Rugby league – a sport that’s never too far away from scandal at the best of times – was once again in the headlines for all the wrong reasons over Easter, due to the Bulldogs versus Rabbitohs game being marred by an extremely controversial finish.
What happened at the end of the match was so surreal that one needed to take a step back, have a few deep breaths, and then try to process everything that had happened.
The only thing is, once you did, you were left shaking your head, along with wondering just how rugby league can continually produce stories that see the code make the transition from the back page to the front page so seamlessly.
After the Good Friday debacle and its aftermath, there’s only one thing to do: fire up the old ‘Five questions machine’ once again, and let rip.
1. Should James Graham’s attempted chargedown have been a penalty?
When it first happened, I vehemently disagreed with the call that was made against Bulldogs skipper James Graham for his attempted chargedown of Adam Reynolds’ kick.
However, given some time for the emotion to die down post-match, and thinking about the play with a touch more of a level head, I was willing to concede that the referee had got the call right.
The kicker’s legs had been taken out, and that is a penalty. Debate over.
Then I came across a number of Souths fans who actually believed it was a horrible decision, which made me start wondering about the call all over again.
So, was it the right decision?
You can’t attack a player’s legs; we know that, and it will always be a penalty if you do so.
Here’s the thing though: Graham wasn’t attacking Reynolds’ legs – he was clearly making a play on the ball, and wasn’t attempting a tackle at all. The resulting contact was completely accidental.
Accidents happen, especially in a contact sport like rugby league. You can’t be awarding penalties based on the injuries sustained from an accident; the decisions need to be based on the actual rules.
To that point, referees boss Tony Archer said after the game “There can’t be late, high or dangerous contact”. Based on that interpretation, it was penalty, because if Reynolds is now sidelined for five months, then it was clearly a ‘dangerous’ play.
Then again, how much leeway should be allowed for ‘accidents’?
If Graham had been accidentally tripped by another player as he ran towards Reynolds, and that caused him to tumble to the ground, where he then preceded to make contact with the halfback’s legs, would that be a penalty? It’s highly unlikely, right?
After it’s all said and done, I think the right call was made, because kickers need to be protected from serious injury, and a serious injury has indeed occurred because of Graham’s actions.
Yet I still have a lot of sympathy for Graham and the Dogs, because it was an accident, and as mentioned before, accidents do happen.
2. Was the reaction of the Bulldog’s players acceptable?
No, it wasn’t acceptable.
James Graham, David Klemmer and Michael Lichaa should all be punished for abusing referee Gerard Sutton, as should any other player found guilty of the same offence.
You simply cannot speak to officials in the manner the Dogs did after the controversial decision, and that message needs to be communicated loudly and clearly by the NRL.
However, I felt a fine and perhaps a one-game suspension for each would have sufficed. Instead the match review committee came out swinging, with all three players charged with ‘contrary conduct’ charges; Graham and Klemmer each given a grade three, and Lichaa a grade one.
Graham was also charged with a ‘grade two dangerous contact’ for his chargedown gone wrong, and is facing a total of five weeks on the sideline.
Klemmer is facing a three-game ban with an early guilty plea, or a four-match suspension if he contests the charge and loses. Lichaa won’t miss a game if he pleads guilty.
I think the NRL has slightly overreacted, and the charges against Graham and Klemmer are heavy-handed.
Considering what punishment other players have (or haven’t) received for domestic violence, assault, dangerous tackles, peptide use and drink driving, it’s hard to reconcile a player facing a three-week suspension for simply confronting a referee.
However, if this is the start of the NRL cleaning up player interaction with referees, and they’ll consistently be this harsh on offending players moving forward, then I have no complaints.
Provided this was a turning point – rather than grandstanding – then it’s a good thing, and well overdue.
However, I have fears it’s the latter.
3. Was the reaction of the Bulldogs fans acceptable?
No.
Not in any way, shape or form.
It’s a disgrace this question even needs to be asked. As a Bulldogs supporter, I was disgusted and embarrassed by the behaviour of a small number of fans. Throwing bottles at referees – heck, at anybody – is completely unacceptable, and there is no excuse that justifies doing it.
Life bans is probably a touch extreme – and I’m not even sure how you enforce such a penalty – but something in the region of a five to ten-year ban seems fair for such unruly, dangerous behaviour.
4. Should the Bulldogs be stripped of competition points for their fans behaviour?
I hate to be blunt, but this is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.
How the hell can you strip competition points from a team due to the behaviour of the club’s fans? The club doesn’t pay these people; they’re not employees. The club has no real jurisdiction or control over people that want to support its team.
By all means, tell the club they have to spend more money on security. Threaten fans with life bans. Even go to the extreme of saying that future home games may be forced to be played with no crowd at all.
But docking competition points as a punishment for fan behaviour is completely out of whack with the crime, and directed at the wrong perpetrator. It’s like giving a speeding ticket to the car’s passenger.
Furthermore, what’s to stop Doggies fans dressing up as Rabbitohs fans, throwing bottles at the refs, and costing Souths two competition points?
It’s very, very silly suggestion for a punishment.
5. Where to now?
Good Friday was an ugly day for rugby league, the NRL and the Bulldogs.
Hopefully everyone has learnt a lesson from the horrible events, and some good can come from it all.
Respect for referees, crowd behaviour, and the safety of all involved in the game are not trivial issues; these are vital elements to the success of the sport, and can have far-reaching implications if not addressed.
Let’s hope they have been. And let’s hope we’re talking about actual football next week.
Con Cushion
Guest
I think it was Steve Price who took out the legs of a young player like Graham did that made NRL bring in this rule.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I don't necessarily disagree with some very valid points here. However, the concern you have goes deeper than a rugby league culture though (and this is where it gets into very dangerous commentary) and goes into the culture of the people the sport appeals to and has it's origins in. Steve Mascord wrote a good piece on The Roar yesterday which starts to allude to this.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Yeah, I agree with all that, Carlos.
Carlos
Guest
Well said Noel Steve Price broke Scot Prince's leg, he ended that young half back from the sharks career in his first game and then in an origin game dived into Kimorellys legs sidelining him for nearly 2 years. Graham could have easily ended Reynolds career with his actions then after losing the game for his team, he decided he would carry on like a spoilt child and the morons in the crowd went along for the ride. NRL should have thrown the book at this clown. Personally I don't believe Graham being suspended for 4 weeks counts as the issue being strongly addressed.
Ginger Meggs
Guest
Couldn't agree more Deano. And if Burgess and Tyrell's heads hadn't been sitting on top of their necks they wouldn't have had their faces smashed by good old accident prone Bloodnut.
Carlos
Guest
Maybe the club will take some action to sort out the culture that has developed amongst their fans. This is a really bad look for the dogs. Why would anyone in their right mind want to attend games and sit in the midst of a supporter group that behaves like that. It's the thin edge of the wedge that could lead to the type of hooliganism that UK soccer fans have had to deal with over the years.
Carlos
Guest
ha yep, though I thought my response was very measured...Its not like I suggested stoning them or anything... Boorish, drunken, violent over entitled boganism seems to have become such a conspicuous part of the game on and off the field. I (as you've gathered) think the NRL have to actually do something. The bans the players have received are nothing really. As far as I'm concerned there is no real deterrent to stop this behaviour it's just grandstanding by the NRL, to your last point again what are the odds for long will it be before the next grubby league incident... Its hard to ignore the comparison between the experience of attending AFL and NRL games. For me, I've never had to reassure my wife that in taking the kids to a Swans game that they won't be surrounded by drunken potentially dangerous fools...which with each passing NRL season is getting harder to do with a straight face.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
It's good to hear from an ex-ref and get that side of the story, Noel.
Richie
Guest
He has a point
Richie
Guest
True in this case Ryan bad result but the intention would be to influence the ref . As I said I'd be surprised if coaches didn't have a good idea about each ref and what their particular likes or dislikes and what would get you on the wrong side or get you influence . It's certainly done with players eg if you hit this fullback hard early in the game he won't do anything afterwards. Why not with the refs as well , It seemed to me like Graham was really into every decision the ref made on the weekend , quite aggressive in his face about decisions , didn't change at any stage so I assume Hasler was ok with it or even instructed him to go that way . The fact that it backfired is now just history but id say it was done to get an advantage . And it looked like a particular strategy .
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I just don't see the benefit to it, that's all. Seems like a very thought-out, deliberate strategy for little to no ROI. In fact, it's probably in the negative.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Haha! That's very clever, mate! (No though, just for the record.)
Noel
Guest
Charging down a kick in the manner that Graham did was outlawed iyears ago , the player targeted for his actions , was Steve Price , a Queensland frontrower , who had perfected the charge down by launching his body across and in front of the kicker, thus blocking the ball but also making contact with the legs of the kicker . Officials saw the potential for injury to kickers after some injuries were sustained and accordingly outlawed the action .Being from england rercently Graham would not have known about the ruling as nit is not an Intrenational ruling , still no excuse as his coach and club should have been aware of it . Quite some years prior to this a player , Gibbs , from sydney had perfected a head on tackle that targeted the legs of the ball carrier . The obvious resultant damage being unacceptable and the actioned was outlawed . So the action taken by the referee here , was totally appropriate and should only have gone further . Clemmer should have been calmed down then sanctioned and dismissed from the field . Graham needed to be addressed as the captain of the Bulldogs calmed down , strongly dressed down then dismissed from the field . The actions of both Clemmer and Graham were , in part , some of the reason for the crowd rebelloion , which in itself was hugely unacceptable and should be strongly addressed by the NRL . I can hear you saying that you would like to see me in this situation and then what I would do . Well old maqte I would have done exactly what I have suggested , and I know that because I have done it . There is much more I could add to this but I am not going to ramble on and go into what needs to happen with referees as this response would be longer than your article . In conclusion I will say this . Iam an ex Referee with some 22 years experience , I have lectured and coached referees , and I have refereed to the highest level in the area in which Iresided and on two occasions I have controlled two matches involving International teams , both England and New Zealand . I believe that I am at least qualified to speak on the subject although i am not a Journalist and have no yen to be one .
Jay C
Roar Guru
Would you say he sits on the bell end Ryan?
Richie
Guest
Yes seriously Ryan,why is that so hard to believe . Do you really think Hasler or for that matter any coach doesn't have a strategy to use to work over a ref. They probably have a file on every ref just like they do on each player ,( what can you get away with with ref X and what with ref Y), I'm just guessing here but it makes sense ,they are looking for every advantage ,why not ? And the other reason I say it,is because Graham was over the top at the refs for the whole game against Souths ,are you saying it is unbelievable that Des the master coach wouldn't have said go hard at the refs ,question everything,push them to the edge on every decision . Especially seeing Des has been muffled and can't play his mind games with the media about how bad the refs have been to the dogs. I'd be suprised if he didn't have express instructions for Graham . Otherwise surely Hasler would've told Graham to pull back after the first half,he was already out of hand when the 8 point try was awarded. In fact how does Hasler have a meeting now to tell his players they need to be respectful to the refs ,when he has been at refs for years saying how rubbish they are ,going to be hollow words from Des unless he really decides to change how he treats refs himself .
Justthetip
Guest
Mate I highly doubt the game is too fast for the players because we applaud their incredible reactions in great passages of play. Graham could have done something to avoid momentum carrying him into Reynolds legs but he didn't. He knows this is illegal and makes a lunge for the ball anyway. As for the refs, I know that crickets has a lot less happening but surely umpires have to observe events that happen much faster. The video refs input slows the game down already and was used extremely effectively in the Cowboys vs Panthers game. Totally agree that constructive criticism of refs is surely a benefit to the game but coaches shouldn't be allowed to do it because that competitive nature you talk of will always ensure criticism is always used for the benefit of their team and not for bettering the game. Refs not calling players is a great call. Can't understand why it started in the first place
The Prize_Man
Roar Pro
any defender is free to tackle a kicker without making contact with the legs or late. some people commenting here seem to think if you are going to kick it your untouchable, simply not true. there are protections in place to prevent major injuries by careless contact with the legs of a vulnerable player. Which is what we saw.
The Prize_Man
Roar Pro
I'm not going to say the he did. but i don't think that he (or most other coaches) are above it. Players feign injury to deceive the ref, i think a coach instructing a captain privately to pressure the refs in certain situations is definitely a possibility
Ian
Guest
I agree with you on the selective enforcement of rules. I think the refs should set a high standard and penalise until players rise up to it - the players and coaches will get the message sooner or later. At present the refs selectively lower their standards to a level where they think the number of penalties is ok. I always think that referees not penalising things can be as significant or more significant than the penalties they do blow. Look at the Storm and some other teams, the refs could legitimately blow 5x as many penalties against them as they do. It makes it worthwhile to continue to infringe.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
On the bell curve of reactions, I think it's clear where you sit, Carlos. It's on the opposite end to the 'nutters' who think it wasn't a penalty, no suspensions are required, and the bottle throwers are heroes.