Every year, rugby league fans are burdened with referees interpreting a different rule with a new approach, no doubt the result of a pre-season get together to scrutinise a “problem” area of the game.
The frustrating part, however, is that they get it right about as often as Forrest Gump attempting to solve a Rubik’s Cube!
This year there are two glaring areas that have proven to be a blight on the state of play in 2009.
The first is that our officials have declared the attacking kicker a protected species. A team is now being penalised for daring to make any contact whatsoever on a player delivering a kick.
Any contact. That includes a fingernail inadvertently scraping the kicker’s boot.
C’mon guys, give the game a break. Rugby league is what it is because of the physical nature of game. We are still a contact sport for now, and the opportunity to challenge the kicker is a part of the fabric of the NRL.
I’m by no means suggesting the kicker is not to be protected.
Far from it.
If a player hits a kicker late or high, then fair enough, blow the pea out of the whistle.
But if we give the attacking kicker carte blanche to take as much time as he wants to execute his kick, then we are losing an important element of pressure that may force a team into an error with good defence.
We will see more tries scored from kicks because it will become an easy avenue for scoring points.
The second area is what we now deem to be a high tackle.
Any contact with the throat or head is now deemed to be a ‘no go’ area for defenders, regardless of the first point of contact.
I’m not talking about blokes hanging on to the neck in grapple tackles or head slams or dishing out stiff arms. Yes, these are all worthy penalties.
I’m referring to the occasions when a defender hits the ball carrier in a legitimate tackle and then bumps up off the body or the ball and ends up with some form of accidental contact above the shoulders.
The high tackle rule is there to protect players from illegal tactics and prevent injuries.
These types of tackles fall into neither of the aforementioned categories, so why are we penalising them?
I’ll tell you why. Because the discretionary judgments of referees are being slowly whittled away to make way for black and white interpretations.
This is a misguided attempt to maintain consistency.
The problem with this is that the referee’s judgment is still paramount in determining the nature of a tackle.
We need to get back to referee’s having the option of using a neural path or two and actually make a discretionary judgment. If we don’t, then I propose we lose referees all together and we start to get R2D2 to adjudicate all of our matches since there is no longer a need for a human element.
Crosscoder
Guest
Ignoring the trite snipe by Matta at yours truly,the 2 referee system has cleared up the ruck area,and made the game a far better spectacle. The slowing down of the PTB and the various exotic tackles'grapple" chicken wing" have in the main been eliminated.Ensuring players are not targetted near the neck/head area is a must.The head area is sacrosanct. Protecting the kicker off balance is worthwhilke ,more so when decent players have been out for the season due to a late chargedown. To describe the game as being like touch football flies in the face of players like Ben Ross seriously injured,Barrett likewise,players already out for the season and some for most of the season. The game has speeded up,the Tv ratings suggest it has something going for it.The game is just as tough in terms of collisions and tackles,without the dirt or dangerous. Oh and there is a better chance more parents may actually let their kids play a cleaner sport.
kevin from glebe
Guest
i dont see a problem with the 2 refs its the way of the future. afl and american football have this and it is successful there. the kickers are getting too much time to place there bombs in the air on the 5th. who really cares the game has become so boring and predictable it doesnt matter what they did with the kicker the result is always the same most of the time....hail mary plays suck.
Abdrew g
Guest
I gotta disagree with the suggestion that a player arm bouncing up off the ball to the head region is not an issue as far as injury is concerned. Injuries are still possible in this scenario. As you said Adam the reason for the rule is to avoid injury. I agree there have been some stupid penalties for contact with the kicker. howeve I think you have exaggerated things a bit. You say we shouldn't give the kicker all the time in the world. Well why is it we have seen successful charge downs on kicks this season? People have been able to pressure the kicker without making contact. I think the far more important blight on the game (which can be penalised in touch football) is milking penalties. i would much rather see that wiped out otherwise we will go the same way as soccer. How often have we seen a player walk off the mark into a defender who is trying to get up and then find the defender penalised. Or what about the player stepping sideways off the mark and the marker gets penalised for not being square. I was hoping with two refs they might use them to stamp out these practices but not to be sadly.
matta
Guest
Brad settle down. You write a lot like crosscoder.
oikee
Guest
I have no problem with 2 refs. Some minor problems which in no way is worse than last year.
brad turner
Guest
all i have to say about the ref system.THEY STUFFED IT. two refs dont help,they just get in the way,and truely if you can say the game is faster than last year you must need glasses. taking the video ref out has just made it easy for them to fix matches,and if you believe there isnt some sort of match fixing you need an idea,here ill sell you a clue,how can so many dubios calls go untouched by 2 refs,cause we dont have a video ref to stop the rot.hurry and make your money governing bodies so we can have some fair calls and fair footy.