The Penrith Panthers suffered their first loss of the 2015 NRL season, going down 20-12 to the Sydney Roosters. However the Roosters’ win was overshadowed by a controversial first-half call.
Trailing 6-0 after 20 minutes, it seemed that the Panthers hit back at the Roosters via an incredible put-down by winger Dallin Watene-Zelezniak.
The play was sent upstairs by referee Bernard Sutton for video referees Shayne Hayne and Luke Patten to make a decision.
After reviewing the footage, the crowd and commentary team thought Watene-Zelezniak would get the green light.
Then the official decision came: no try. Penrith were denied the four points, and the chance to bring the game back level to 6-all.
Under the old ‘benefit of the doubt’ rule, that would have been a try every time. Ivan Cleary was clearly frustrated at the situation, and the ruling.
“I thought it was a try,” said the Penrith coach.
The video referee is meant to be called in when the referee is unable to make a ruling, whether it be due to their vision being obstructed, an incident that may have affected play, or a possible offside. However it seems these days that on-field referees have completely lost their confidence. They are so afraid of making a wrong call that even if there is a shadow of a doubt they let the video referee deal with it.
This wouldn’t be such a big issue if the video referee got the call right every time – which they should.
For all the technology, the different angles and the slow-motion replays, there really is no excuse for the video referee to get the call wrong. If it is extremely close and the video referee is not sure, then the call should either be the referee’s first call or a benefit of the doubt try.
The NRL reportedly invested $15 million in their referees over the last 12 months, did that money go to waste?
Whenever a referee makes a truly bad call, it brings the fixture into disrepute. When there are several made in a single week, it brings the sport of rugby league into disrepute.
In the Newcastle vs Gold Coast game on Sunday night, Knights centre Dane Gagai put the ball down for a try which went upstairs for a decision by the video referee. The replay showed a clear knock-on by Knights prop Korbin Sims in the lead-up to the try, but the video referees deemed it went backwards (which was literally physically impossible) and the green light was given.
The Knights converted to get the six points, and went on to win the game 20-18.
Bad calls from referees are killing the game, plain and simple. For all the money that has been invested in referees, and all the technology they have to make fair rulings, they should really do better.
Three weeks into the season and NRL referees boss Tony Archer is already admitting that his referees are getting it wrong.
My suggestion? Get rid of the two video referees and have them as goal-line referees, and make the referee’s call final. What’s the point of having a video referee and all this technology if there is a chance they can get it wrong?
What do you think? Should the NRL get rid of video referees? Bring back the old benefit of the doubt? Let us know in the comments below.
Angus
Guest
OMG...Here we go again!!! NRL appointing serial anti Storm no try Jared Maxwell to officiate upstairs for Melbourne/North Queensland match on Monday. His decision making if it goes to Video ref will be closely scrutinized if he dares to rule "NO TRY" against Storm or Cowboys!!!! Storm 38 v Cowboys 12...Storm to 2nd on the Ladder!!!!
The Barry
Roar Guru
That's at the heart of this GI...the refs can never get it right and expecting video to eradicate mistakes is naive. I thought the pass went backwards, I didn't think Sims touched it at all and then it bounced forwards.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Maybe it's worth a trial. It all sounds fine but it all seems to be on the premise that a ref will 'call it as he sees it' and I just don't see any incentives for refs to do that. If there's a knock on or an obstruction in a play the 'safest' option for the ref is to see if a try develops and if the captain and then the video picks it up. If anything there's an extra layer of incentive not to call it. If a ref is in a bad position to see an incident what about a Jamie Lyon or Justin Hodges who may be over the other side of the field. How are they supposed to make a critical captains challenge of a decision. Or do we wait a minute until they get a message from the stand. One of the biggest criticisms at the moment is that refs are forced to make decisions in incidents that they haven't seen properly or they just can't tell what happened. This system continues that with less ability to double check the call.
Glenn Innes
Guest
"Just get the decisions right" oh yes it really is that simple.Cugel reckons it went back, Dogs reckons he is biased and it was a blatant knock on.Distant Knight reckons it was passed backwards...no,no,no half a metre forward says Swannie and that is just the last four posts.
db swannie
Guest
It went half a mtr forward . The optical illusion of going backwards was because Simms kept moving forward after touching it & was in front of the ball when it hit the ground . If you look at where his hand originally touched the ball & where it landed ,it is clearly forward .
Distant Knight
Guest
It didn't go forward off his hand at all, it just went less backwards than it was before he touched it...
up in the north
Roar Rookie
Fair enough, I'm all for doing things in the name of improvement, so perhaps you're right. Nothing ventured.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
UITN, I believe this will make it simpler. The players play and the refs call it as they see it, just like they used to and just like they do in the grassroots. A captain will only be able to challenge if he has a reasonable amount of certainty that the ref was wrong, meaning less over-analysis. If the ref makes the wrong call, and the captain doesn't challenge, then we will hear less post-game whinging. Not saying its perfect, but it seems to work in well in the U20s as DOW say.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
In the situation we have now, almost every try is analysed ad-nauseum before a decision is made. A lot of the time, the video ref will make a call after applying every possible rule interpretation and the team that doesn't benefit cries foul. In these instances, the decision is often subjective e.g. was there a double movement, or did momentum carry them over? Was it a knock on, or did he have control? Under the captain's challenge system, the on-field ref makes the call based on what he and the other on-field officials have seen. With a limited number of challenges up his sleeve, the captain must have pretty good reason to believe the decision should be challenged. This will eliminate a lot of the over-analysis on the 50-50 calls. But I think the biggest advantage is that in the post game run down, the coaches, players and reporters can't obsess over any 50-50 calls the ref got wrong because the inevitable response will be "If you thought it was wrong, you should've challenged it." Therefore we spend less time talking about refs are killing the game. Similarly, if the captain believes the wrong call was made and DOES challenge unsuccessfully, then he at least has some satisfaction in being able to challenge. Therefore, it's not up to the players to be responsible for reffing the game as you suggest, nor is it making them accountable for officiating, but rather it reduces the opportunity for tedious criticising of the ref after every game as the players had the opportunity to make themselves heard on the field. Strategic usage of challenges by the captain will just become another facet of the on-field strategy. Not saying its a perfect system. There will always be howlers, but I'd prefer the headlines read "Ref makes bad call" than "Ref makes yet another bad call and is killing the game."
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
How wasn't that a knock on? Your eyes painted on? If so you can be a ref too!
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
It seems to work very well in the U20's. Would like to see it trailed at the end of season in the games that have no bearing on the comp.
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
Well no, because there would still be a lot of review, and an understanding that the ref needs to call play as he sees it. One problem you do see, and hadn't thought about it till now, are things like obstruction, which can be hard for the ref to see correctly if he is not positioned perfectly (which is not always the refs fault). At the moment he just lets it play on and hope the video ref can sort it out, but going forward if a captains challenge was introduced, it would mean that you would see more ref's call things like this, because they can't be sure that the captain will challenge it, but it will still be discussed after the game (whether in a game review with his boss, or in the media).
Epiquin
Roar Guru
Should, but don't.
Ray
Roar Rookie
The boss of the referees, Tony Archer needs to be dismissed. I wonder if the public know that the coaching staff actually speak to the on-field officials during games. I heard ex English Referee Russell Smith over my ears device on Monday night. Refereeing has reached a new low and the NRL referees need new leadership and a fresh direction. They are not refereeing well and certainly lack confidence. Bring in the Captains challenge like Tennis. Or just get the decisions right.
up in the north
Roar Rookie
I'm a bit uncomfortable with a captain challenge system as well - sorry. I can just see it being even messier than the current formula, shouldn't we be striving to make things easier rather than more complicated. Some of these blokes are already struggling to make themselves understood without trying to turn them into advocates in the heat of battle.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I disagree with a few things there Epiquin. Firstly I'm all for increasing players responsibility but not by making them responsible for refereeing the game. It doesn't mean the captain has got it wrong more often than the ref. The captain could successfully challenge six decisions. He gets two wrong and is out of challenges. The ref can then have another five unchallengeable howlers. Refereeing is the referees responsibility. Putting measures in place to make players accountable for officiating and take responsibility from the refs is just skirting the issue. It's like this no talking about refs edict. Has it reduced controversy? Has it stopped any of the problems? Has it reduced dissatisfaction with the refs? No - because it doesn't address the core issue.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I'm trying to understand not argue... If in the lead up to a try a ref sees say an obstruction, why would he be more likely to make a call on it under a captains challenge than he is now? If the prevailing attitude is "let the video ref sort it out" wouldn't it just be "let the captain sort it out"?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Shouldn't they (and us) be able to do that now?
The Barry
Roar Guru
I think there was an instant where DWZ lost control of the ball...that's the only idea I have regarding why it wasn't a try. The player has to regain control of the ball prior to putting it down. I'm assuming the VRs didn't think there was enough evidence to suggest that he regained control to overrule the decision. Please don't take it as me defending the decision I'm searching for ways the VRs could have denied it. That's the only reason I can come up with. I think he did lose control for a split-second but I think it's a try every day of the week. And that's why I think it's a system issue. But really it's all guesswork.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
But they would be able to suck it up and play on like every other athlete in the world would have to.