Braith Anasta scores a try during the NRL Rugby League Round 10 Eels v Roosters match at Parramatta Stadium in Sydney, Friday, May 16, 2008. The Roosters won the match 32-12. AAP Image/Action Photographics, Grant Trouville
The opening State of Origin produced no major surprises. The most predictable thing to come from the match being controversy with the video referee. Yet again.
How long can the NRL persist with the current use of the video referee and still look at itself in the mirror everyday and justify pride in its performance.
The two referee system this year has been fantastic and will understandably take time to develop, as the game now needs 20 to 22 professional standard referees.
However, the video referee has been going rapidly downhill since it was first brought into play in 1997, and is more flawed than the ridiculous challenge system brought into cricket.
There is a limited place for the video referee. It needs to be used purely to judge on grounding of the ball in the in-goal area, with all field-of-play decisions left up to the two referees and the two touch judges.
In its current form, all the video referee has done is cloud over and complicate what is essentially a simple game.
Wednesday night’s no try decision against Jarryd Hayne in the State of Origin was embarrassing in more ways than one. Whether video referees Tim Mander and Bill Harrigan got the decision right was highly debatable, but the length of time the decision took and the positioning of the touch judge left even more to be desired.
Why have touch judges been allowed inside the line during the course of play, as was the case on Wednesday night?
The touch judge should not be in the field of play, and instead should be closely watching whether players put a foot on the line, as well as being positioned to call forward passes or any infringements in back play.
The video referee also became involved when Ben Creagh scored, but there were no issues with the grounding of the ball.
The only concern may have been the pass from Jarryd Hayne, but the video referee can’t rule on a forward pass. It was a classic case of a lack of confidence in the decision-making of on-field referees Tony Archer and Shayne Hayne.
The fans can accept referees making mistakes on the run. What they can’t accept is misuse of technology and the blatant mistakes that have resulted.
The Jamal Idris no try decision at the climax of the Dragons V Bulldogs match remains one of the worst decisions in modern rugby league history. Steve Clark was handed a token week off where instead of making decisions, he was speaking at functions – some punishment for terrible call that referees boss Robert Finch conceded was wrong.
There are also insane quirks in the application of the video referee. In 2005, Penrith’s Rhys Wesser made a long break down the field against Canberra, but it was obvious he had made an error.
At that time, Wesser – a noted flyer – would have reached the tryline without question, but on this occasion allowed himself to be reined in by the Raiders defence 10m from the try line. By Wesser not crossing the try-line, the video referee option was gone. And because the referee had allowed play to continue expecting Wesser to score, he could not go back to Wesser’s original error.
Penrith scored two tackles later, and replays confirmed Wesser’s earlier error.
The ‘video referee’ should only exist to supply footage that assists the two on-field referees looking at the big screen making decisions on tries, and on grounding in the in-goal area.
The video referee shouldn’t be used for anything else, and certainly should not be a post-retirement junket for former referees no longer in touch with the modern game.
It’s worth contrasting how decisions would be made on tries, before and after the video referee was introduced.
In the days before the video, referee Eddie Ward was quick to award the following try and sin bin Canberra’s Jason Croker for talking out the Bulldogs’ Craig Polla-Mounter off the ball. Croker firstly made a poor read of defence on Canterbury’s Matthew Ryan and then took out Polla-Mounter after he passed the ball to Rod Silva.
Today, many video referees would likely have argued Ryan interfered with Croker and that Croker was impeded by Polla-Mounter in his attempts to get to Silva.
Croker’s collision with Polla-Mounter could be likened to Jamie Soward’s with Greg Eastwood in the Bulldogs Vs Dragons – that led to the Idris no try – except that Croker was more aggressive in his actions.
It’s time to put the ownership of the game back with the men in the middle and not with dinosaurs in the stands. Officials forget rugby league is about the players and the people.
If match officials stay out of the spotlight, they will have done a great service maintaining what rugby league is all about.
In Discord Edition #8 this week, respected Rugby League reporter Steve Mascord talks about all the ins and outs from last Wednesday’s opening State of Origin match including the Baby Blues fightback, the two Jarryd Hayne incidents, how Terry Campese deserves another chance and has a solution to avoid the controversy of NSW turning up 90 minutes late to a promotional clinic. Plus Discord dispels the myth that no one cared about the game in ‘Mexico’ and points out that the game has come a long way forward. Matthew O’Neill is a Director and Columnist with www.rleague.com
Richard Brockhurst
Guest
Sheek My comment on June 6th doesn't mean I believe Hayne scored a fair try. All this talk of his heel was over the line but he was running on his toes is nonesense. Now what about the forward pass, there is no doubt Hayne threw it in the field of play and it landed over the try line. What a gift to NSW ,they needed that just before half time.
Billo
Guest
The two alternative decisions that were open to the video refs were to give Hayne the benefit of the doubt (which should have been the decision), or to refer it back for a ref's call. If they had done the latter, the referee would have consulted the touch judge, who was running right behind Hayne, looking closely at his feet, and not raising his flag. The try would, and should, have been given. I think Harrigan wanted to be the centre of attention by controversially disallowing the try.
Veuve
Guest
Well said. I'd like to see a decision made on the spot. The video ref has become too controversial and overshadows the game.
Matador
Guest
I like the idea of the captains having 3 referrals per game, it'd take the excuses away and make the onus less on the refs and more on the players. You'd have less time spent on the video ref not more, because it wouldn't be a crutch for the refs anymore. Of course the refs still have to make the right decision, but I think with money on the game and the professional era means we need to be far more accurate in our calls. This year has been terrible. The Titans vs St George game in round 3 was the single worst referring effort I have seen in probably 2000 footy games. It needs to get better, I'm a St George fan, but seriously, we have probably won 2 definite games that we didn't deserve to win, I want fair decisions, not matter what.
sheek
Guest
RB, I'm actually a Queenslander, but I also believe in fair play.
Richard Brockhurst
Guest
If it was the other way round you would be cheering .What about Haynes FORWARD PASS !!!!
sheek
Guest
For once I agree with Phil Gould - it was a "scared' decision by Harrison & Mander. They froze like rabbits caught in headlights. In the end they saw too much into the decision. It seems it never occurred to them to consider the manner in which Hayne was running - on his toes. As an ex-policeman, this ought to have given Harrison a helping clue, but he missed it completely. A case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
sheek
Guest
Video refs will not work until handled by robots, who will not have their decisions clouded by human emotion. That's assuming they're not 'doctored' in any way. But robots won't care who's playing, who's favorite, who the player is, whether he's famous, whether the attacking team is the home team, or the scoreline at the time. They will make the decision purely on what they see, which is precisely what the video ref is supposed to do. Based on what happened in Origin 1, a time limit & replay limit must be set. Say 4 replays (different angles) in a minute or less. If the video ref can't conclusively decide after one minute & 4 replays, he sends it back to the ref. Simple. Or at least it appears simple to me! Matthew, I disagree the two ref system is an improvement. We already have multiple officials at each match, & clearly they still can't get it right often enough. Boof, You,re right. The problem is human emotion, it will always get in the way. Instead of chinese whispers, we now have chinese eyes. It wouldn't matter if you had 12 video refs watching multiple replays. They're just as likely to come with 12 different interpretations!
Spiro Zavos
Expert
The human factor can't be eliminated unfortunately, even with the best technology. There should be a presumption of a try, for instance, when the video referee is asked to make a ruling. If the video has to be virtually tortured with replays to get a possible negative result, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the try-scorer. Rugby league has this protocol but Bill Harrigan and Tim Mander somehow convinced himself that Jarryd Hayne had put a heel on the touch line when it was obvious he was running (deliberately on his toes) and his heels did not touch the ground. There is one shot that suggests this. But it was an illusion due to the foreshortening process of a long range camera shot brought up close.
Gerry Faehrmann
Guest
Sooner you get rid of the video refs the better. We can analyse all you like with a million different TV angles when it goes to Video Ref. Get rid of them and leave it to the guys in the middle. At least we can get on with our life the next day saying "Oh well the ref has the final say!"
Kurt
Guest
Absolutely correct. I used to think that video referees / umpires were a good idea until I watched a SOO game a couple of years back as a relative rugby league neophyte and realised that the video refs were making just as many controversial calls and stuff ups as the guy in the middle. In which case, what's the point? Soccer have got this one spot on, leave it to the guy in the middle and if he stuffs up he stuffs up.
Boof
Guest
It`s not the video camera it`s the bloke looking at the replay. If the video is not accurate then how can you make the judgement the decision is wrong,your criticism is based on the the same footage the ref`s are seeing,every single person who saw the NSW disallowed try thought it was fair except for one Bill Harrigan (surpise,surprise).Hate to admit it but Phil Gould is right when he say`s the Ref`s dont know the game they know the rule`s just not the game as for Harrigan`s origin howler it was the first review of the night in a foreign referee`s box mabye he just pressed the wrong button!!!!!!! because you know Harrigan would never admit it mmmmnnn! i reckon just award the try & get on with it.