Penalty decisions – correct or incorrect – are having too much influence on the outcome of NRL matches.
In a game of grey areas like rugby league, any losing coach or fan with a DVD player and an axe to grind can easily find a dozen examples of questionable (or missed) penalties that – perhaps, possibly, maybe – affected the outcome of any match.
So here’s a thought. Instead of focusing on whether refs are getting all their calls right, let’s find ways to reduce the impact a referee can have.
Here are just two ideas that come to mind. Either eliminate the penalty kick for touch, or keep it, but do not restart the tackle count.
These ideas have been touched on before, but never seriously discussed.
They should be, because at the moment the punishment for most infringements simply doesn’t fit the crime.
Too often, teams pinned in their own area and under pressure from enthusiastic defensive lines are piggybacked out of danger and into attacking position thanks to the most minor of transgressions.
It feels like the grind for field position has just about disappeared from the game, replaced with the march of the whistle.
It also feels like a lot of the creativity has disappeared. Instead, we get boring attacking movements that culminate in the uninspired lottery of a last tackle high ball.
And it’s made even worse when a referee interprets a similar incident differently at the other end of the field.
We’re at the point where anything except an equal penalty count at the full-time whistle is looked upon with suspicion.
“I’m not saying the penalties weren’t justified, but there’s no way the other mob weren’t infringing too.”
How many times have you heard words to that effect from a coach on the wrong end of a 9-4 penalty count?
So let’s work on ways to reduce the impact a referee can have.
Of course, history shows that most rule changes solve old problems while creating new ones. The same would probably happen if we eliminated the penalty kick for touch.
For one, defensive teams on the back foot might start infringing intentionally, knowing full well they’ll have time to reorganise their line.
Also, major infringements – a swinging arm, a lifting tackle, a leg twist – might not get the punishment they deserve.
Any rule changes would need to be fine-tuned and moulded around the new issues that would inevitably arise. Repeated infringements, dangerous play and so forth would need to be penalised accordingly.
At the end of the day, though, the premise is simple.
Referees don’t want to be in the spotlight, and no fan wants to see referees in the spotlight. So let’s work on ways to take them out of it.
The power to influence matches needs to be taken away from referees and put back where it belongs – in the hands of players.
The closer we move towards that goal, the more we’re all going to enjoy our rugby league.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
you are forgetting that penalties are there to punish teams for breaking the rules. If the punishment is reduced then you take away the incentive to play within the rules. so what if a team loses a game because it gave away a penalty, that's their fault and they need to learn to play within the rules. teach them the rules and tell them to play within them - problem solved
DMW
Guest
Agree. I'm not anti-penalties... I just want to see some consistency. Like other teams being consistently penalised like the Roosters.
bbt
Guest
Sorry - I don't get this article. All contests consist of some one policing the rules while the participants push the rules to the limit. Or you could have no rules!!! If teams such as Storm, Roosters etc are pushing the rules, well, that is what we would expect them to do. Purposely giving away penalties is pretty stupid, unless you are a bunch of points up, as team do have the option of potting a goal. We all have our gripes about refereeing - mine is moving off the mark in the play the ball. But I am not giving up watching a game because of it.
Geronimo
Guest
Someone on Fox (maybe Voss) said that tries (or near-tries almost automatically come from penalties. The 30-40 metre kick plus 6 tackles with the 10 metre rule almost guarantee a team will be on the opponents tryline after a penalty. Its regulation for those refs trying to "not let a team run away with the game"
Doggies Bro
Guest
Media is already shredding them. So what will change it would stop teams giving away a penalty rather than a try
Boz
Guest
Having different penalties for different offences is going to be a nightmare. Consistency in the biggest issue with regards to refereeing. The idea of lessening the impact of penalties is definitely something that needs to be looked at. Myself and others have advocated that you either have the choice of kicking for touch with the tackle count continuing, or have a quick tap, and the tackle count restarts. The problem with this is that any penalty on the first tackle, is going to be much more rewarding, than any other penalty, effectively giving the team extra metres and another set of 6. I would propose that any penalty conceded by the defensive team means they are marched back 15 metres, and play continues from the previous tackle count. If the team in possession concedes a penalty, then they are marched back 15 metres and lose a tackle ( so if they concede on the 5th it is handover).
Adam
Roar Guru
I don't know of a website that provides that data. Show me one and I'll happily look at it. Either way, I don't think it would change my opinion, one that I've formed simply from watching a lot of footy this year. Stats don't always tell the full story.
Ian
Guest
I like the idea of long and short arm penalties. I would add that after x number of penalties in a half, everything is long arm, to deter repeat infringements. Of course, the proper solution would be for the refs to blow the pea out of their whistle until the players stop offending. I actually think the penalties given is less of an issue than penalties not given when they should be. Allowing teams to slow down the ruck all game and maybe penalising them 4-5 times for it. While the penalties have an impact, the other 50 times they did the same things and didn't get penalised has far more impact on the game.
Shaun Maher
Roar Rookie
Proportional Penalties would be great but I don't see how the refs could handle the nuances while we consistently see them getting the obvious stuff wrong now. I can understand Anderson trying to bring structure and consistency to the whistle blowers but it would be nice to imagine a future where intentional fouls are punished more harshly than lazy / minor infringements
GW
Roar Pro
I for one think the refs are completely impartial, but at the same time think there's an underlying expectation that something will happen, such as that Storm will overpower Wests, and the way they look at some very minor infractions can absolutely floor the team with the lesser manpower.
mushi
Guest
How can you write an article like this without looking at the data?
mushi
Guest
They already have that capability now (well a 10 minute) but if they used it the media would shred them.
Doggies Bro
Guest
Look where the penalties are given most to slow the play the ball and let the defence team get there line set to defend. Maybe 5 in the bin for a player who gives away a penalty in there own 15 when the other team may have scored
V.O.R.
Guest
good point George. Maybe it could be classified as a dominant tackle...it's a tough one.
GW
Roar Pro
When and where penalties are awarded is much more important than the final penalty count. Getting penalised can be a real advantage in certain circumstances, and kill the game for you in other instances.
turbodewd
Guest
Tom, you say that refs are actively trying to influence results. Cool story bro!
ferret
Guest
Complete twaddle. In most / many cases you hear the ref say "that's the second one (infringement) in this set." So in fact they are looking for a couple of offences before awarding a penalty. Concerning your second point, the facts say the opposite - the Roosters, Souths and Manly are three of the most penalised teams in the comp.
GW
Roar Pro
I would love to see the tackle around the ankles rewarded again. It stops the big guys dead in their tracks, and allows the little guys to be on an equal footing with the big guys for a change. Currently this type of tackle results in a quick play the ball, which advantages the team in possession, so coaches don't want their players doing it. What can be done to fix this? As long at there is only one tackler, maybe the tackler should have 2 seconds to get up and back in front of the ruck before the play the ball occurs?
DMW
Guest
Attitude is well earned IMO. What happened to the OPSM sponsorship? Ref's giving them a bad name were they? http://www.nrl.com/tabid/10874/newsId/58770/Default.aspx Unless of course you think all the eyes of the world have since been fixed. You really should think before you post you know...
DMW
Guest
I heard or read the other day scrums were packed and decided in less than 30secs in the '80's. And overall fans of that era enjoyed slightly more than 6mins of play extra than the modern game offers.