WIZ: Referees have to get it right, every single time
Columnist 
Jarryd Hayne is cornered by two referees. (AAP Image/Action Photographics,Colin Whelan)
Related coverage
Watching last weekend’s games and the brouhaha that erupted following the controversial refereeing decisions made me think about what must be done to get it right and how it was back in my day.
The main difference when I played was that at least you could talk to the referees – and they could talk back to you.
Not that it’d change anything. But there was at least the opportunity to vent your frustrations. Nowadays, the captains of the teams are just shooed away.
The players are struggling to come to terms with that. Johnathan Thurston appealing to the referee that the Cowboys were robbed was an outcry of frustration.
The referees are miked up and recorded, and they know what they say is going to be heard by millions, especially if it’s controversial.
When I was playing, we could at least have a chat and let the referees know what we thought. I used to blow up all the time.
The worst anyone would see back then was us waving our hands, and there was a proper dialogue in place with the referees. Nowadays, you’d be called a sook.
The referees these days can’t say sorry, they can’t say they got it wrong. Too many people are listening.
They already get too much publicity. They’ll make mistakes, but we’d just like to limit them as best we can.
Bill Harrigan came out and said they got it wrong. But as a player, that’s far too late.
Mistakes will be made by referees, just like we see mistakes from our best players. But as fans, commentators, and players, what we don’t accept is that the video referee can make mistakes.
The blokes sitting up in the box just can’t get it wrong. Anything less than 100% is not acceptable.
It’s the biggest issue with all football codes.
The video referees used are the right guys. They’ve refereeed the game, they’ve been around it. When they’re up in the box, they just can’t get it wrong.
They must make the correct decision.
This benefit of the doubt stuff just doesn’t sit well with me either, and it’s a big part of the problem.
The benefit of the doubt goes with the attacking side. But that’s not right. It’s a terrible grey area for the sport.
It’s either a try or not. Any doubt should be no try. A try should only be given if it’s clear. If there’s doubt, it’s no try.
There are too many shades of grey, and they’re all around the benefit of the doubt. Remove that, we remove the grey area, we remove heartache and confusion.
The supporters who are either at the game or watching it can’t understand it. It needs to be addressed right away.
To further remove any problems, we have to open the game to the video referee. I don’t want this to mean constant stoppages.
But we should allow the video referee to examine the game across the board to make sure we get it right.
The game is all about speed and power, and constant stoppages won’t be appreciated. But I have a solution for this.
Stop the game the moment the ball goes out. If the ball is dead, stop the game. Don’t just have time-off for scrums.
This would seriously test the players both mentally and physically.
Would this change for the game for the better?
Fitness would start to be a big factor. The small men would come back into the game. Just having the biggest team wouldn’t be enough. You could further drop the interchange to just six changes if you really wanted to test fitness.
The referees have gone through a number of changes and a huge amount of work in just a few short years. It’s a tough gig.
I couldn’t do it.
I know what I used to say to them and it wasn’t pretty. But they have to get it right and the means have to be there to help them.
Gary 'Wiz' Freeman is one of the great halfbacks in New Zealand rugby league history. Now an outspoken and popular media personality, he joined The Roar in 2012 as an expert rugby league columnist, and continues in 2013.
- Explore:
- NRL, nrl referees, Rugby League
September 24th 2012 @ 8:30am
turbodewd said | September 24th 2012 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Agreed, ‘benefit of the doubt’ cheapens tries and its wording gives no pointers to how much doubt is allowed. Id like the wording changed to match best practice in the NFL. They use the term ‘clear visual evidence’, in other words they only overrule the original call on the field if its clear AND they dont assume anything.
And yes the gameclock should stop when the ball leaves the field.
September 24th 2012 @ 9:47am
Meesta Cool said | September 24th 2012 @ 9:47am | Report comment
The video ref, should only be given playbacks run at normal speed. — if it looks like a try at this speed, then give it! — Without slow motion half of the disputed decisions would never have been spotted by anyone. I never saw Slater drop the ball untill it was slowe down ;; likewise the knock on the previous week.
Sport is played in ‘real time’, let the refereeing decisions be at the same speed. Yup, there is no such thing as benifit of the doubt, it either looks like a try or it doesn’t.
As for ref’s in the past being better at what they did,, “BULLDUST”, depending on which side you were supporting the ref’s have ALWAYS got EVERY decision wrong. this will not change !.
September 24th 2012 @ 10:03am
Meesta Cool said | September 24th 2012 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Add to last comment.. The video ref should only be given one look at each angle , as would a ref in ‘real time’. this frame by frame adjudication is kiling the game. and making the on field/off field refs look stupid!.. Bad for the refs, bad for the game. review it this ‘off season!.
September 24th 2012 @ 8:47am
Shrek said | September 24th 2012 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Why can’t we have reasonable doubt in favour of the attacking team interpretation?
The problem with the current interpretation of benefit of the doubt is that it allows any doubt to be used in favour of the attacking team – and it is this “any doubt” that has caused so much angst in the past 2 weeks.
You can’t tell me that under a reasonable doubt interpretation the Foran hand of god try would have been awarded, but by the same token, a try that appeared legitimate but for which 100% conclusive evidence of grounding didn’t exist would still be awarded.
And this is absolutely the way the game should be refereed.
September 24th 2012 @ 11:15am
GD said | September 24th 2012 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Agree 100%. There is always going to be some doubt, even with the best video replays & Jesus himself sitting up in the box – video can’t see through bodies or goal post padding, for example. In these cases I think it should go to the attacker, simply because they managed to get the ball up to the opponents line in the first place. I think this better fits the spirit of rugby league as a dynamic, flowing, and attacking sport. Adding the requirement that a try be awarded only if there is zero doubt would be a mistake, I think, and contrary to the spirit of the game.
Imagine a situation where a player plants the ball over the line, but the ref was unsighted and the camera angles are obstructed by team-mates. Should this be a no-try?
September 24th 2012 @ 8:51am
Gr8rWeStr said | September 24th 2012 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Refereeing, whether on the field or in the box, involves a human interpretation of what they think they see so getting it 100% right 100% of the time even making greater use of video technology isn’t possible.
I’m happy for technology to be used as much as possible to catch missed calls but it will never be able to eradicate contentious decisions because quite often we see what we expect or want to see. It certainly wouldn’t remove many of the more contentious try decisions made this your, both the Inglis try in Origin and the ‘Foran knock-on’ try against the Cowboys involved the interpretation of what a person thought they saw, the human factor cannot be removed unless somebody invents a robot referee.
I do agree that the best system is that they on-field official make the initial call and its only overturned if there is ‘clear visual evidence’ the decision was wrong, but ‘wrong’ decisions by on-field referees was what brought calls for technology to be introduced in the first place and although it can reduce the number of contentious decisions it can not eradicate them.
September 24th 2012 @ 9:43am
Christo the Daddyo said | September 24th 2012 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Try reading the article before commenting, thanks. Roar Mods.
September 24th 2012 @ 10:07am
Damn Straight said | September 24th 2012 @ 10:07am | Report comment
+2
Last time I checked, referees weren’t robots. Players make mistakes in every game; I guess it’s only logical to assume that the refs will too. Just as fans lament when their team’s halfback throws a wayward pass over the sideline in a crucial part of the game, they also lament that dodgy strip call, or the missing of a forward pass call by the refs.
There does however need to be an overhaul and audit of the system to minimise the negative effects that referees have on the game. Nothing alienates fans and pushes them to AFL more than consistently sub-par refereeing. Having watched some AFL over the last 2 weeks though, I have witnessed many average umpiring decisions. So I don’t think this is a problem that is exclusive to the NRL.
September 24th 2012 @ 11:03am
Hansie said | September 24th 2012 @ 11:03am | Report comment
I’m waiting on an article from an ex-player calling on the players to get it right 100% of the time. Players usually expect perfection from referees, but are more understanding of mistakes by players.
September 24th 2012 @ 11:25am
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
I watched both AFL finals last weekend. Pushes in the back go unpunished, then minor things a free kick. Swans kicked a clear goal Collingwood touched after it already went in, they called it touched so only a behind. AFL isn’t perfect.
However, the touchies are beyond a joke, unless it’s forward 5 metres they never call it (and even then…). They’re bozo’s. Video ref is a nightmare, might as well flip a coin. They’re only operating at 90% “correctness” or whatever Bill keeps bringing up, because 90% of them are black and white and required 1 watch. As soon as it requires a bit of thought they mess it up 50% of the time AT LEAST.
September 24th 2012 @ 4:10pm
Christo the Daddyo said | September 24th 2012 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Roar Mods – yes I did. And here’s the quote that annoyed me:
“When they’re up in the box, they just can’t get it wrong. They must make the correct decision”
It’s a ridiculous statement from someone who should know better. There are so many decisions made by both on field refs and video refs that are contentious – as proven by the vigorous discussion that happens on discussion forums such as this one. Referees are human beings and will always make mistakes, no matter what technology is used.
Why the censorship?
September 24th 2012 @ 9:11am
steve b said | September 24th 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
i just hope we have no crazy call’s from either on field or in the box , and they let the game flow ,so the players are the one’s who decide the game and not the ref’s ……..
September 24th 2012 @ 12:11pm
planko said | September 24th 2012 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Steve B agree with ya mate I am just glad the result was clear and manly played like shite so thus taking all the heat out the argument this week. I know he is signed for next year but Thurston in 2014 ? Bowen is got to be getting close he is on the wrong side of 30 ? What’s happening next year are NQLD going to be up there ? I am worried about Brisbane’s stubborness…. Mate Manly will struggle in the front row next season. I don’t know about you but I am going to struggle to watch this game ….The GF
September 24th 2012 @ 2:50pm
steve b said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
I think it will be played at pace the Storm are going to try and run them off their feet . The dogs will have to try and slow it down without to many penalties .i don’t think after the way the Storm played last week they can be beat ..Yeah don’t know about the Cowboy’s next year ,Manly what the f–k happened to them , someone spiked the water , i just hope Parra can get of the bottom and show some guts .It should be an interesting time in the off season to see what the new commish are going to do in regards the rules and whether or not they are going to introduce the new tech ..Interesting times ahead mate …
September 24th 2012 @ 2:55pm
planko said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
They must have got some water from the T20 have you heard about it …. IMO the storm could struggle I dont think they have a had any good runs. The bunnies were average and Manly was awful. If Manly had played well and it was in Sydney I would rate them a chance but they beat a manly side that gave them 12 drop balls. It should been 30 nil at half time.
September 24th 2012 @ 9:45am
DJN said | September 24th 2012 @ 9:45am | Report comment
U have between 5 and 6 officials on every game yet decisions are still obviously wrong , almost stupidly so , how was Slaters try awarded ? again the rubbish comment that the better team won will see an hoffiific decision swept under the rug.. yet every early score changes the game… I think u need a head referee , and he has to be on the field, the video should rule out on the facts not on the maybes, they are not on the field , if in doubt the onfield make the decision ….if its wrong so be it thats sport…..
September 24th 2012 @ 9:49am
Jack said | September 24th 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Wiz. Agree with most of what you are saying. But as you point out,the game, the players and the officials are not perfect. The video refs were brought in to make it foolproof, and on most occasions they are correct, but viewing different angles of the same incident gives an entirely different impression. The more people involved in decision making, the more problems. We have 2 referees and 2 linesmen and if we can’t accept their judgement then there is no point in playing the game. If it’s all video decisions then I won’t be watching it any more. Get rid of BOTD it’s ridiculous. And completely agree with lessening the number of interchanges. Personally, I wouldn’t have any, and only have replacements due to game ending injuries. The smaller (and usually more creative players) come into their own in the last 20 or so minutes. Don’t know about stopping the clock. The coaches would find a way to manipulate this to their benefit and slow the game down too much. The beauty of Rugby League is that it is so continually moving and it’s virtually the survival of the fittest. Let’s not slow it down.
September 24th 2012 @ 9:57am
Meesta Cool said | September 24th 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
I have a question that irks me, If a player is stopped illegally from having the opportunity to score a try, it is deemed a professionally foul and the defender is given 10 minutes in the sin bin. — Why isn’t this rule used in kick chases and ‘blocking penalties?.
IMO there is no difference in tackling a bloke without he ball and knocking him off balance as he runs to contest a kick!. — I do however believe that defenders should be able to block an attacker and give protection to their team mate .. as long as foul methods aren’t used. ie: tackling or physically contacting the attacker! — any opinions on this?.
September 24th 2012 @ 11:22am
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 11:22am | Report comment
There are many inconsistencies in the rules.
Roosters scored, and someone else this weekend I believe, when their player slipped in goal and grounded it, then ran out. Other times, I’ve watched the same thing happen where they slip, get up, try and run out of the goal, lose the ball and the opposition score, then they say no no I grounded it, it’s a drop it.
If you ground it, you ground it. You can’t have the same thing with 2 different rulings based on what happens after.
September 24th 2012 @ 10:39am
M.O.C. said | September 24th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
I would like to see benefit of the doubt favour the defending team – surely this would be such a simple way to fix it in the short-term.
Slater’s try on the weekend was a perfect example – if he had dropped the ball like that in the field of play it would have been deemed as being a knock-on, why then does the rule change in the in goal?
September 24th 2012 @ 10:47am
planko said | September 24th 2012 @ 10:47am | Report comment
The video officals are lucky that the heat gets taken out the of argument gets taken when it is flogging ….
September 24th 2012 @ 11:21am
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
No-one else saw the manly hand clearly punch it out? (which is fine, over the line in the act of scoring, but obviously changes it from “dropped” to “knocked out, play on”)
September 24th 2012 @ 11:53am
db swannie said | September 24th 2012 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Get some refs who havnt been touched by the hand of Hollywood Bill.
Look at the reffing in the Qld GF yesterday..Decisions on the run,One or two looks by VR..
Brilliant reffing by ONE man on field.
September 24th 2012 @ 12:07pm
planko said | September 24th 2012 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
It clearly was not deliberate look at it again. The player holding the ball has to hold on to it.
September 24th 2012 @ 12:17pm
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
My opinion is Foran knocked it out. Even then, looks like he landed on it as it touches the ground, 50/50 that part.
Yes you need to hold the ball, but to an extent. If you’re in a tackle and people are knocking the ball out (which is very easy to do) it has to be realistic. Bloody Gus things 5 on 1 strips are ok you should hold onto the ball. Gee whiz, good luck holding onto the ball while 5 people try and take it off you, you’ll lose that battle 9 times out of 10.
September 24th 2012 @ 1:17pm
planko said | September 24th 2012 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Ok Foran is alot of things but he is not 5 men. He was one man who on the line has to go for ball as it is what scores. In our game people do not score the ball does. He drops the ball then lands on it. As I have said I am just glad the game was not close. IMO the Mlebourne storm should not be favourites.
September 24th 2012 @ 1:31pm
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
I am talking in general. Gus thinks if the other team get possession it’s fine, doesn’t matter if it was raked, dropped etc, no matter the amount of people in the tackle.
Foran knocks the ball out, lands on the ground, slater lands on it, what’s the problem?
September 24th 2012 @ 1:50pm
Branko said | September 24th 2012 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
My thoughts exactly, and I’m bewildered that this perspective hasn’t been more discussed.
September 24th 2012 @ 2:08pm
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Let’s say it was accidental knocking it out. Ok then, why does a player who comes in to make a tackle who accidentally touches the ball get ruled as playing at it? Yet somehow Foran who knocks it out isn’t counting as being ruled as playing at it? Paradox much.
September 24th 2012 @ 2:29pm
planko said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Cause if it was at any other place on field it is a knock on move mate you are wrong you know it. He was not playing at the ball you can you see that he was tackling a player and the ball comes out. It is a knock on. You are going HARD ON cause it is manly everyone knows it.
September 24th 2012 @ 2:32pm
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Read my comment above – you can’t deny that the same thing is considered playing at the ball.
September 24th 2012 @ 2:37pm
planko said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
I can deny your understanding the rules. Foran did nothing illegal Billy slater droped the ball knock on. He did not strip at the ball. I can deny what ever I want we have stormers here denying they cheated trust me I have more of leg to stand than them.
September 24th 2012 @ 2:40pm
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
He knocked the ball out, he didn’t just tackle Slater, his hand clearly punches the ball out and is the sole reason it comes out, so play on.
September 24th 2012 @ 2:52pm
planko said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
I disagree with you I think he tackled the player and the ball came out. He did not punch at anything. He tackled him. Believe or not it is allowed. You can tackle Billy Slater. The rule disagrees with you as well. A player can come in contact with the ball. Next minute you are going to tell me the opposition is not allowed to hit the ball delibrately with their shoulder to pop the ball out. It happens every game. It is still a knock on. Matt we will have to agree to disagree mate. If you are a dogs supporter Good luck on the weekend. If you are storm supporter you will need it.
September 24th 2012 @ 2:57pm
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
Rules are rules, almost once a game the winger will rush in for a tackle while the centre is offloading it quickly, it’ll touch the winger who is only making the tackle and has no eyes for the ball, and it’s called 6 again every single time. Whether it was deliberate or not, he is the reason the ball came out directly, so 6 again (in this case, try). It’s different for your hand to touch the ball then just pounding a guy and the ball coming loose.
September 24th 2012 @ 2:58pm
Matt said | September 24th 2012 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
And no I follow the broncos, this call was no good for me…