I still don’t think Holmes is a fullback, but I can see why QLD are keeping the changes simple: straight swap.

But, I also think there could be some late changes; perhaps Corey Allan in at FB and Holmes shifted to the wing (replacing Sami). Very hard to remove Capewell (given his debut), but, he was only there because Brenko Lee was injured. If Brenko comes fit he could be another possible late change.

I think there might be a late change for NSW too; Stephen Crichton in at 4, Wighton to 6 and Cody Walker either dropped or back to the bench.

Part of Origin is about upsetting the apple cart: naming a team and then switching it last minute could throw either opposition out of whack and (partly) mess up their preparation…

Something that I only noticed this week from last week is the fact that Proctor got four weeks, and was headline news for days, yet Napa got one week for his third time “leading with the head”. Personally, leading with the head (watch the tackle) is far worse than a high tackle. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me three times…shame on the NRL?

My favourite “rule” that isn’t a rule is the professional foul.

If you read the laws of the game (current 2019 edition) and the NRL laws and interpretations, there is only one mention of the term; professional foul. And that is on page 11 of the interpretations and is described as one of the “…six main reasons for a player to be temporarily suspended for ten minutes…” yet, there is no actual definition/law/interpretation ANYWHERE as to what is a professional foul (even though we all believe it is when a player fouls an opposition player when there is a try scoring situation).

It appears it is one of those rules that we have just adopted somewhere along the way…

General, it hit the right pad first, yes. But, that is the line that the ball tracking uses. It doesn’t use the point of contact on the left leg, it continues through from where it grazes the right pad. It was out. But, Australia blew their chance earlier, so it’s irrelevant anyway…

My absolute zero confidence predictions are:
Roosters by 6, but could be less than that – 4 of their last 5 wins over the Broncos were by 4 points or less…
Warriors – they’ve lost only 2 of their last 16 against the Titans, and never two in a row – over that period (and they lost their last meeting)
Panthers – won 6 of their last 7 against the Tigers and NEED a win
Manly – their last 7 meetings have gone L-W-L-W-L-W-L..so, they’re due a win (makes sense)
Cowboys – in the last 13 years they haven’t lost 3 in a row against the Raiders, and they’ve lost their last 2…so, again, due for a win
Sharks – Parramatta haven’t beaten the Sharks since 2014, they’re arguably the better team, but I can’t tip against the stats!
Bulldogs – the last time Melbourne won 3 in a row against the Bulldogs was in 2012 (they’ve won their last 2) and they’ve lost their last 3 (against the Bulldogs) at home
Dragons – they have won 11 of the last 13 meetings, and Newcastle at home to the Dragons have only won twice in their last 14 games!

All absolute certainties – the stats don’t lie! (In all honesty, I’ll be happy if half of these are correct!)

It’s always been a pet peeve of mine when this is reported in the media (because they do it wrong too). Richard is correct in what he is saying because there is a difference between being 1.5 times OVER the legal limit and 1.5 times the legal limit. 1.5 times the legal limit is 0.075, 1.5 times OVER the legal limit suggests there is a legal limit plus 1.5 times that which would equal 2.5 times the legal limit i.e. 0.125…

I’ve had numerous looks at the tackle (again) this morning, and although not many will agree with I am about to say, I actually think the tackle was not even close to a shoulder charge. If you watch the impact over and over again, Feki’s shoulder collects Slater’s jaw (showing that Slater was front on in the tackle). The vast majority of the impact is Slater’s chest with Feki’s shoulder (and part of the rule of the shoulder charge – other than being forceful – is that impact by the defender is made using the shoulder or upper arm. Slater’s chest is not part of his shoulder or upper arm). Yes, Slater braces his arm, but had he not done that, I think there would have been a possibility of Slater breaking his collar bone. The arm brace is more to tense that portion of his body for impact. For me, it was a completely legitimate tackle. Slater hit front on while traveling across field…again, won’t get too much agreement, but, take another look for yourself?

I can’t agree that it was a skinny blind. If you look at the replay again, Mann takes the ball in the middle of 10 and 20 metre infield markers, so there is 15 metres between him and the sideline. On top of that, he has Dufty looping around behind him and two unmarked players outside that. The problem is that Mann never once looked outside (not even a glance). And you can see as he gets tackled, Hunt throw his head back as if to say, “Why are you running inside?” There was plenty of space to mount an attack. 100% of the blame must be on Mann. If he catches and passes, who knows what happens…

I think you’re on the right track with getting players to actually play the ball properly. If they don’t, then they have to play it again. One of the biggest “whinges” in the NRL these days is penalties in the play the ball. Mainly because we see so many terrible play the balls (players walking off the mark, putting the ball on the other side of a tackler and playing it into him, not using their foot, stepping to the side to play it, playing it on the ground), but, only about 1 in 50 will actually draw a penalty. If they simply made the player stop, get the ball back, move on to the mark and play it properly this would discourage the super quick (sloppy) play the ball. It would definitely have major teething problems though, as the first few weeks of the year would probably see play being called to a halt every second play the ball, but, hopefully (and this may be a pipe dream) the players would actually “come around” to playing the ball properly all the time (even as I type this, I don’t believe it, but anyway…)

I also think the NRL could consider changing the rule around penalties when teams are defending inside their 20. If a defending team commits a penalty inside their own 20, the attacking team can have a shot at penalty. Irrespective of whether they convert it, the defending team then has to drop the ball out from under the posts. So, the attacking team could get 2, 4, 6 or however many points and still retain possession inside their opponents half (assuming a short drop out doesn’t get recovered by the defending team). The NRL tried to enforce a “multiple penalties inside the 20 will lead to a sin-bin” this year, but, for me, it didn’t work. 1, because there was no consistency from the refs, and 2, attacking teams quite often just took the 2 points on offer (and this tended to “reset the penalty clock”).

There are plenty of options with regard to rule changes, but for me, getting the play the ball actually right should be objective number one. Reducing penalties in the defensive 20 (just to get a set line) should also be looked at…

Completely agree re Gus. That’s the one reason I don’t want them to win. But, does anyone know how many games is the fewest as head coach and winning a Premiership? If Panthers were to win (which again, I hope they don’t) Cameron Ciraldo would have been a head coach for what, 8 games? That would have to be some kind of record…

Absolutely spot on about Tohu. His influence is immense! He completely changes the right side attack and is a major reason that Fusitua has 22 tries this year. If you look at stats, the Warriors won at 62.5% this year (overall), but at only 37.5% when Tohu didn’t play, and 75% when he did. If you look at all the key players, Harris, Johson, Luke & Blair all improve the team win percentage, while RTS, Green and Mannering have a negative effect on their winning percentages (though for Green it is only by 0.5%).

I think the key for the Warriors, other than Tohu, is they have to have Blair playing long minutes and Johnson & Luke on the field. I do fear that if Tohu gets injured the Warriors will get flogged!

Stats can be deceiving sometimes. The Warriors have lost 5 of their last 6. But, one of those six was played in 2011. Warriors have only played 5 times there in 7 years. And the two they played this year, they were 1:1. A 10 point win over Parramatta (without RTS or Johnson) and a 1 point loss to the Bulldogs (in round 23) when the Bulldogs finally found some late form.

But, as is the case with everyone else here: I’m on the Warriors with zero confidence too…

Forty Twenty. The 2018 interpretations (which constitute part of the rules) talks in Player Misconduct about “When a player forcefully spears at the legs of a player in possession exposing him to unnecessary risk of injury”

Again though, it is important to point out that INTENTION is not mentioned, it is merely the act of forcefully charging into a persons legs while he is in the air. Moylan was running hard to get to the ball, he attempted to catch it, he got a hand on it, but, in that act continued his path through the legs of Isaako exposing him to unnecessary risk of injury. It is a penalty. Nothing more. But it is a penalty.

Have another look souvalis. Look at where Roberts’ ends up (and which direction he is traveling when Isaako gets turned). The look at where Moylan ends up (and where Moylan’s ribs contact Isaako’s knees). Seriously, have another look…

There is grey in the rules but if you look at Section 15 in the Laws of the Game (2018 edition) 1(d) (more specifically the notes about 1(d) where contact is talked about rather than a tackle) and combine this with the interpretations for 2018 (again, player misconduct), point 6 (page 10) you can understand why Moylan was penalised.

Moylan is looking at the ball, so there is no intent from Moylan to just “play the man”. He wasn’t. That I can accept. However, his momentum still going forward into the legs of Isaako, who had clearly out-jumped him, is what made Isaako rotate in a fashion that put him in a dangerous position. It was accidental, yes, but it is still a penalty. It has to be. I also agree that Moylan got a hand on the ball, but, in that specific contest he was never going to be the one taking the catch. If he had have realised that he was not in the contest i.e. had have taken at least one glance to see who was contesting the ball (not playing the man, just being aware) he could have exercised reasonable care and avoided the contact.

And, anyone who is suggesting that Roberts was the influence in Isaako rotating is kidding themselves. The rib cage of Moylan clearly makes Isaako turn and land on his head. It was rightly called a penalty…

There is one absolutely clear reason why the incidents involving Turbo and Moylan were different. Turbo was catching a ball that had already bounced: therefore he is not protected under the rules of jumping for a ball (even as the defending player). When Isaako jumped to take the ball (on the full) and Moylan took his legs out, all the protection (in the rules) is for Isaako (Sharks kicked the ball, Broncos catchers are protected). Whether or not Moylan had “eyes only for the ball”, under the current rules, makes no difference. Moylan has a duty of care to not take out the catchers legs. Plain and simple.

Deano, you haven’t explained in any way how it won’t work. At this stage we have had one trial game, and it worked. That’s a 100% success rate. Just saying it won’t work is ridiculous. You said yourself, “Let the refs do their job…” I agree. That is what this system is about. No going to replays on anything & everything. No having the bunker in their ear while they’re trying to ref. No second referee over-ruling the main referee. One ref, doing his job, with a chance for his call to be challenged (occasionally). I have said many times that I believe the referees do a generally bloody good job! I’m not sure of the stats, but I feel like in the VAST majority of cases where referrals go upstairs, with a try or no-try call, the refs are/were right with the conclusion they had on the field. But, surely any true fan of any game wants to get rid of howlers (or at least get rid of most of them). 50:50 calls that don’t go your way are part and parcel of any sport. But, the downright obvious mistakes should be taken out of the game with the technology we have these days…

I can see what you’re saying TB, but, I think you’re really trying to find the negatives a bit too much. In the Hand of Foran, you may well be right that they would have stuffed it up even if it went to video replay. And yes they would have lost all right to challenge after that. But, again, no one is suggesting that perfection is going to be reached: it’s not! But, take the first three examples in this article. None of them were referred. If all of them could have been referred, do you think any of them would have been overturned? I think the Beau Ryan one would have (it was obviously a 7th tackle), I think the Tonumaipea one would have (if a replay was allowed, it would have been clear the siren had gone – very tricky in real time, but, a second look would probably have picked it up) and I think the Uate one would have (the touch judge even suggested it should go upstairs!)

I also think there is a case that the Raiders one would have had a better outcome if it was referred upstairs under the right referral i.e. the players stopped because the flag went up. Instead, it was referred upstairs under the idea that there may have been a knock-on (something that touchies have no authority to raise the flag for), and there wasn’t a knock-on. However, I don’t think the try would have been overturned, simply because there is nothing in the Laws of the Game that say that players should stop playing if a touchie raises his flag. It is always play to the whistle. I have seen other games where touchies have raised their flag for a forward pass and heard the on field ref say, “No, that wasn’t forward” and the touchie has lowered his flag again.

What I am saying is that fans want more correct decisions. Well, just less incorrect decisions. The challenge system may allow that…

How does a coaches challenge mean more stoppages? When the concept of a Captains challenge was first trialed in late 2016, the premise was that the on field referees make every call as they see it (no replays). The only time a replay could be used was if there was a challenge. The game they trialed it in was a 28:26 win to the Dragons over the Knights. 5 tries a piece. And how many stoppages? Zero. Not one challenge was made on that day. Now that doesn’t mean that every game is going to be like that, but, it certainly shows that a challenge system doesn’t necessarily mean more stoppages. There were a couple of tries in that game too where there could have been reason to go upstairs, but, the refs were told to call it live. They did, and got it right. If they had have got one wrong, so be it. But, I think it proves that the on field referees generally get it right and the Bunker is largely a waste of time.

It’s just tiring, isn’t it? In Canberra’s defense, they at least admitted that their slow start cost them that game. But, the keyboard fans don’t want to share that view. I’m not planning on not watching NRL because, “the referees are hopeless”, but, geez I’d like to have one Monday come around where all EVERYONE is talking about is, “how good was the footy on the weekend!” Just once would do.

For me, the challenge system has never failed where it has been implemented. Sure, it hasn’t been without hiccoughs, but, at least it has eventually made improvement of some sort (cricket, NFL, tennis). Which is kind of the argument against the bunker. At first, I thought it sped decisions up a little (good thing), but it hasn’t removed all the howlers. It has removed some of the minor errors. Other than that, has it made a significant difference to the decisions on any given weekend prior to its introduction?

Fans (& certain people in the media) need to realise that perfection is never going to be possible. Even with 30 plus cameras and super slow-mo. But, I think a right to appeal just makes sense. There is absolutely zero benefit in a Monday review (you can’t change anything and no matter what is said, there is still likely to be a hoard of fans screaming BS). There is absolutely no excuse for having technology but because a referee doesn’t see any reason to use it, it isn’t used (when a challenge could have been used). Use all the eyes on and off the field rather than leaving it to the four sets belonging to the officials.

Bring in one challenge per team per half, and if you don’t challenge (because you fear wasting it), then you obviously aren’t that sure. That is what is called a 50:50. We, as spectators, don’t need more than one incorrect challenge a half though. We would just go back to replays every 4 or 5 sets. That is not what we need. This article talked about 4 occurrences in, what, 5 years. I can (and do) live with that. Had a challenge system been in place, it may have been 0 in 5 years. There would still be some 50:50’s to satisfy the armchair whingers, but, the players, coaches, teams would have nothing to complain about. The ball was in their court and they let it go…

It is time for a coaches challenge. Plain and simple.

There have been so many articles written about how one refereeing decision “cost us the game!” and it’s getting tiring. In the first three examples in this article, a coaches challenge “may” have changed the result to be what it should have been. I say may because in the 4th example, it was in fact the bunker that stuffed it up (well, played a significant role in stuffing it up). However, had the coach seen his players remonstrating and they somehow signaled to the coach to challenge it, they may have looked at the “right” thing on replay. I say this in that way because it was only after the game that Ricky found out the flag had gone up. His initial thought was that the players had dropped off (and he said so after the game).

But, for the first three examples I think a coaches challenge may well have been used. If a coach had a few advisors in the box with him (and I’m sure most teams would do that if a challenge system was brought in) their job could be to look for refereeing errors. Example 1 – If they are tracking the tackle count: challenge. Example 2 – If they saw the Milford bobble on the first replay: challenge. Example 3 – If they see the replay showing Uate drop the ball: challenge. And I think all of these examples would have had the right outcome.

But, I must state that I think the referees get it right the vast, vast majority of the time and I don’t really have a problem with the on field referees. The problem, as I see it, is that it is only the referees that have any say during play. The Captain can speak to the referee, but he can only get an explanation. And the referee doesn’t even have to do that! It is optional. The coaches challenge puts the chance of a final decision in the teams’ hands. It actually takes pressure off the referees getting it wrong. When they do, and they will (but, as mentioned, very rarely), the teams/Captain/coach has a chance to challenge. If they choose not to, well, they lose all “right to complain”. And we don’t have to read anymore of these whiny articles!

I don’t know the stats on it, but, I feel like the referees on field call is generally correct (not just in general play – and within the limitations set on them by the NRL e.g. be strict, don’t be strict, no, be strict again). When tries are sent up as tries, they are normally tries. When they are sent up as no tries, they are normally correct again (between four officials, in real time, they are generally pretty bloody good at getting it right). To me that is enough evidence to say, “Let’s just go with live decisions until we see something that absolutely, definitively should be challenged”. Take example number four here: it was sent up as no try (which should have been the result). But, the fact that the only thing they could look at was a knock-on meant that the Bunker came back with, “no knock-on. Try” It needed to be sent up for the right reason. But, in the end, the on field referees “gut” was right. The breakdown in communication between the referees is what cost the Raiders. The right challenge may have fixed this.

The problem most certainly is not the refs. They are merely the scapegoats for an organisation in complete disarray. Being told, “Blow the pea out”, then, “Wait, let’s not get picky” is an absolute farce. They should simply be told, “Enforce the rules”. If they were, the game would get better.

While I’m ranting, I don’t understand the arguments from people to let the game flow. What exactly does that mean? People complain that too many penalties are being blown and it’s ruining the game. But, how many of those penalties would you say weren’t penalties? Sure there is an argument that some “penalties” are let go (ones your team “deserved”), while with the “same” infringement a whistle is blown (“unfair” ones against your team). So, your argument is, don’t blow either of them? How is that going to let the game flow? Players will simply slow the play the ball down to a snails pace! Do you think that if teams were told, “We’re not going to blow the whistle because it appears fans don’t like players being penalised” that the game would get quicker? What a joke! Coaches would tell their players, lay on him every tackle until our line is set, go for that two-on-one strip, every time, forget getting back 10, just go back 5 and a bit. If you want the game to truly flow, you need to contact your team and tell the players to stop committing fouls! Stop laying on the player, play the ball correctly, get your hand off the ball, get your hands off the player when he’s playing the ball, get back ten metres. The referees don’t change how the game is played. The referees are just there to do their job. Let them do it. Fix the players!

Totally agree. Their excuse for not seeing the flag because they were focused solely on the ball is ludicrous. What about the fact that there were half a dozen players on the field with their arms raised? Didn’t the bunker question why they had their arms raised? Wouldn’t that have alerted even the most focused individual that something else had happened that maybe they needed to look at?

The funny thing is though, touchies are not there to call knock-on’s. So McFarlane either thought the player had stepped out (there was a comment on another post that suggested he said to the ref. “sorry, not out, carry on” – or something similar), or he thought the pass was forward. I actually think the pass may have been forward. However, for some reason, the bunker can’t look at that though. And it’s a moot point here anyway. Perhaps the referee was hoping the bunker would catch the raised flag but went with, “Can we confirm there was a knock-on?”

For me, the solution has been clear for quite a few years: a challenge system.

People need to accept that mistakes will be made. Especially in real time. The problem the NRL has is that it is trying to become 100% error free. And it simply isn’t possible. They have got a squillion camera angles, two referees, a “special” bunker that is fool-proof and “interpretations” of the rules that are so grey, no-one (fans or media) can adamantly argue one way or another anyway. So, when is the NRL wrong? Sometimes, always, never, who knows? Because we’re all not even sure what the rules are…

The NRL needs to go back to basics and go back to all of the Clubs and say, “These are the rules. This is what we’re going to enforce” and then actually stick to it. The “crackdown” earlier in the year wasn’t enough. It wasn’t enforcing ALL the rules. It was only enforcing the ones that had had the most complaints on social media (reactionary). If the NRL wants to “interpret” the Laws of the Game, change the Laws of the Game. But, if we are going to stick to these Laws, then the solution is simple.

Go back to one referee. Having different interpretations on the field in real time between officials is embarrassing. Which one is right? Have one ref making the decision and go with it…

Secondly, no replays unless there is a challenge from one side or the other (I personally prefer the coaches challenge but would accept a Captains challenge). And, as they do in the NFL, the on-field referee consults a replay booth on the sideline. Challenges would be limited to one incorrect challenge per half.

There are several reasons that this provides (somewhat of) a solution. Firstly, most “major” complaints come from when a decision goes to a replay and they still bugger it up! If we aren’t having 10 replays per game, we’re less likely to have that scenario.

Secondly, the referees decision is final unless someone (coach or Captain), decides to challenge. And if they don’t challenge, then what right will they have to complain at the end of the game? If they used their challenges when they were wrong: it’s their own fault. If they didn’t use them at all: they didn’t see anything blatantly wrong. In either case, they have lost their right to complain. Perhaps fans will still complain, but, if that is the case: write an email to your Club. Blame them. Not the officials. Because the referees called what they saw, the team that was “hard done by” didn’t think they were. Let it go…

Thirdly, we won’t have contrasting opinions. There is one ref in the game and he makes all the calls. You don’t have to have a third (or fourth of fifth) party coming into the discussion. And even if the one official makes a mistake. If it wasn’t corrected by a challenge, or wasn’t even challenged, again, let it go.

I though Scott only got two weeks. I think it was Walker that was out for 6…

Don’t get me wrong, Rob. I’m in no way comparing Hunt to any of those players. However, I am comparing the starts of their Origin careers. Smith, Lockyer, Thurston & Slater all went on to be legendary QLD players. But, none of them just came into the QLD team and started dominating. The QLD selection strategy has always been to pick a team where everyone has a part to play. Not necessarily a team of the best players full-stop (or the biggest as has been a NSW selection policy for years). I personally believe Hunt’s job in the QLD team is very similar to his role at the Dragons: organise the forwards and kick long. His kicking game needs a bit of improvement (he needs to find grass a bit more often). But, when you have a NSW supporter/journalist saying that after 3 games Hunt should never play Origin again is just bollocks. QLD have had to deal with Thurston & Cronk retiring. Slater being out injured. Cam Smith pulling up stumps weeks out from the first game. We are in a teething period. Hunt has had less than a handful of games. He has to at least be given a full series, or two, before we can call it one way or the other…