The moment Bryan Norrie’s pinky finger came into contact with Martin Taupau’s left nipple during Cooper Cronk’s try for Melbourne on Thursday night, a distinctly uncomfortable feeling began building in the pit of my stomach.
No it wasn’t the beef doner kebab with garlic sauce I was scoffing down at the time, it was the prospect of yet another ludicrous video referring decision that would take the gloss off a game I otherwise was heartily enjoying.
It was my firm hope the new refereeing regime in 2013 would solve many of the problems and inconstancies that have plagued the NRL officialdom in previous seasons.
Admittedly there have been some positive changes, the speed of the ruck is certainly one of those, however the interpretation of the obstruction rule continues to cause headaches for players, coaches and fans alike.
In the case of Bryan Norrie during the Storm-Bulldogs clash, it is probably the worst ruling I’ve witnessed regarding the obstruction rule in living memory.
What really grinds fans’ gears when it comes to ruling on obstructions is that there appears to be no latitude for good old fashioned common sense. Surely a bit of discretion can be used to determine if (a) the level of contact made between a defender and a decoy is significant and (b) if it would have had any effect on the play.
In the case of Cooper Cronk’s try on Thursday night, Martin Taupau would have had a better chance of toppling Julia Gillard in a leadership spill than stopping the try being scored. Further to this, the level of contact made was similar to a plush toy brushing past a strip of felt.
Even with all this in mind, the try was denied because of a black and white interpretation that precludes ANY contact being made between a defender and a decoy, regardless of the context.
If I were a coach in today’s game, I would have no choice but to order my players who are running off the ball to learn how to perform an expert barrel roll in order to prevent contact, either that or speak to David Copperfield about the art-form of invisibility. It’s just plain ridiculous!
The wider implications of this kind of decision will unfortunately mean we have less attacking creativity in the game because players will be too scared to run off the ball for fear of any type of contact with a defender.
If the NRL does not address this kind of issue, the game will continue down the road of being even more structured and predictable, and prevent the Benji Marshalls and Johnathan Thurstons of the game from weaving their magic.
It should also be noted that if a defender chooses to tackle a player off the ball, this is not an obstruction. That defender has made the bad decision and the decoy has been successful.
Lamentably I see this time and again construed as a penalty and I am one rugby league fan who has had enough.
Let’s give the referees the ability to use more discretion and let the game flow at its creative best.
Adam Bishop
Roar Pro
Bang on!!!
Adam Bishop
Roar Pro
Couldn't agree with you more JayBob.
Adam Bishop
Roar Pro
Haha...that is a gem Superstar!!! :P
kaboonta
Guest
I won't be watching nrl anymore. Can't follow the rules and the game has been destroyed by referee's wanting their faces on tv and to be a bigger celebrity than the players. Thankfully the afl has started
Azza
Guest
As a referee myself, I would like to point out that referees do not make the rules, they only enforce them, and it's up to Daniel Andersen to decide how he has his referees interpret those rules... As a referee obstruction is one of the hardest decisions to rule on, it's complex, and the key indicators on it change every year (and sometimes multiple times a year)... On field you get one split second look at it, and then your brain has about a tenth of a second to process who was obstructed, did they gain an advantage, was it a poor defensive read, did the decoy target the outside shoulder, was the defender denied an opportunity to effect a tackle and so on and let me tell you, it's extremely difficult to rule on (until you actually have the whistle in your hand, you will not understand)... Do not get me wrong, I wholly agree the decisions on the weekend should have been tries like the referees originally ruled, however based on the way Andersen has his refs interpreting the obstruction rule, the on field refs got it wrong and the videos got it right... It's harsh but the refs and videos will only ref to the rules and the interpretations they are told to follow...
Vivalasvegan
Guest
Imagine how many penalties we would have if this ludicrous reading of the rule was used in general play as well as for tries. I reckon at least twice a set decoy runners make contact with defenders. Why do refs change the parameters and lose all common sense when a try is scored?
Bazzio
Roar Guru
As it turns out, instead of over-using the video referral system to check out obvious tries that are a meter away from their direct line of sight as before, now they are using it to adjudicate on decisions that are just as in front of them and obvious in lead-up play! As I've harped on before ~ any low-intelligence-no-commonsense complete nong can sit for, and pass, an NRL certification course. And, it seems, that is exactly what happens. Any professional game should be run, administered, and referee'd, professionally by professionals. Not so NRL, which is more like an 'Old Boy's Club' than a professionally run business.
Daniel Szabo
Roar Guru
That's pretty much exactly what I said. Of course they are capable of great insight and judgement. Obviously they are not providing the great insight or judgement they are capable of, meaning that they are not performing to their full capabilities. The refs have been solid in every other facet of the game (except they are a bit pedantic about the hand on the ball, but that'll probably clean itself up as we go further into the season). But their interpretation of the obstruction rule has been nothing short of abysmal. Cronk's one was a try, Fifita's one was a try and Morris's one was a try (and so was Nightingale's - yet another howler from the idiot/man in the box).
JayBob
Guest
It was one of the worst, couldn't believe it! The sad thing is it happened again today in the Raiders/Dragons game. Only this time the Raiders player(McCrone) made the decision to tackle the decoy runner, yet the Dragons were still penalised! This is only going to get worse, and honestly, after reading the rule at the start of the season I'm surprised it has taken this long to cause an uproar.
Michael Johnson
Guest
Im starting to think, the referees are have their technicalities so messed up, the game has lost its common sense. Just watching the St George Vs Canberra Raiders game, another pathetic call because an attacking player "touched" a defending play, even though the try was scored no-where near the incident. That player was never going to get there nor was he going to affect the play. I wish the referees used a bit more of their head than running around using a book and ruining the game. If St George lose tonights game by 6 points or less. They would be robbed of a victory. Those horrible no try calls change momentum. It ruins the idea of set plays and decoy runners.
Gus Paella
Guest
Every year the NRL claims they will fix the problems, different experts have their say and its to no avail. It's not the 50-50 calls that infuriate all, its the absolute shockers like the Cronk no try and Foran knock on. The NRL needs to highlight the call, publicly state it was wrong and put the refs on notice to improve their accountability -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
Ronald M
Guest
I don't think that is true. I think they are capable of great insight and judgement. The problem is when someone interferes with them doing their job. Either a technical directive that is plain wrong or the video ref. As I said before, in many areas of the game the video ref has taken us backwards. Fans don't care so much about the minutia or strict legal interpretations of the rules. They just want clear foul play stopped, obvious tries given and a degree of common sense. If it looked like a try then a try should be given.
Ronald M
Guest
It was accidental, just one of those things that happen and it seems that the judiciary agree with me. It looked bad in slow motion but in real time you realise that no one would have had the time to do anything malicious.
Daniel Szabo
Roar Guru
Referees do not know common sense. If you ask a ref to paint your windows, they will paint the glass as well as the frames because the glass is technically part of the window. I don't care how they justify awarding that a no-try. I don't care what sort of technicality they use they say it is. I don't need rule books or technicalities to know that it was a try.
josh
Guest
you have got to be kidding about the mid air karate kick. as a bulldogs fan i didn't want my team to win after the disallowed because that was a dreadful call and i didn't want to be one of those teams who wins just because of a ref blunder but billy's kick in mid air should have got he suspended for atleast a game
Cameron
Roar Guru
*I was disgusted in not seeing that try awarded...*
Cameron
Roar Guru
I'm just glad it didn't cost Storm the game. I was disgusted in seeing that try to awarded and kept wondering what's next. The game is being ruined. Rugby League needs to stop changing it's rules. They call it the greatest game of all but this season is far from reflective of that. Don't even get me started on the inconsistencies on some teams and how pathetic attack and defence is for some sides. I don't like Melbourne but i'm glad they're doing their part to keep the game interesting.
Ronald M
Guest
Daniel has done a fantastic job as referrees boss. The changes (scratch that.... improvements) this year are plain for all to see but his work is not done yet. He hasn't been in the job for a years yet so give him a chance. That said, I was horrified at the 2 glaringly bad decisions that night both of which would have been called right if it hadn't been for the dis-advantage of video replays. Firstly was the BS incident which had a penalty originally and correctly awarded to Billy. Then the video man got on the blower and we have a change of penalty, a man put on report who never should have been, a complete change of momentum leading to a try and a gross mis-carriage of justice. The second incident was the cronk try referred to here. The game itself was fantastic, two wonderful very skillful teams battling it out. It was magic. But, if Melbourne hadn't been of the calibre they are then a gross injustice could have cost this game. We need to think hard about whether this video ref system is a good idea or not. Some instances like grounding or checking that the try scorer was behind the kicker its great but for everything else then the man in the middle should be the sole judge. I would also like to see the introduction of some form of Captains challenge. In both of these instances, Smith correctly challenged the ref's decision. The Ch9 commentators correctly called these incidents. Surely some means of referring a challenged call can be constructed that will help in these cases even if it means time out to do so.
phascolomis
Guest
Using commonsense could be a very difficult task when dealing with people who do not understand the concept. Sorry but players only understand what is in black and white and gamemanship.
Dragons Forever
Guest
To Anderson and the refs credit, before this blunder IMO they have done a wonderful job so far. Lets hope logic steps in and we don't get a repeat of this obstruction ruining g or its 5 steps forward and 6 steps back. Other than that gd job so far