It occurred to me recently that I couldn’t actually remember the last time I witnessed a send-off in a game of rugby league.
My mind immediately raced back to “the good old days” where it wasn’t an uncommon occurrence. I pondered that perhaps it’s good thing, that the game has indeed been cleaned up a hell of a lot.
With the money and professionalism that is involved at the elite level of the game today, the theory that one may be far less likely to “lose their cool” in the heat of battle is plausible. Clubs, coaches, players, fans – few would tolerate a “brain explosion” which led to a send-off and cost their team victory.
I agree that the game has become cleaner, but I also couldn’t recall a match where I haven’t seen a player placed on report by the referee. Granted, some of these instances where players are put on report seem over-the-top and unnecessary, a penalty often more than suffices for the infringement. However, swinging arms, dropped knees, careless and reckless high shots are all still happening out on the field every week.
I understand the referees have it tough, are under enormous pressure, and are scrutinised for every decision they make on the field. I’m not having a dig at referees, but question whether the options the referees have at their disposal are being used adequately to counter these on-field offences.
Referees are under too much pressure and are therefore extremely reluctant to ever send a player from the field as it would create far too much controversy. It seems it is far easier to place the offender on report and let the judiciary sort it out. Much the same way as when the video ref came in, we slowly saw less and less referees award tries on the spot, to the point where virtually every decision was sent to the man in the box upstairs.
Last year’s referees boss Daniel Anderson made what I believe a fantastic call by putting the onus back on referees. Now, before they go to the video ref, they first have to deem whether they thought it was in fact a try or not. And while we are still not getting it 100per cent right, I think that most fans would agree the system is working a lot better. It has given the referee more ascendency in on-field decision making, which has been a giant plus.
Whether a similar thing could be done regarding blatant foul play is highly debatable, but it seems harder and harder for players to even get sin-binned, let alone sent off in matches these days.
I’m not implying that we need to send more players off for nothing, but observing the fact we haven’t been seeing as many send-offs.
Are referees simply under too much pressure to actually send someone from the field?
This leads us to the question and validity of the 18th man. When a player is rubbed out of a match – foul play or not – how long will it be before we see the 18th man implemented? Or should clubs be expected to “suck it up” and remain disadvantaged for the match’s duration in an era when the NRL is promoting equality across its competition?
With player safety paramount in today’s sporting world, and the ongoing debates in rugby league regarding the shoulder charge, concussion rule, lifting and various dirty tackling/wrestling manoeuvres, many feel it is high time for the NRL to take a tougher stand.
I was disappointed to see the shoulder charge outlawed and believe it was a great part of the game. It served a purpose. Apart from fans loving to see the big hits, little can lift a side more than when a teammate serves up a bone-crunching rattler.
In saying that, a shoulder charge that comes into contact with an opponents head is a massive no-no and must be dealt with accordingly. However, I still cannot see why the two cannot be distinguished and actioned respectively. As for lifting, cannonballs, chicken wings and grappling, they serve no purpose and should be rubbed out of our great game altogether.
Referees should be dealt with a reminder that the sin-bin and send-off rules are there for a reason.
Tobias Zulaikha
Roar Rookie
Buntus, that is indeed a good question. As a tennis fan myself, I won't mind digressing.. Yes, despite the advancements of Hawk Eye, I do think umpires are still necessary. I think it is crucial for that human element to still remain when adjudicating. I do think however, that since the Hawk Eye era began, being a tennis umpire is quite the dream job for many. The controversy is certainly minimised and who can criticise an umpire for simply sticking to what Hawk Eye deemed was in or out? I think a better possible argument could be the relevance of linesmen/women. I think they would surely go before the umpires.
Buntus Godwinson
Guest
Hi Tobias - sorry to switch codes on you, but I am keen to hear your thoughts. Are umpires necessary on the tennis courts?
Ken
Guest
Completely true, although rarely used for that either
Cadfael
Roar Guru
So team one loses their star player for the game from an illegal foul. The offender Is sent off and a replacement comes on. Where is the advantage for the non offending team? Their star player is gone, they are a player down on their interchange with the offending player's team being in the same situation. Where's the punishment for the offender's team? Maybe allow an extra bench player for the non offending team so they have four on the bench to the offending player's team only having three. This then would see players sitting on the bench " in case" but they would still have to be paid and that then affects the salary cap.
Tobias Zulaikha
Roar Rookie
Not a bad suggestion Rod and one that deserves further discussion at NRL HQ.
Rod
Guest
To me it's a no brainer. I cannot see why with it being a 17 man game. That you send a player off, you keep it 13 on 13. The sent off players is done for the night. If the player who is fouled, cannot participate, you are able to bring a replacement on for him. I keep hearing this would change the fabric of the game. Hello, the game changed when they brought in unlimited interchange, no contest for the ball.
Kazzie
Guest
Kade Snowden was sent off last years when playing against the cowboys. Other than that a can't remember another case of a player being sent off in recent times. I suspect the referees are too worried about the coaches and media making public comments about the standard of refereeing and err on the side of caution by only putting it on report. I think this is a bit of a copout. They need to ignore the coaches and the media and as Cadfael says referee as per the rule book.
Squidward
Roar Rookie
Record for comment lengths broken today by Fil
Fil
Guest
Yeah, I did realise that but I think going to a 5 metre rule would mean the ruck was a lot cleaner. Defenders wouldn't feel compelled to lie all over the tackled player to ensure their forwards could get back onside. Your point about scrums is valid. I would love to see a competitive scrum. Not to the point of rugby union where teams use scrums to stall and win penalties but would like to see the old scrum rules back where it could not be fed straight into the second row. I think striking in the play the ball should be allowed. I remember the days of benny elias and mario fenech
Sleemo
Guest
How a player can remain on the field for an offence which is later determined to be worth 5 weeks on the sidelines is completely beyond me. Any offence which will be deemed worthy of a suspension in its own right (i.e. disregarding carry-over points) should result in a send-off at the time. It's simple. It really is.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
The problem with no send offs is that the referees appear to be afraid to send a player off, taking the easy option in putting a player on report. Refs seem to be so concerned that their decisions will change a game but their indecision also changes a game. The referees should forget about the coaches and media and just referee as per the rule book, it won't happen.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
On the 10 metre rule, you do realise that is was always 10 metres. The attacking side back five and the defending side back five. The problem was that coaches complained about getting penalised for being inside the five when they had the ball, so they changed it so the attacking side could be inside the five metres but the defending side had to stay back. We then had the coaches complaining that five metres wasn't enough so the defending side now has to be back 10 metres. The coaches have a lot to answer for in what is the "Americanisation" of league. No competitive scrums, no striking in the play the ball, poor ball security rewarded to name a few.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Forward passes from the dummy half are a blight on the game. In most sets the first two are generally forward and NEVER picked up.With so much else, with two refs and two touchies out there, how come so much is missed.
Arnold kerwanty
Guest
I'd suggest anyone put on report should go for five in the bin, or real shockers, ten minutes when the victim is knocked out. Then the other team gets an advantage.
Fil
Guest
Absolutely. more than half of the forward passes thrown are from dummy half, but I was suggesting that many hookers get away with short sharp passes from dummy half because the ref is watching the defensive line and the pocket ref is too far back, in many cases almost directly behind the hooker which means he doesn't get to see the ruck at all. I think the game has gotten too high tech and for this we suffered as loyal ARL supporters from the influence of Super League with their TV replays, striped shirt refs, two refs, and in general, Americanisation of rugby league in 1997. Unfortunately the NRL adopted many of these add-ons. But your main issue today, the send-offs, I see no easy answer to. It is far too arbitrary how decisions are made. I firmly believe referees are given instructions as to what is going to be a more popular decision. Otherwise, why not send a player off or at least sin-bin him? If referees were more proactive, I firmly believe Alex McKinnion would not have been injured. The refs need to call 'held' earlier, none of this 'dominant' rubbish, clean up the ruck and as soon as a player has lost momentum, he is held. Anyone going on with the tackle can have 10 in the bin. Anything dangerous, you can take your shower, front the judiciary and have at least two months off. I don't mind if 2-3 tries are scored when a team is one down. If the game is lost, then so be it. Don't infringe. As you say, putting a player on report does nothing for a team who has lost a key player through injury from foul play. And as we saw in 2012 in the Preliminary Final between Souths and Bulldogs, losing a key player changes the whole dynamic. (On that occasion there was no foul play, Adam Reynolds had a strain) but the effect of losing him at half-back and shifting Issac Luke from hooker to half-back was the point that Souths lost the game. I also firmly believe that if we went back to 5 metres offside and not 10, there would be a faster game with halfbacks lining up far behind the play the ball and defensive lines wouldn't wrestle at the play the ball to ensure their team got back onside.
Tobias Zulaikha
Roar Rookie
Agreed Fil, at this rate it won't be long until the touchies are permanently replaced by robots. As for the 2nd ref, yes I fail to see the relevance and cannot see any remarkable difference compared to when their was just one ref. As you mentioned, at least then the touchies would actually get involved a little more, eg. spotting foul play off the ball, forward passes, etc. The least the 2nd ref can do is align himself with the ruck whilst the other polices the 10 metres. Surely more than half the forward passes thrown are from dummy half..?
Fil
Guest
Tobias, I didn't necessarily mean they are predicting results, however when there is the chance of a result turning up that no one is expecting or when a team is about to have a long winning run ended, I feel that refs panic and start to look for issues to nit-pick with certain teams. For example, I stand by my comments that I made regarding the Roosters v Manly game and an 11-2 penalty count in Manly's favour. Its seems a little odd that in the week when Todd Greenberg personally visited Geoff Toovey to talk about the appalling refereeing in the 2013 GF, Manly win the penalty count by as much as they did. I agree that the penalties were warranted as the Roosters are the worst disciplined side in the competition, however, it just seems a little odd that referee Cummins takes such a proactive role in that match when he was barely sighted in the GF. Secondly, Manly won the penalty count against Parramatta at Brookvale even though Manly seemed to escape penalty for having committed the same transgression as those that the Eels were pinged for. I said to a mate before the game, 'Watch this, we will win the count by something like 10-4, 12-4' and I was right. Ricky Stuart was right when he said that the Eels are a very easy team to penalise as they have very few well-known players and with two wooden spoons in a row, there is no presumption that they will necessarily win. I don't think that referees deliberately set out to create a result, with the exception of the GF when it seemed obvious to all and sundry that the Roosters were escaping sanction while having their mistakes and ruck transgressions ignored. I still stick to my belief that the NRL was so desperate for the Souths v Roosters GF that when they didn't get it, they plotted a course to ensure SBW held up the trophy for Rugby League Week. This year you barely here about SBW as he has already re-committed to rugby union. I do firmly believe there is a great deal of closed door discussions going on in the NRL that are tainting the game. If there wasn't, then why the new ruling to stop captains from asking questions of referees after each stoppage other than a try or a scrum? Why this ridiculous notion that the the 'benefit of the doubt' ruling has been done away with when it exists as a rose under another name. Referees cannot just turn up on the scene, survey a tangled mass of bodies, call 'Try' or 'No try' and then shift the onus onto the video guys. If they call 'try' and the video refs can't see anything, they uphold the decision, same for 'no try'. this means that the referee is actually making the decision even though, most dangerously, at the time he is simply guessing. Watch rugby union refs and how close they get to the ruck, and there is only one of them. The pocket ref simply patrols beyond the defensive line, (seriously, what he is looking out for?), get him at the ruck looking for forward passes or foul play. Cam Smith throws at least half his passes forward from dummy-half. And really, what do touch judges now do except hold up a flag for touch and goals. you would be pushed to find out what other purpose they serve. and they get $1000 a game for that. The old touchies used to run on, signal and report on foul play. Forward passes can't be adjudicated on upstairs yet the touch judges are too scared to make a decision on their own. they literally are just 'touch judges.' ball goes in touch, up goes the flag. seriously, pay children $250 a game to do that and bank the rest.
Buntus Godwinson
Guest
Interesting article. I'd hate to rid the game of an honest grapple or deep fried chicken wing though
Tobias Zulaikha
Guest
Fil, thanks for your comment - you certainly raise some valid and interesting points, especially as you are writing from the perspective of not only a fan but also a referee. One thing I'm not so sure about though is your comment, "Referees are under pressure to generate the kind of results that are expected" I think the results of the game today is to expect the unexpected. The NRL has gone to great lengths over the years to even out the competition as best as they can, and as many fans in tipping comps can tell you, so far this season the so-called "favourite" has had little success. Shock scorelines and results are what the NRL want and it is healthier for the game overall. If the "expected results" always occurred, interest would wane dramatically.
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
Agreed, although the practical difference is the free interchange allowed due to an "on report" penalty. Which of course is gamed by teams getting such penalties.