These shocking refereeing decisions are making a mockery of our game. We, the true-blue fans, regardless of who we support, just want, for better or worse, the games to be decided by the players, not by the bloke with the whistle.

What's so hard about it? These refs are on $300,000 a year to run onto that field where they don't so much as get their shorts dirty.

You'd think that sort of salary would buy some pretty trustworthy adjudication. Instead, between them and the bunker (who really should have no excuse), we're getting a relentless string of mistakes, unfair outcomes and the resultant continual apologies from Annesley.

Related content:

You'd have to assume that part of the problem lies in the balancing act the referees are having to perform between enforcing the rules of the game while simultaneously attempting to manufacture all of these cliff-hanger finishes the game's top brass seem to have decided we all require in order to keep watching.

It's all in the name of "Entertainment" - the "E" word which is plaguing our modern sporting world.

I wrote last week about the head of the A-League, Greg O'Rourke, telling his various coaches that, with the competition restart, the onus is on them to push their teams into providing "entertaining football," ('product' he called it) and that he wasn't interested in seeing nil-all draws.

This exhortation bears a bit more looking into: Is he seriously suggesting that soccer fans want to see more goals? How many? Ten? Fifteen a match? Well then let's just make the nets bigger.

And while we're at it, let's move the Aussie Rules posts further apart, make the snooker pockets wider and expand the triple-twenty box on dartboards. Where does it end?

The unfortunate truth is that, as silly as the above sounds, it is indicative of the larger, general sporting trend.

Making the soccer goals larger has been discussed at administrative levels much higher than you would hope.

And rule changes - everywhere - the vast majority of which are aimed purely towards creating spectacle. Entertainment.

People may be "entertained" by these contrived rugby league draws that are then decided in a golden point upset ... but I reckon it's a cheap form of entertainment; an insubstantial junk-food substitute for a special event.

See, as everybody knows, part of the beauty of soccer is that the goals happen so rarely that when there is one it's a proper moment; and you need to have been watching, to have invested.

It's like being a genuine supporter of a sport and a side. You cop the losses; that's part of the deal. Losing a lot makes the winning so much sweeter.

In this modern environment it appears that everybody believes they should be winning all the time, and if they're not they sack the coach.

"Entertainment" for television audiences should not be a factor in our modern rugby league refereeing. We just want the best team to win. Is that too much to ask?