewrite.

2. Can this rule be applied in under one second?

If no → simplify or remove.

3. Is this rule measurable?

If it relies on “judgement,” “intent,” or “feel” → it’s restructured into a binary outcome.

This approach has already led to rule adjustments such as:

• clearer definitions around contact vs obstruction

• binary kick-off and restart positions

• simplified scoring rulings to remove interpretation

• consistent defensive and ruck standards

The objective is simple:
discrepancy becomes a data point, not an ongoing problem.

Our Ongoing Commitment

We are building a sport where:

• officials can referee confidently without guesswork

• players always know what to expect

• coaches can teach without ambiguity

• every field in every competition feels the same

• the rulebook is clear enough to minimise conflict and maximise flow

Referee discretion will always exist in edge cases, that’s the nature of sport.
But discretion should never be the default setting.
Not for a sport that aims to be the most predictable, transparent, and consistent format in the small-sided game landscape.

We’re not just saying this.
We’re designing our system around it.

Because when rules remove ambiguity, referees succeed, and when referees succeed, the sport grows.