Related coverage
Referee Ben Cummins sends David Fa'alogo to the bin with captain Roy Asotasi in the centre in the NRL Rugby League Round 25 South Sydney Rabbitohs v Sydney Roosters at Sydney Olympic Stadium, Saturday, September 1st, 2007. Sydney Roosters 26 bt South Sydney 12. AAP Image/Action Photographics/Colin Whelan
Having watched rugby league for the majority of my life, I am still left with a perplexing question of why referees seem to pick and choose the rules that they want to police.
It seems to have become an unwritten rule that certain rules have lesser importance in the mind of the ref while others are overdone. On the “less important” side of this ledger seem to be scrum feeds, walking off the mark at the play the ball, being onside (particularly wingers and centres while defending their line) and interfering with players while they play the ball.
On the overdone side of the ledger are knock-ons (every dropped ball apparently goes magnetically to the oppositions try-line), tight-heads (if one of these rare gems occur the refs repack the scrum), obstruction (but only if a try is scored) and off-side by a chaser (only if a try is scored).
At what point do the refs think that some rules are okay to be ignored and others policed to the absolute letter of the law? I think that certain illegal play is more dangerous than others, but all referee decisions influence the outcome of a game.
The difference between a ball being “stripped” and one simply lost can easily win or lose a game, so why is this decision such as toss of a coin? We are seeing the outcomes of games becoming more and more influenced by refereeing decisions, such as in the sin-binning of Mat Rogers (for reasons unknown) at a critical time of the Titans-Broncos game, while probably a dozen other indiscretions (by both teams) went unpenalised.
Another glaring rule variation occurred during the recent State of Origin series. Now we all know that the rules are a bit more lax in this arena, but the unpenalised and unprovoked attacks on players’ heads, necks and the presence of multiple “flop” tackles left me amazed.
Now don’t think for a minute that I want the game to be less tough or more disturbed by the refs, but I think every fan over the last 12 months has been absolutely stunned by a ridiculous ruling which cost a game, for example, the Bulldogs end of game try versus the Dragons last year – in which the video-ref managed to find a tiny possible indiscretion at the half-way line which cost the Dogs the game. I don’t know anyone who thought this was not a try.
I think that the bottom line is, if the rules are a bit “grey” in a certain area, the administrators of the game must change them to make them more “black and white”. Until this happens, the refs will continue to be used as “whipping-boys” and their “toss of a coin” decisions with continue to make a mockery of the game people love, and I am sure will cost the game priceless bums on seats.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
The Crowd Says (2) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- Mat Rogers, NRL, referral system, Rugby League, rugby league referees, State Of Origin
July 18th 2010 @ 11:19am
Cugel said | July 18th 2010 @ 11:19am | Report comment
* Penalty minimisation. This is a Good Thing overall, IMO, so I guess in order to get it done some things have to be overlooked.
* “This week’s topic”. They often seem to come out one week and concentrate on one aspect, only to more or less forget it the next week.
*Too hard basket. This one does annoy me. Mainly concerns the VR, whereupon making an decision that isn’t supported by the general viewing audience, instead just putting their hand up and saying “Got it wrong”, they allow looser and looser interpretations of the rules. So we now get nonsense like the Soward incident, and bounced ball tries. All of which can vary wildly in application.
* Fiddling with the rules. Not really the refs fault, but stupid rules produce stupid outcomes. Most glaringly in the stripping, and high tackle department. The atom decays, or it doesn’t, we don’t know until the whistle blows.
* Bottom line. Having said all that, on field refereeing is hard, and everyone has their own opinion on what just happened, usually with the aid of a bunch replays.
July 20th 2010 @ 11:18am
sledgeandhammer said | July 20th 2010 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Great call, particularly regarding the knock on. I actually think they should change the name of the knock on rule to ‘lost ball’ rule. Every time a player loses the ball a knock is called – it makes no difference if the ball is knocked on or knocked back. This frequently happens at the play the ball. The player loses momentary control as he places ball on ground, and a knock on is called. Usually the ball is being pushed backwards between the legs. So the infringement is the loss of control over the ball, not the direction in which the ball was travelling.