Reliance on the video ref is a rugby league buzz kill

NRL players and referees alike have become too dependent on the video referee.

Finals footy has been exciting this season, the games have been close, the action has been intense, and we may just get the fairy-tale story that rugby league has been after for 43 years.

But what has ruined the games and brought controversy to the final series is the intervention of the video referee.

Two weeks ago we watched the Roosters’ season saved by a well-publicised, controversial video ref call against North Queensland. A week later a game-changing call saw Daniel Tupou’s try disallowed just before half-time, when James Maloney was found guilty of a knock-on early in the play.

In both of these instances a call of ‘play-on’ was shouted by the on-field official, deeming that potential drop ball was ok, before going to the video referee to double-check the decision.

In both instances the video ref overrode the on-field call and disallowed the tries.

In both situations, if a try was not scored on that immediate play and the player was tackled, if he then rose quickly and got off a quick play-the-ball and his team scored, a try would be awarded. There would have been nothing the video referee could do about it.

That is of course if the on-field ref didn’t undermine his own ability to see the game and award a try without getting the confirmation of six different camera angles.

In both instances the ref must have been praying a try was scored, just so he wasn’t accountable for making a 50/50 call that resulted in a try which made him the centre of attention post-match.

A referee should be able to call upon the video ref to make a decision that he has not already made a ruling on – like a controlled put down or a tight sideline encounter while a try is being scored – but should the video ref have the right to overrule a call that has already been made on the field earlier in the passage of play?

With the NRL handing over the right to the video referee to overrule or make a call that has already been made on the field, they have given the players the freedom to audition for their Bollywood careers while they play one of the world’s toughest sports.

How many times has the video referee chimed in when a player has stayed down in apparent distress, giving the video referee enough time to rule on a high tackle or lift and award the diving player a penalty?

In the majority of these instances the offending player is put on report, with the severity of his tackle seeing him in the stands for a couple of weeks.

So what are not one but two referees doing on the field while these unlawful and suspendable offences are taking place?

What would happen if the player that was tackled just shook it off and played the ball, just as Sonny Bill Williams did a few weeks ago, when a clear penalty would have been awarded if he was to stay on the ground a little longer to the give the video referee some time to review the play? The referee would simply miss a call and play would go on.

Things are different on the field and need to be officiated on the field. A man in a booth with headphones on, looking at six TV screens does not have any real idea of the flow of the game on the field, and certainly cannot sense the harshness and severity of a tackle as it happens.

In AFL, rugby union, American football, ice hockey and now soccer, it is up to the on-field referee to ask for validity from an instant replay on a point-scoring situation, or the opposing coach can challenge a decision made on the field. But in the NRL the video referee can basically pipe up whenever he likes, put his two cents in and ruin a well officiated game.

Why doesn’t he just officiate the whole game from his box and call the men on the field whistle blowers instead of referees?

Calls coming from upstairs so often must be damaging to the confidence of the two referees, who are supposed to be making these decisions. Maybe that is why they keep missing things or ruling on plays incorrectly?

NRL Head of Football Todd Greenberg has suggested he is prepared to spend millions of dollars on resources and technology to help out referees get the decision right, but I am unsure if this is what the game of rugby league really needs.

Why doesn’t the funding go to the development of referees at the grass roots? If we can develop the game’s best young officials to be more competent without the use of technology while they referee the lower grades, they will not rely on as much help from the man upstairs.

Human error is a part of sport. We can nullify it as much as we possibly can with the use of technology, but if we try too hard we are going to destroy those little things that make rugby league great.