- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
After a scintillating opening round of the NRL finals series, it was always likely that week two would see us witness a ‘regression to the mean’ when it came to the standard of football on display.
That was certainly true of the first semi-final, because although the Roosters versus Bulldogs game still delivered captivating entertainment, it had much more to do with what was at stake, rather than the performances from all individuals on the field.
Yes, that’s a subtle dig at the referees, so we may as well get it over and done with.
1. Do we have to talk about the Kane Evans ‘try’?
I don’t like talking about the refs, but considering it’s the biggest talking point from the weekend, it would be remiss not to address this question. So the answer is yes. Yes we do.
First of all, let me be totally clear: the better team won on Friday night.
The Bulldogs came out breathing fire in the opening minutes of the game, and were extremely physical in defence. Yet from the moment James Maloney potted a penalty goal from right in front of the sticks after eight minutes of action, the Roosters were on top. It wasn’t a case of them suddenly gaining the ascendancy from nowhere after the controversial call.
The Chooks have been one of the form sides all season, and they also deserved to win on Friday night. Similarly, the Dogs dropped far too much ball, and didn’t play anywhere near well enough to win the game.
So there is little case to be made that the Bulldogs were robbed, and that’s not really up for debate.
However, what is also not up for debate is that the referees combined to make an absolutely horrific call. Horrific.
The play in question saw Kane Evans attack the Bulldogs line, be gang-tackled and held. He then loses control of the ball. The ball is short of the tryline. He then promotes the ball forward.
So, to recap:
Held. Knock-on. Short. Double movement.
Other than all that, it was a fair try.
There is no excuse to get that decision wrong, especially with the benefit of multiple replays. It was a mistake of such clear-cut, epic proportions, that it overshadowed the entire weekend of football.
It’s well overdue for the NRL to abolish the rule that states the referees need to have an opinion on tries before they go to the video referee. It’s nothing short of ludicrous to make a referee ‘guess’, and then compound that lunacy by forcing the video referee to conclusively overrule what was mere speculation in the first place.
Oh, and just quietly, if that particular piece of evidence wasn’t conclusively a non-try, then what exactly is?
2. Did the bad call impact the game?
110 per cent. I don’t know how anyone can honestly dispute this, though I’ve seen many try.
Though I stand by my opinion that the better side won, and therefore there was little injustice in the result, that doesn’t change the fact that the game was irrevocably altered by a horrendous referee mistake.
Despite the Bulldogs’ poor play, the score was just 8-4 at the time, with the result far from decided. However, the bad decision shell-shocked the Dogs, who were then ripped apart by some Roger Tuivasa-Sheck magic just moments later, and in the blink of an eye, the game was over.
You could state that the Roosters were better and deserved to win. You could point out that the Chooks have been a class outfit all season long, while the Dogs were extremely patchy for much of the year. You could argue that the Dogs should have been mentally tougher, and just got on with the game.
All that is undeniably true.
However, it would still be nice to let the two teams unequivocally decide the outcome, rather than a bad call impacting the game.
After all, yes, the Roosters were better, but sometimes the cruel, unpredictable magic of sport is that the team that deserves to win, doesn’t.
3. How influential are coaches’ comments to the media?
After the Storm dominated the ruck against the Roosters last weekend, Trent Robinson took a thinly veiled swipe at the referees, suggesting they let Melbourne get away with wrestling tactics.
The Roosters coach said the rest of the finals would now be officiated that way, essentially demanding that the NRL and the referees be consistent, or daring them to have double standards.
To be clear, Robinson is hardly Crusoe here; most coaches attempt to use the media to influence the referees.
On Friday night, my initial reaction was that Robinson’s strategic comments had paid off, because the Roosters deliberately slowed down the Dogs’ play the balls by using illegal tactics, yet were rarely pinged for them. In particular, captain Jake Friend was a menace, but only punished once.
However, in hindsight, I wonder if Robinson’s comments were actually aimed at his own team. Rather than trying to manipulate the referees via the media, was he instead sending a message to his own team to toughen up, change their tactics, and adapt to finals football?
When you consider that both teams got away with murder at the ruck, rather than the Roosters getting favourable treatment from the referees, it does make you think.
NBA coaching legend Phil Jackson was a master at using the media to motivate his own players, and I do wonder if Robinson’s astute comments to the media had an impact, but not with the audience we first assumed.
4. Should Shaun Kenny-Dowall be playing?
As Kenny-Dowall dominated Friday night, punctuated by his hat-trick of tries, many people suggested to me that he shouldn’t have been playing, considering he’s currently facing a number of assault charges for incidents involving his ex-girlfriend.
My opinion and stance on these types of matters has never wavered: you’re innocent until proven guilty. As such, Kenny-Dowall should be free to play.
If you suspend or stand down players because of accusations, what’s to stop fans levelling false allegations against the opposition’s star player the week before a finals game? It sets a dangerous precedent, and it’s a Pandora’s Box that shouldn’t be opened.
If Kenny-Dowall is found guilty, by all means, throw the book at him. But he deserves the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and that means he should be allowed to play football if he chooses.
5. Where to now for the Dogs?
For the Dogs, their problems remain the same as ever: variety and organisation in attack. Canterbury simply struggle to execute any semblance of a coherent attacking gameplan.
It’s an indictment on the team that James Graham, Sam Kasiano and Frank Pritchard providing second-phase ball was their only consistently effective attacking option this year.
For the most part, the roster will remain the same for next season (though ‘Frank the Tank’ will be a big loss), so it’s incumbent upon Des Hasler and the halves to be better when it comes to the Bulldogs’ attack.
Josh Reynolds is at his best when he’s playing off the cuff, but that can’t be the actual plan for the team, but rather, something they turn to sporadically.
Moses Mbye must take charge of the team. The ‘keys to the car’ should be publicly handed over to him. Do everything possible – officially and tactically – to ensure that Mbye begins taking games by the scruff of the neck, especially in attack. Even name him captain if need be.
If he can lift, the Dogs are legitimate premiership contenders.