State of Origin has highlighted the crisis that the NRL has on its hands at the moments around the officiating of the game. From referees to rule makers there is a genuine problem that the NRL needs to address.
Forget whether you think Inglis’s try was or wasn’t a try for a moment – let’s look at the official interpretation.
The explanation given by referees boss Bill Harrigan was that if Farah didn’t play at the ball with his foot it should be a knock on.
However, if Farah did play at the ball then we have to look at what Inglis’s intentions were. If Inglis played at the ball then it should also have been ruled a knock on.
So if Farah played at the ball but Inglis didn’t then it should be deemed a try. Fair dinkum?
How can such a simple game come up with such a convoluted rule for such a straightforward process?
How can a rule designed to eliminate the ‘grey areas’ be so reliant on a video ref making a judgement call on the intentions of players 100 metres away?
It’s either a knock or it’s not. Simple.
There are so many examples of these in every game, every weekend. From groundings to strips, from charge-downs to high tackles, where rules are made more complicated than they need to be.
Why is Bill Harrigan in charge of what rules are in vogue, what rules will be targeted and what will be ignored? I’m not so convinced that he’s the man at NRL headquarters that understands what’s best for the game.
For example, at the start of the year a big deal was made of players having to have their “body mass” (whatever that is) behind the referee to be considered onside. What’s happened to that now?
The refs are standing back 13 metres and letting teams stand three metres in front of them. Listen to crowds baying for offside penalties – there’s no way of knowing in an NRL game when a player is onside or off.
Why did this change?
A few weeks ago Bob Fulton and Wayne Bennett came out and said the game was slow and boring. The refs came out for a fortnight and gave a few penalties in the ruck and have since forgotten all about it.
There is absolutely no transparency as to why or how rules become a major focus or are suddenly shelved.
Then there’s the issue of the video ref. Has this really improved the game? The video ref in super slow mo is just as likely to get it wrong as the men on the field, particularly when they’re not supported by the rules, as in the Inglis decision.
Maybe it’s time to empower the refs on the field to make the call and allow captains the opportunity to challenge. Say two decisions per half as they do in other sports.
The rules around grounding the ball had to be changed from having control of the ball to having contact with the ball (separation) because you can’t deem control on a slow motion replay. Isn’t making a rule to suit the referee or the technology putting the cart before the horse?
The refs themselves cop a hard time and more than they deserve, but how many good refs are there out there?
I’m not going to name names but I can think of very few. There’s plenty of Barry Crockers.
The selection of Cummins and Cecchin for Origin 1 with one game between them was diabolical and setting them up to fail.
At your work do you send out two inexperienced staff members together to handle the biggest job of the year?
I would have thought blooding them one at a time with an experienced ref who can help them into the game would be a no-brainer.
How do we improve the qualities of refs? I don’t know but that should be Harrigan’s job, not changing the laws of the game or publicly commenting on every referee decision.
Wouldn’t punters rather hear from Sean Hampstead as to the reasons why he allowed the Inglis try rather than having ‘Hollywood’ explain it two days later?
There is also the issue of knee-jerk rule changes. A case in point was Origin 1, Akuila Uate was returning the ball from a kick when he was ankle tapped by Nate Myles. As a result he fell and a Cameron Smith shoulder charge connected with Uate’s head. I’m not suggesting for one second that Smith should have been penalised.
However earlier in the season Frank Pritchard, Manu Vatuvei, Ben Te’o and Matt Prior all had to face charges because of shoulder charges where the attacking players head dropped suddenly, for a variety of reasons, as they reached the point of impact.
Smith’s shoulder definitely made contact with Uate’s head. It could have been much worse because Smith’s arm was rising in much the same way Matt Prior’s was.
Smith’s case is different because Uate fell much further and much quicker than the others but my point is what is the benchmark? How far does an attacking player’s head have to drop before a shoulder charge to the head is considered legal?
This type of hit has been considered legal for over 100 years and can be evidenced in recent times by high profile hits by Pritchard on Wade Graham and Simon Dwyer on Jared Waerea-Hargreaves.
Because of the recent focus of the long term effects of concussion the NRL rushed to outlaw this type of tackle but now we potentially have a situation where we’re again left with someone at headquarters making a completely subjective call on whether one of these tackles is legal or not, with no guideline to work off.
I’m not saying these tackles shouldn’t be banned, but the NRL changed over 100 years of interpretation over the space of a weekend because of public opinion. Rules shouldn’t be changed on that basis.
Then there’s the issue of respect. Respect is a two way street. At the moment we have refs who speak down terribly to players and players who whose communication with refs leaves a lot to be desired.
I think a big part of this problem starts with refs insisting on calling players by their first names. Familiarity breeds contempt. “Braith, Braith, back with me Braith.” “Jamie, Jamie, get off him Jamie” doesn’t really engender respect.
The refs need to call the player by number and the player needs to call the ref sir. No one likes the look in soccer when the ref makes a decision and is surrounded by eleven protesting players. I fear that’s where we’re headed.
The NRL needs to crack down on captains continually questioning the refs. Every team does it.
If a ref penalises a team for a strip or offside or a high shot, does the captain really need to have a pow-wow to work out why the penalty was given? Limit the opportunity for captains to question the ref.
After Gallen’s outburst towards then end of Origin there were a couple of disturbing incidents in Monday night’s Bulldogs v Roosters match.
After Sam Kasiano had a try disallowed for interference, Michael Ennis questioned the ref (as is his right) as to why the try was disallowed. He must have dropped the F-bomb four times, completely unnecessarily, in a 10 second discussion.
I’m no prude but what are we coming to? Back in my day if you swore in the general vicinity of the ref you would at best get a stern talking to and at worst spend 10 in the bin.
Later in the game Braith Anasta went hard at referee Jason Robinson who he felt had missed a knock on. Anasta asked how two refs and a touch judge could have missed it and then asked if they needed three refs out on the field.
Neither of these incidents should have been tolerated.
But how can the NRL sanction Ennis or Anasta after letting Gallen getting away with it in the game’s showpiece event?
Johnathan Thurston got off scot-free from a four letter tirade aimed specifically at the referee
Finally there’s the wrestle. It’s pointless blaming coaches and players for the wrestle – they’ll look for any advantage they can get. The onus is on the refs to stop it.
When I grew up watching and playing the game, if you tackled someone and then rolled them on their back and lay all over them it would be a penalty every day of the week. When did that change? Why?
The wrestle would be a thing of the past by next week if refs penalised any second movements once an attacking player was on the ground.
Look at some of the Chooseday Night games on Fox from the early 90’s. There’s no wrestle, there’s no constant milking of penalties by the tackled player, defenders get up quickly and so do the attacking players.
Joel
Guest
He kicked the ball out of his hands, that was the interpretation numbnuts!
Chris
Guest
I think these discrepancies are easily fixed within the game. 1. The tackle: There is absolutely no disputing when a tackle is complete. Simply clamp down on any defender that makes any action other than immeadiately releasing the tackled player after the referee calls held or the tackle number. Easy. 2. The high tackle/charge: Simply making head contact with the shoulder illegal is not the answer. Very few of these head contacts occur with the attacking player full upright(if so they need to be penalised). What the ref needs to interpret is intent. If a defending player lines up the attacker with the arm or shoulder with the intent to make contact below the shoulders, then the tackle is legal. If the attacking player slips or falls into the tackle at the last second and the defender has no opportunity to pull out of the tackle then those circumstances are taken out of the defenders control-no penalty. Where the defender is the second man in the tackle(your traditional first in low, second in high to wrap up the ball), even if ever so close to the first, the second defender should be obliged to understand that the first tackler is more than likely to lower the ball carriers height and any significant hard contact with the head needs to be penalised. If you want to smash an attacking player be the first to get to him and intend to make contact below the shoulders. Simple. 3. Ball security: the attacking player needs to take responsibility for the security of the ball first and foremost. "Playing" at the ball can be interpreted far too widely to ever get some consistency. When there is a clear cut case of a strip - ala Thurston on Hayne in game 2 then play can go on. But where there is a 50/50 call on any dislodgement of the ball we need to go back to the ball carrier having the responsibility for ball security and the benefit of the doubt goes to the defender. Now days attacking players are intentionally dropping the ball when defenders are attempting to stop an offload and milking the penalties. . The Inglis try has opened a can of worms. Simply sticking ones foot between ball and the ground to stop a grounding should not be grounds for a "strip". For if it was a player using a forearm to hold up a player from grounding the ball would be considered "playing" at the ball and failure for the attacker to maintain control will be deemed a strip. Which of course is crazy and any incidents of "playing" at the ball need to be reviewed at full speed.
Meesta Cool
Guest
Mushi.. Thanks for your response, you have just proven to me that In life nothing is simple!, the refs don't stand a chance.... now lets give them a fair go, admit to ourselves that the rules can be 'mind twisted' and there is a likelihood that the same offence could be adjudicated differently by each ref, accept this as a situation that will occur in every game and every sport only then can we start watching the games with a more open mind...; bottom line is, they never stood a chance!. thanks mate! For years Ref abuse has been part of the joy of going to the rugby/League/footy/soccer and even netball. We all love to stand/sit in stadiums and let the guy in the middle know how much of a 'dill' jhe is, if we make them mistake free (An impossibility) this facet of our favourite sports will be lost to future generations of roarers. and sane sports fans throughout the world. Roll on game two, no doubt that game will also give us some controversy!... and guess who's fault the result of the game will be, -- Not good or bad play from either team, nor weather conditions, nor injuries and sickness,, NOPE --. the fault will rest solely with the Refs! whoever they are!. AMEN.
sledgeandhammer
Guest
One of the benefits of rugby league being Australian centric is that we get to call the shots. But this is also a liability as you get all the reactive chopping and changing. If Australian rugby ran the IRB there would be a lot of changes, but we don't, all law changes in rugby go through the IRB and are trialled first. In rugby league they are just launched on the back of paper talk. This lack of due process is the real problem today, and I think has got worse over the years. (ps I remember at high school studying the RL rule book and it was very well done, not sure what it looks like now!)
bjt
Guest
Bring in the video element and it's going to be over analysed, therefore requires a more technical approach to the rule making. You can't have one without the other. You want it simple, get rid of the video and don't respond to the whinging NSW media/coaches/players/fans/Ricky when a mistake is made.
M.O.C.
Roar Guru
Excellent article, The Barry - have had the same thoughts myself for many years - the picking and choosing of which rules to enforce any given week is beyond absurd. The seemingly gradual weakening of the rules with regard to ball security both in the tackle and when scoring drive me nuts. The list is endless, the apparent interpretation that any ball that is dropped is deemed to go forwards, players constantly offside at kick-off, drop-outs and when defending their try line.....need I go on. Don't pick and choose the rules - enforce the ones that are there, fix the ones which are not black and white, refs need to demand and earn the respect of the players (no first names and nicknames) and don't let the players talk back. The NRL needs also to crack down on mouthy coaches such as Toovey who recently publicly accused the judiciary of biasing decisions against "aggressive" players like Matai.
mushi
Roar Guru
Problem is I think those are neither simple nor practical Rule 1. Unfortunately due to one of the most important laws of physics you just destroyed rugby league. You are now essentially not able to throw a ball whilst travelling at pace. Lawn bowls all of a sudden becomes a more action packed spectacle. It also becomes a very hard rule to enforce whilst you are running alongside play unless you are a cyborg Rule 2. What is a kick or raking motion? I read this and think well now you can slap, punch and poke at it so long as you don’t attempt to draw your arm back. This isn’t simple this is a highly prescriptive and specific rule which also lacks commonsense. “Playing at it” is far simpler as your just saying did the guy try to get the ball or not - one decision one ruling. You know what else has just happened every fifth tackle becomes an attempt to kick it into the upper body of a player, you also can not charge down under these rules. Rules 3. So wouldn’t you send your players leading with their head and then taking a dive like a shot duck? Seems awful draconian to me. You’ve also dramatically increased the focus on what constitutes “falling”
Jaceman
Guest
"I also watched a Super Rugby game and although I know little of their rules" but still passes judgement - says it all - at every breakdown there are numerous breaches but only the most obvious ones that impact on the the actual flow of play get penalised. Bit like watching harrigan refereee.
Meesta Cool
Guest
It's time to use the 'Kiss principle' in our interpretations " -- 3 examples come immediately to mind: 1/. If a ball travels forward = it is a forward pass, regardless of the players hands or intent!. 2/ If a ball is dropped and travels forward. it is a knock on -- unless an actual kicking'raking motion was used to dislodge it! in which case it becomes a penalty for the attacking team. 3/. If a players hand/Fist/ shoulder or forearm come into contact with a players head and the player can take no immediate part in the game, = immediate send off -- unless the injured player falls into the tackle. If a player is sent off, the injured player is NOT allowed to participate in the rest of the game. these three rules are simple, cannot be misinterpreted. How it MUST be!.
Meesta Cool
Guest
I watched the Wigan v Saints on Eurosports.. the refereeing is exactly the same, once again it wasn't ALL the fault of the refs, they are just doing their best to interpret a lot of badly worded rules and sub rules. this mess must be sorted out by an international body... I also watched a Super Rugby game and although I know little of their rules, I saw several instances where a similar offence was penalised in two different ways. Our game is no different to any other team game played, The ref is ALWAYS wrong. (At least to supporters of one side...
Jaceman
Guest
It seems bizarre but according to the Tele Harrigan is going to reinforce benefit of the doubt again for video refs. That would appear to me what hampstead did in SOO although others may differ on video refs decisions in club games...
Maximus
Guest
Its the NRL's own problem. Harrigan (called a cheat by Alan Jones, Bob Fulton and Roy masters) somehow is in charge of referees despite the numerous errors he made in his refffing career, he still got the top job as a referee and now an administrator. His cherrypicking of the rules (without consulatation with England I assume) is bizarre. Is there any mother code that does this that is international???
Meesta Cool
Guest
Mals. It amazes me that anuone would want to be a ref... stress levels must be unbearable.
Meesta Cool
Guest
Wow... common sense prevails.. The refs are trying to get Rolls Royce performance with Suzuki parts. As I said in my last reply, Our refs are no better or worse than refs have been forever, in ANY sport you wish to mention. IMO, they are doing a creditable job with a less than creditable Instruction manual. I have no doubt that there are many occasions in each game where the 2 refs on the field can actually interpret a tackle , pass, etc in a totally different way, This is what needs to be addressed. SOO decision is a classic, I have seen at least five interpretations that were credible for one happening (not to mentin several that were 'way off target"), I ask you what chance do the refs have?.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Of course rules require interpretations Mushi. But to again use the Inglis example there are three possible permutations of the law based on whether he thinks Inglis and / or Farah played at the ball - that is plain ridiculous.
Danny
Guest
Your first point The Barry was the most important one. The rules are in the hands of referees, coaches & office admin staff. They seem to have worked out the best refs and video refs are former players and trying to bring some through. Looking after the rule book & how it is applied should be run by a group of ex players from the 1960s-90s. Maybe they should ask fans what they think. Why not? We are the customers aren't we? The referees should be told what the rules are and told to go out and enforce them. Referees should have no place in deciding the rules. The coaches should be out of it too. I think this is what the NFL do.
mushi
Roar Guru
Problem is all rules are going to require some level of interpretation and judgement just like our laws. The only way to really get around that is document every single potential interaction between player and ball on the pitch. I think that would take longer then the 103 years the game has been alive?
Mals
Guest
How much are full time referees getting paid? Perhaps not enough. It is a very difficult job & like the players they only have a limited time at the top level due to the fitness demands & the years of prior reffing experience they need under their belt to do an acceptable job at NRL level.
The Barry
Roar Guru
You're right steve...but the problem is beyond just the standard of refereeing. The refs have it tough because the rules don't support them and change on a whim. There doesn't seem to be any sort of a strategy or plan about how the game will be played. Hampstead was on a hiding to nothing on the Inglis try because it all came down to his interpretation of whether Farah and Inglis played at the ball. Either way he was going to get bagged.
steve b
Guest
Barry you have covered a lot of points their , and yes where do you start the problem of bad calls is getting bigger and as you say the refs are not being consistent ..This flipping a man on his back after hes been tackled should be a penalty every day of the week its a shocker..As i have stated in another article the is the worst lot refs since Hartley and grasshopper and showpony is their boss..If the NRL are serious about fixing the problem players ,, coaches ,refs,,all need to be on the same page some rules need to be changed the introduction of the captains or coaches given the opportunity to question at least two calls they deem bad.Maybe a forum where all of the above get together and thrash it out and come up with solutions not exuses and have the balls to change things not just talk about the problems actually fix them.. Because the standard of referring over the past couple years has been shocking to say the least..