Rule changes likely under new refs’ boss
The scrapping of the NRL’s highly-controversial benefit-of-the-doubt rule and significant changes to the equally-contentious obstruction law are likely to be the first items on the agenda of new referees’ boss Daniel Anderson.
The two-time grand final coach signalled his intention to make significant changes to the NRL rulebook after he was officially announced on Wednesday as referees’ elite performance manager.
Widespread confusion and uncertainty over the use and application of both rules punctuated a 2012 season that was marred by refereeing blunders and Anderson said he was determined to create greater consistency in 2013.
“Benefit of the doubt will come under scrutiny – let’s not be naive about that,” Anderson said.
“I think we can clean up these areas like obstruction. We won’t make it perfect but we can improve the adjudication of it. There is such a fine line, though – there is going to be errors on occasions.”
Tony Archer and Russell Smith have been appointed as Anderson’s lieutenants as technical coaches and both former Test referees suggested benefit of the doubt might have had its day.
“It’s obviously something that we need to review,” 2012 grand final whistleblower Archer said.
“It’s something we have to look at, take in all the facts and look at the right method to take it forward next year.”
Smith added: “We were criticised a few years ago for finding reasons not to award tries. Perhaps we have extended that too far. It’s not deliberate – it just happens over time.”
The awarding of a Manly try in their semi-final win over North Queensland despite an apparent Kieran Foran knock-on in the lead-up was one of the low points of the NRL season, and a glaring example of everything that was wrong with the application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.
Justin Hodges’ try in the State of Origin decider and a Canterbury try in their round-24 win over Wests Tigers illustrated the widespread confusion in rugby league about the tinkering to the obstruction rule.
Anderson, who has stepped down from his commentating duties with ABC radio to take up the new role, said he was ready for the intense scrutiny that would come in his new position as successor to Bill Harrigan and Stuart Raper.
“I’m walking into this with my eyes wide open,” Anderson said.
“I’m looking forward to it. It is a challenging and very much high-profile position within the game. As a lover of rugby league, I have a chance to contribute to its evolution and to have an influence.”
The former Warriors, St Helens and Parramatta mentor stressed that he was intent on improving communication between the refereeing ranks and NRL coaches, something that was heavily criticised under the reign of Harrigan and Raper.
“I’m not sure we are going to get rid of the grey areas at all, but consistency is massive,” Anderson said.
“We will get some things wrong, but I would expect us not to make the same errors game-to-game.
“We want consistency from the first minute to the eightieth and from round one to round 26.”
© AAP 2013The Crowd Says (8) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- daniel anderson, NRL, Rugby League
November 15th 2012 @ 9:14am
Ronald M said | November 15th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
This is exactly what we need. A good look at the rules from a common sense game viewpoint not rule book technicalities. Bring back greater use of the Sin Bin and sending off and make the srum a proper contest for the ball. Simplicity and fairness will win the day not absolute rule book perfection. We don’t want lawyers debating tries.
November 15th 2012 @ 12:04pm
turbodewd said | November 15th 2012 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
The way benefit-of-the-doubt has been managed has been poor, plus the wording is terrible. It gives no direction as to the level of certainty required to give that doubt to the attacking team. They should follow the NFL wording, its so much clearer. Basically over there the original call is only over-ruled if there is clear visual evidence to do so. So if its not obvious, u dont change the original ruling…you dont try to estimate which outcome is more likely.
Also, there should be a 3-panel video replay tribunal which rules on all games live, it could be based at NRL HQ and watch the game far far away from the passion/atmosphere of the game.
November 15th 2012 @ 12:24pm
oikee said | November 15th 2012 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
You only have to change one rule to fix up nearly most of the mistakes. The Torso dinosaur rule gone. Then if the ball goes forward off anyone’s chest, it becomes a scrum knock-on rule. not a go to the video ref to see if he did not touch it with his hands dogs breakkie rule.
Look, is this really that hard to understand, it is not rocket science, like the corner post and 3 years later. The world kept turning.
Hey speaking about the world keeps turning, anyone wishing to see a Kiwi white elephant. ? (yes i know there are no elephants in NZ,)
no this one was made by a kiwi artist, and now sits out the front of Brisbane Museum, and it only cost us 1.2 million dollars.
1 million to pay for this sucker(yes pun intended), and 200 thousand to transport this monstosity from NZ up the river, then dead crane the sucker into possition.
The real problem is that it is Bronze, someone still has to paint it white, that could cost another 100 thousand, come in spinner is alive and well in QLD.
November 15th 2012 @ 12:54pm
oikee said | November 15th 2012 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Look, i know i might go on like a mug chop on some issues, but this “benifit of the doubt” rule can not be gotten rid of unless they also get rid of the Torso rule. I will explain why,,,,, if they do get rid of the benifit of the doubt rule without the Torso gone as well, i will know for sure that this game is clueless. Here is why, it will make common sense after i explain this simply.
A ball bobbling around underneath you while trying to score with your torso, even that is stupid, no, think about that, you can score a try without useing your hands, but with your guts. No hand required, its madness.
Anyhow getting back to this ball bobbling around under your bodu, it could be bounced, touched before hand, knocked on or not even grounded.
OK, right there, that is a doubt, huge doubt. Hold on, i am not finished yet, i just said it was a doubt, well according to our game they are getting rid of the doubt. ????
You cant get rid of the doubt rule unless you also get rid of the Torso rule, because the Torso rule leaves doubt in your head, so the doubt rule is not really gone. ????
True, think about it, look all this is is simple math, common sense. Or looking with both eyes open, call it what you like, but,,,, if they get rid of Benifit of Doubt and keep the Torso rule, our game is stuffed, because nothing will have been acheived.
I have been watching the game for over 30 years and they still have not fixed this simple problem, yet they introduced the BOD to fix this problem, it made things worse.
It will not fix it again because the problem was there before the BOD rule came into the game. It was introduced when the video ref man came into the game.
Take away Torso, you fix the whole problem,. then you dont even need to worry about BOD, because it is either black or white, not grey.
Anyhow, we wait, we watch. All it will tell me is anyone has sense running the game. It is a simple problem, and nobody has looked at it as yet.
After 30 odd years i am still waiting.
November 15th 2012 @ 1:12pm
oikee said | November 15th 2012 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Anyhow, look this is my final say on the matter, because i am now going to put it all back onto you guys. I will leave it in the minds of every last one of you. And remember me when you hear this if Daniel Anderson rushes in like a bul at a goat and changes this rule (bod) which wont fix the problem trust me.
yes right there is your doubt, so even if they look at this, send it to the video ref to look at, straight away the Benifit of the doubt rule is out the window, or in this case never left us.
And you will know why when you hear Peter Sterling Rabs or Gus say this,
“hold on, did it come off his Torso”,
Remember that, and now this rule can haunt the rest of you like it has haunted me over the years.
Did it come off his Torso. hahha,,,,,,, i’m free.
November 15th 2012 @ 1:25pm
Tommy said | November 15th 2012 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
So long as they keep the shoulder charge. Massive penalties if you hit a player in the head but thinking you can ban tackles going shoulder first is just going to make it even harder for referees or they will just penalise every time someone takes a hard hit.
November 15th 2012 @ 3:31pm
oikee said | November 15th 2012 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
And that is another stupid re-action. You cant make a tackle low if you dont put your shoulder into the tackle, so how they can ever ban the shoulder charge is beyond me,. Another over-reaction by the code.
All you have to do to fix the shoulder charge rule is make sure any part of the body comes into contact with the head is penalised, if it warrents going on report then that is all the punishment needed.
Next kids will be scared to tackle because they use there shoulders to drive into a tackle, it’s madness, again.
November 16th 2012 @ 2:33pm
Bazzio said | November 16th 2012 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
IMO ~ Archer was just the better ref out of a very sad bunch.
Far more could be achieved by the NRL were they to create an Academy of Game & Rule Analysis responsible for building up a competent refereeing contingent that also adjudicates at games via electronic consensus meters linked to the central video Ref to be used as required during games