The fundamental criticism people directed at Bill Harrigan in his time as referees boss was that he looked at things through a black and white frame.
His mantra was that to eliminate confusion he would make sure every referee adjudicated on decisions to the absolute letter of the law.
This is why he’s gone.
A referee needs to be more than a rugby league handbook personified.
The test of a great ref is that he or she has a genuine feel for the game, understands its core dynamics and makes decisions based on the reality of each play, not simply quoting a passage on a page.
When Daniel Anderson was appointed, the groundswell of positivity was enormous.
Coaches, players and fans were fed up of decisions that neglected to factor in any form of flexibility and common sense.
Anderson vowed, when he took on the position, that this notion was dead and buried. Common sense will now prevail on the field and we can go back to playing some good old fashioned flowing footy, free of the shackles of absurd interpretations limiting decoys and ball runners.
What a distant memory that appears to be.
Another ghastly decision in last night’s match between the Tigers and Manly has everyone scratching their heads, concerned that this rigid interpretation is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Last night Jamie Lyon, who was never in a position to stop the attacking play, came into subtle contact with a Tiger’s decoy and proceeded to thrust himself onto the turf with great force.
You see, the Jamie Lyons of the game are clever. They realise that accentuating that moment of contact will almost certainly deny the opposition a try, so really you can’t blame them (although to me it hardly seems sporting).
This hard line of refereeing only aids the cultivation of penalty pullers.
We will see a greater number of savvy players deliberately throwing themselves into decoys and hurling themselves to the ground.
When you think about it, if you are in no position to stop the try, it makes sense that players would give it a go.
What do they have to lose? There is no penalty for bad acting, right?
I have already noticed that defenders have begun change their defensive path slightly in order to garner a penalty for this.
Unless Daniel Anderson, who appears to have cornered himself with this already by saying that he definitely will not be changing the interpretation, decides that this is indeed ruining the spectacle of each game, we will have a huge quantity of tries disallowed this year, in exchange for soccer-like penalty pulling antics that would make Russell Crowe blush.
SuperEel22
Roar Guru
Simulation isn't banned in Rugby League as it was never a real problem until recently with video referees and the obstruction rules. Ray Price had the odd flop but he was a tough bastard and was smart when he did it. He stopped doing it when Jack Gibson took over. They said that once Big Jack was coach the stretcher bearers for Ray Price were given the sack.
soapit
Guest
then either i) the defnder initiates the contact or ii) the decoy player didnt do enough to stay out of the defensive line.
uPelican
Guest
Adam, you are spot on about developing a career path into refereeing for former players. I think when some of the former poachers turned gamekeepers show up, they have greater control over the game because the players know they've been there. In 1974 as a teenager,in a game between St Augustines College and Harboard played down at District Park at Brookie, Dennis Ward, who won man of the match two years earlier in Manly first grand final win in 1972 against Easts, was the ref. Best came I ever played in. My old man back then said he should ref first grade and should other players.
Common sense
Guest
So what about situations where the defender manufactures the obstruction and/or takes a dive at the slightest touch in a position that has no bearing on the try to disallow a try that decides a grand final or SOO. Then I suggest we'd back to square one like we were with the Hodges & Inglis tries. I thought Anderson' new approach was " if it looks like a try then it is and if not then it isn't" PFFFT.
NCB619
Guest
Well.. DMac.. They actually do, here in Australia at least. They incorporated it into their post-match review committee. I can't remember the game, but someone acted up once for a penalty, and unfortunately the defender who made the tackle got sent off, while the diving attacker got away with it, and the spot kick won the match. Through the committee, the defender had his automatic red card suspension overturned, and the attacker got suspended instead for 'simulation' I've got a feeling it was Berisha for Brisbane, but I'm not 100% sure. Key point is, as said earlier, 'simulation' or milking for a penalty, isn't prohibited as such in rugby league (might be wrong), so introducing this element into a review committee seems pointless unless something outlining this was actually brought into the game -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
Noel
Guest
This one is simple , as long as Daniel maintains his stance to only penalise the person who initiates the contact I can see it working , I can see where he is going with all of this and I am sure that , as long as he doesn't deviate along the way , all will turn out for the good in the end . Players have to learn to avoid contact when they are a decoy and that is it , referees are going to neede to be able to recognise who initiates the cantact , as well . This is why all decisions are being sent upstairs , Anderson is training the video officials to recognise the offender in the incident and the on field officials will follow , however it will take time , look at the scrums aome still cannot get to accept them , hard but less hassle . Let's all hope for more games in the ilk of the Storm V Broncos last night , great wasn't it.
Matt
Guest
They're turning it into soccer with every stupid penalty they award because of fake acting. Watch a lower division, a LOT less BS. Watch the top divisions, and there's about 20 broken legs a game if you're dumb enough to believe them - which the refs often are.
Adam Bishop
Roar Pro
Love where you're coming from SuperEel and couldn't agree with you more. We talk about concepts like 'feel for the game' and yes, I think you're right, this only really comes through empathy for players and truly knowing the nature and limitations of the game. Perhaps the NRL should look more seriously at developing a post career pathway into the area of refereeing and create some incentives?
SuperEel22
Roar Guru
I think the best performing referee currently is Luke Phillips. Why? Because he's a former player and has been in the position that most of those players have been in. I played soccer for 11 years and refereed for 5 years. I always found that whilst I knew the black and white interpretation a decision was always made easier when I understood what a player was doing and I could tell if a player was deliberately doing something or it was an accident. That is how you have a feel for the game. It's a shame more ex-players don't referee because they can empathise with the players and understand the play a lot better than referees who just referee.
Adam Bishop
Roar Pro
That could be one avenue Rabbitz, but generally I'm an advocate of prevention over cure. If the rule has more flexibility built into it, then I don't think defenders will try to milk these kinds of penalties in the first place.
DMac
Guest
I've always thought that soccer authorities need to look at post game reviews to punish divers with a match ban. Sounds like maybe the NRL needs to consider it too....
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
So are you asking that the NRL look at "diving" and "simulation"?