- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Let’s go through a simple list of questions from last Friday night’s game. Was the Kane Evans ‘try’ a try? No. Is it ever a try? No.
Was Matt Cecchin right to award it as a try and then have it reviewed by the video referees? Yes.
Did the video referees misinterpret, ignore or stuff-up the guidelines they are meant to follow? Absolutely, resulting in a cataclysm of fallout.
I was watching an entertaining game of football on Friday night. The Sydney Roosters had come to play and were dominating the Canterbury Bulldogs.
The boys from Belmore were barely holding on in the first half. Trailing 8-0 they were only just in the contest, with the out-of-sorts Bulldogs producing some really stupid plays, not least of which was Curtis Rona attempting to pick up the ball in the Roosters’ in-goal instead of grounding it for a try.
Then there was a ray of hope. Sam Kasiano bulldozed up the middle and offloaded to Josh Morris, who scooted through the line and was brought down for the fifth play-the-ball 10 metres out.
His tackler, Roosters hooker Jake Friend, sensed the danger from a quick play-the-ball so tipped Morris back over to concede the penalty in a trademark Roosters ploy that we’ve seen the last three years.
Instead of a penalty – and despite the protestations of Morris after play restarted – Cecchin kept the whistle in his pocket.
I don’t know if he knew the numbers were five on three out to the right for the attacking team, but I know referees will gamble on getting a try from the play instead of awarding a penalty. They also have an instinct, through years of experience, of having an awareness of where players are standing and where they are running to position themselves.
I expect Cecchin knew the Roosters were short of defenders and the odds of a try were better than even money, so he played on and got the cash.
Try Bulldogs – the ultimate advantage. They were now back in the contest, despite missing the conversion because their Newcastle-bound goal-kicker Trent Hodkinson was injured.
Second half kicked off and I got a feeling that we were going to see more of what we did in the first. The Roosters’ big men muscled up to the Bulldogs pack and seemed to have the better of the early exchanges.
Then 10 minutes in Evans took a hit-up close to the Bulldogs’ line. Four defenders, then three after one dropped off, put their bodies in front and held Evans short of the line.
It takes an eternity, but he’s held short of the line until no held call is forthcoming and referee Cecchin stops the clock. ‘Try’ is the signal, with a referral to the video referee.
What just happened? The commentators were bemused, the crowd was confused, and I started getting messages on my Twitter account asking what was going on. I soon found out what was going on – two minutes of replays later and the green light of ‘Try’ appeared.
Then my timeline went nuclear. I would have needed to be standing on Bikini Atoll and watching the mushroom cloud rise around me to get an idea of what was to come.
I rewound the Foxtel IQ set to have a closer look at what transpired and deconstructed the video referee process, since everyone told me that it was broken. In fact, some of the people I respect most in rugby league commentary – Steve Mascord and Phil Gould, to name two – were incensed that the referee was made to ‘guess’ a decision before it’s handed to the video referee to review.
Considering the criticism, I have two things to say about the try.
Firstly, Cecchin should have called ‘held’ two or three seconds prior to the grounding of the ball. Evans’ forward momentum was halted, he couldn’t release the ball, and that would have saved any referral. But if I dwell on this I will sound like a hypocrite, because Cecchin’s thoughts of holding off calling held might have been galvanised in the light of his great result earlier, which led to the Bulldogs’ try.
In addition, I have been critical of reviewing individual decisions with the benefit of hindsight, so I won’t do that here.
Secondly, the video referee referral process is in question. I have no problem with Matt awarding the try, I have been arguing for the referees to call it as they see it. Setting aside my preference for an earlier held call, the referee has seen the ball on the line with Evans’ hand on it. So for him it’s a try, which is what he signalled, and it gave the video referees a starting point on which to judge the decision.
Now we come to the real problem. What do the video referees do with the information they have before them?
Bernard Sutton and Ben Galea were in control from this point onwards. Would they uphold the decision, which was based on what one pair of eyes had seen from one angle, or would they overturn it as every armchair fan would?
Being the ‘football expert’, Galea has dominant input over grounding and obstruction calls, so his opinion would have carried the most weight. The summary from Sutton on the broadcast was, “The original decision is upheld due to insufficient evidence to overturn it.”
Hello? Insufficient evidence? Evans had his arm carrying the ball on the ground, then the ball was on the ground, and then it was pushed forward to the goal-line. The guys in the box were not following the protocols they are charged with.
‘Sufficient’ evidence to overturn the decision is all that is required, not ‘conclusive’ evidence. We’ve been through this before. The ‘sufficiency’ test is deliberately there to give a common sense option to the video referees. It’s why the game added a former premiership player to the box two years ago.
If the ball is short of the line and then advanced – overturn it. Cecchin has one view and the video refs have plenty.
Forget pipe-dream ideas of cameras on referees’ heads (which they hate wearing, incidentally) and in-goal judges with cameras on their chests. All that was needed on Friday night was to apply ‘sufficient’ to the evidence before them.
As far as video refereeing is concerned, there is a niche skill involved in swinging the viewers to agreeing with your decision.
A large part of that skill is choosing the right camera angles and having the director give you the right frames, in the right sequences. Had the conclusion been no try – double movement, penalty – the request could have been the side angle with the arm, then the ball on the ground. Roll that forward to the ball on the line, rewind it back to ground contact, and repeat once or twice.
The fans soon come on board with that, as do the commentators. They would have convinced themselves it was no try, and when the red light comes up, they’re all happy. Great – get on with the football.
Instead, on Friday we saw a complete hash of the decision, with replays from front and behind switched and swapped with no continuity for the viewer. It was a mess.
With a video referee bunker we’ll have much swifter decisions, but we’ll still have Bernard Sutton pressing the buttons. It will have to be that way. The Tony Archer-Sutton wagons are hitched together. What other explanation can be given for the support this week?
The answer to last week’s debacle is to follow the system as it is designed and not apply a false standard to the decision. In the desert of affection that is the video referees’ box you don’t need ‘conclusive’ evidence of an oasis that doesn’t exist.
Except on Friday they created their own mirage and completely missed the water.
Reckon you can pick the winning team? Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match. For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.