Post-match protests in rugby league
By Dean - Surry Hills, 19 Sep 2012 Dean - Surry Hills is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- NRL, nrl referees, Rugby League
Why should the result of an NRL match be set in stone upon the completion of the final play after the full time siren has sounded?
What if foul play, refereeing blunders, and oversights that affected the outcome were examined and rectified immediately after the game?
The same courtesies are extended to those involved with The Sport of Kings.
Horse racing has had a system in place for more than a century that reviews the outcome of a result should a jockey, trainer, or owner believe that an opponent has benefited by failing to adhere to the rules and regulations, or through a show of poor horsemanship.
The protest in horse racing is either upheld or dismissed. Nervous punters anxiously await the decision of the racing stewards when a large chunk of change falls upon the wisdom of officialdom, and the ability of the affected jockeys to remonstrate and plead their cases.
Final field positions can sometimes take more than an hour with each case deliberated with great attention to detail. Consideration is applied by those responsible that extend to the owners, trainers, jockeys, bookmakers, and punters who ultimately sustain the entire industry.
Should not a similar system be adopted for the NRL? Recently the game has become ensconced within multiple betting agencies who offer odds on numerous outcomes – many of which are resultant upon the total points scored, margins of each game, and the individual try scorers.
One incorrectly awarded try can result in a loss for a punter instead of a healthy win. Foul play, oversights, and refereeing errors could be noted through the game and then reviewed after the match by coaches, captains and officials in a similar fashion to a horse racing stewards’ enquiry.
An illegal strip from a Cowboys player in last week’s match that led to a try against the Eagles just a few plays later would have been reviewed, and then revoked. The score would have been adjusted accordingly, as would the try and conversion from a contentious knock-on where the Sea Eagles were rewarded.
Score lines, and in some instances the result, would change after everyone had sat down at a table together and reviewed the footage for each instance in which a protest was lodged after being considered dubious.
The system could develop autonomously and be slowly perfected on a week to week basis. Players who bent the rules to gain unsportsmanlike advantages would be publicly humiliated post match, and the referees could be publicly exonerated. Players would now have to set an example that all junior players could aspire to in regards to fair play and sportsmanship.
Cheating would no longer be acceptable, or tolerated once the outcome of a match could be reversed – or as the stewards might say “Protest Upheld”.
Incidents that were missed by the officials could be rectified. Tries denied, others allowed, and score lines adjusted. The punters who deserved to win would be rewarded, while those who got lucky through human error and/or blatant cheating would have their payout revoked.
The results would be interim and no different to horse racing until the officials finalised the event in its entirety. It may be a few hours on some nights before the official result was announced, but isn’t that better than a year of moaning about how you were robbed?
Footy tipping comps would be far more accurate, as would scores in Fantasy competitions. Fans would feel as though justice had been served on a far more regular basis.
Coaches and captains would be heard fairly at the game’s completion and their angst with both officials and opponents dealt with immediately rather than the current simmering, boiling, and stewing process that lasts for weeks, months and years. The Press would have plenty to pen besides the anti-refereeing semantics currently doing the rounds.
Players would begin showing a higher level of courtesy and respect to the on-field referees, knowing that their protests will be heard at the completion of the match. Referees could get on with their jobs knowing that a player isn’t going to question each and every decision Mick Ennis style.
Coaches wouldn’t be blowing their stacks in the boxes to the delight of lip readers across the country.
Refs would back themselves to make the right call based on feel and gut instinct.
Players would begin to display integrity, knowing that incorrect scoring decisions would later be reversed. The game would flow like never before. Giddy up.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- How to increase crowd numbers in the NRL (181)
- How rugby league should expand (132)
- All I am saying is give Pearce a chance (123)
- Why do NRL fans love empty seats? (115)
- Let me tell you why people don’t like Manly (103)
- Ease up on ASADA: NRL boss (90)
- It’s time for Channel Nine to get serious about the NRL (89)
- Whittling down the Blues contenders for State of Origin I (2)
- Where were you when sport sold its soul? (2)
- Time for the NRL to introduce silver point
- A Blues Origin jumper for everyone? Why not
- Dugan for Origin? Lay off the Breezers! (2)
- NRL golden point must get the flick (3)
- Cronulla Sharks fighting a war they can’t win (3)
- Where were you when sport sold its soul? (2)
- Time for the NRL to introduce silver point (0)
- A Blues Origin jumper for everyone? Why not (1)
- NRL golden point must get the flick (3)
- Cronulla Sharks fighting a war they can’t win (3)
- NRL Power Rankings week 10: Where is your team ranked this week (0)
- Melbourne Storm vs Manly Sea Eagles: NRL live scores, blog (147)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- NRL, nrl referees, Rugby League

September 19th 2012 @ 6:28am
steve b said | September 19th 2012 @ 6:28am | Report comment
Dean i love it great idea ,,it will never happen but top read great laugh ,,it’s to sensible for the NRL.. It takes them an age to change anything something this big would take them 20yrs to sort out …..lol
September 19th 2012 @ 6:42am
Nafe said | September 19th 2012 @ 6:42am | Report comment
Stupid idea and can not work. Weather a try or no try, the opposite decision changes the game and the momentum of the team.
In Horseracing If you take one horse out it doesn’t change the position of the others in the field. But in a game like Rugby League. 1 disallowed try could totally change te momentum of the game. If disallowing a try or even allowing one for that matter after a game incorrectly changes the score as the team couldn’t take advantage of te momentum change from the decision which more rhan likely could mean a 12 point or more turnaround
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
September 20th 2012 @ 6:59am
Dean - Surry Hills said | September 20th 2012 @ 6:59am | Report comment
Nafe, each and every game is a two horse race.
September 19th 2012 @ 7:54am
mushi said | September 19th 2012 @ 7:54am | Report comment
But seriously this really isn’t the most thought out idea right.
For starters who give an Iraqi Shiite if it affects gambling outcomes. Gambling is supposed to be on the outcome of the game not the game being an outcome of gambling right. Everyone keeps prattling on about the referees right so their variability is a known factor, you need to provide for that when assessing the odds of something. If you don’t it is your failure to assess risk not the NRL’s failure to make the game an outlet for addiction.
Even allowing for the new gambling commission lets say I protest a knock on call that is over turned in the first five minutes of match. How do we say that changes the game. Would I have scored or not? Would the opponent have scored their next try or not? Would the battle of field position have changed? Would the next error have been committed, given it is highly unlikely that player would have received the ball in that position under the same circumstances? Would putting people in different positions have tired out players who later affected the game through having more energy left?
Think of all those time travel movies where they plead with the guy to not change anything because of the unknown and wide ranging consequences.
That’s basically what you are doing here except you are saying they will be able to predict with 100% accuracy what effects any change will have. Now assuming we found the first human being that can do this isn’t using them to adjudicate on NRL squabbles perhaps a waste of their truly unique talent?
I would have thought perhaps the UN security council, a research fellow in some field of medicine or, if they are more selfishly inclined, the managing partner of a hedge fund would be a more beneficial calling for the first human being who can predict the future.
September 19th 2012 @ 10:10pm
dogforlife said | September 19th 2012 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
At the risk of sounding ignorant I would have thought a more benefical calling for the first human being who can predict the future would have been psychic then again maybe Bill or Ted.
September 20th 2012 @ 6:57am
Dean - Surry Hills said | September 20th 2012 @ 6:57am | Report comment
mushi – this is an exceptionally long-winded post centered on those with a hankering for the crystal ball. Penalty tries already exist in our game, and an official must gaze long and hard into their magical glass domes to determine if a try was definitely going to be scored or not, albeit for the foul play of an opponent.
I would say that an increasingly large percentage of punters, clubs, officials, and fans definitely give an Iraqi Shiite about the precise outcomes of matches given the absurd amount of revenue that is injected into the game through betting agencies of late – you are not the only one champ, and I doubt that your attempts at prohibition as a keyboard warrior are likely to have any influence on those affected, however I wish you the greatest of luck.
September 20th 2012 @ 8:43am
mushi said | September 20th 2012 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Sorry about how long winded it was it’s just you wrote around 20 paragraphs that basically said – I got duded because I didn’t know refs could make mistakes and we should make the NRL a vehicle for betting first and if someone still wants to actually watch it good on them.
As to the crystal ball if you think your “solution” doesn’t require one then you are essentially saying that the world has no cause and effect.
Yes referees when ruling on penalty tries need to make a judgement on a few seconds into the future, and make a call before allowing play to continue. But they don’t need to then guess as to the web of cause and effect their decision has over the rest of the game as they get the real life outcome when play restarts. Massive difference.
Also I’m not for prohibition and never suggested we ban gambling, I gamble. I too lost out on the Manly/NQ game as the cowboys didn’t cover the spread I took. I just don’t squeal like a stuck pig and ask to change the game when I lose.
I think it would be a terrible outcome if we should alter the game just to allow for better gambling outcomes.
You want games and events built just for gambling there are plenty available – the track and the casino are right there.
You want to add to the excitement of watching a sports match with a flutter – then accept the rules of the sports match (one of those rules being the referee’s decision is final). If you want to be a “professional” gambler then being more aware of the variables than the market should create an advantage.
September 20th 2012 @ 9:33am
Dean - Surry Hills said | September 20th 2012 @ 9:33am | Report comment
mushi – you are deluding yourself if you are of the belief that the game has not already changed significantly due to its association with betting agencies. The massive payday that the NRL received is largely funded by these agencies. Their advertising and corporate sponsorship is in everyone’s face 24/7, as it is in AFL.
Punters who ultimately provide the necessary cash to sustain these industries, as they do in horse racing, demand an even playing surface. You may not squeal like a stuck pig when you unjustly lose, but a great percentage of the current lamenting is more than justified. There’s an old saying that the squeaky wheel gets oiled (or replaced). Currently there are a vast number of people who believe that results are being fixed – just look at some articles that are doing the rounds, and you will understand that the problem is ballooning and needs to be pricked.
September 19th 2012 @ 8:19am
sledgeross said | September 19th 2012 @ 8:19am | Report comment
So, because the refs missed a loose carry/strip, Manly should have been retrospectively stripped of their win. No thanks.
I like the thinking outside the box though mate.
I like Dessies suggestion of the onfield refs adjudicating on teh sideline like the NFL. Makes sense because the refs are usually on teh spot and have an opinion.
September 19th 2012 @ 9:33am
mushi said | September 19th 2012 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I think that’s where benefit of the doubt should go back to refs call. If the video evidence doesn’t give a picture either way send it back to the person who experienced it real time. Achieves the same thing as the sideline
But I guarantee you this. If we go sideline with the referee reviewing it on a tiny little screen Des will go nuts at the first away game where he’s the victim of a contentious decision claiming that the referee is able to be influenced by the crowd when he reviews it on the sideline, or he doesn’t have the technology to get clear look, of that he’d already made his mind up etc.
Des will whinge about the referees no matter what happens.
September 19th 2012 @ 8:23am
Stevo said | September 19th 2012 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Awesome read, I had a good laugh. I think we should replace the refs with a council of 10, which after every play debate and report their decision within 2 minutes. This will ensure that the game never gets a wrong call again. It also extends the length of the game for advertisers, win win.
September 19th 2012 @ 1:31pm
Stu said | September 19th 2012 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
Awesome idea!!!
September 19th 2012 @ 8:24am
eagleJack said | September 19th 2012 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Dean Im assuming this is a satirical piece and therefore written tongue-in-cheek.
September 19th 2012 @ 10:04am
Nostradamus said | September 19th 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Did hasler ever pay the fine after his post match comments. If he did it was worth it becuasue he got the refs calls the next week.
Will NQ cozach Henry be fined for his post match comments???
September 19th 2012 @ 11:19am
planko said | September 19th 2012 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Does not sound like Henry has been fined yet ?
September 19th 2012 @ 10:06am
jameswm said | September 19th 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
I’ve been out of action – but how is it that everyone missed that Thurston’s hand, blocked from that camera angle by the Mnly hand, seemed to knock the ball? The Manly hand may have as well, but Thurston’s obscured hand clearly hit the ball. There was doubt.
Have others been pointing this out?
September 19th 2012 @ 11:01am
mushi said | September 19th 2012 @ 11:01am | Report comment
So what you are saying is you believe there was doubt as to whether it was a knock (by manly) on or a double knock on (cowboys first/manly second). both of which result in the play stopping
September 19th 2012 @ 11:10am
mushi said | September 19th 2012 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Even then the ball never goes forward of Thurston so a double knock on is very tough to support
September 19th 2012 @ 3:07pm
jameswm said | September 19th 2012 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
I am certain Thurston’s hand hit it. Problem is, Thurston’s hand is obscured in the main angle they show, so almost everyone missed that. I don’t think it’s certain Foran’s hand hit it, but they need to show it from another angle.
September 19th 2012 @ 5:09pm
mushi said | September 19th 2012 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
So really your problem is everyone else believing Foran touched it (including now Foran). Because whether or not they discussed Thurston’s hand means nothing as it never travelled forward so it is about as relevant as the flavour of the slurpee being served at the closest seven eleven
September 19th 2012 @ 11:05am
Pot Stirrer said | September 19th 2012 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Why would anybody watch a game if you dont know the result at full time.
September 20th 2012 @ 7:09am
Dean - Surry Hills said | September 20th 2012 @ 7:09am | Report comment
At a guess, I would say 90% of outcomes would still be known at full time. The iffy 10% of matches would be rigorously debated post match. More often than not, a scoreline would be adjusted, rather than a result.