Despite having a personal audience with the NRL Referees’ Elite Performance Manager, Andrew Voss still doesn’t believe Jarrod Croker should have been denied a try last Sunday at WIN Stadium.
During his internet program, NRL HQ, Voss quizzed Tony Archer on why the try was ruled a double movement.
Archer explained to Voss that the video referee judged that the tackle had been completed once Croker’s arm with the ball had touched the ground with the Dragons defender on top of him.
“But he still had momentum!” Voss protested, which is true when you watch it in regular speed. And if referee Ben Cummins had have simply pointed to the spot and awarded the try, I doubt many people would have argued with a judgment that the tackle had been broken.
Except the ‘try’ was referred to the video referee and once that happens, “Jerry, we’re in Bizarro World.”
The simple fact is that the video referee doesn’t have any discretion when it comes to making rulings on the laws of the game.
Section 11 of the Laws deals with the tackle and the play-the-ball.
“A player in possession is tackled: (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground.”
Once the vision is rewound and paused at the moment Croker’s arm is on the ground, with the Dragons player on top of him, there’s no other decision for the video referee to make. Tackle complete.
You can argue why Croker was not allowed to return to where he was tackled and play the ball just as Eto Nabuli was asked to in the second half. Yet we come back to the point of discretion. The video ref had none. As Croker advanced the ball to claim a try after he was ‘tackled’, the only decision that could be made was a penalty.
In the Bizarro World of the video referees’ box, it’s all black and white – so much so that one in particular is nick-named The Zebra.
There was no provision to simply run the Croker tackle through in normal speed and say, “well it looks like he’s broken the tackle in that replay so let’s just award it”. In the relentless drive for consistency we’ve been left with no other option.
In fact, had the try been allowed you could bet your last Sportsbet bonus voucher that come Monday morning St George Illawarra coach Paul McGregor would have been straight on the phone to Archer and emailing through a screenshot of the exact reason why the try should have been denied.
He would have been demanding an explanation for why Croker wasn’t penalised, a reason Archer would not have been able to provide.
Tony is a former police prosecutor and he is not one to overlook evidence in favour of a ‘feel for the game.’ It’s the same theme; black and white.
So that decision was examined on NRL HQ, along with two others from the Parramatta Eels versus New Zealand Warriors game. Those were, on evaluation within the Referees Department, judged to have been correct. There was also a scrum won against the feed because the Tigers’ pack were incompetent. A refereeing issue though? Hardly.
But that was it – no analysis of any other decisions from the weekend. Every week there are close calls, wrong calls, right calls and some downright bizarre calls. Every pass, every tackle, every kick chase and every second of every game is reviewed by the match officials and their evaluators.
Each time there is something found that could be improved it is discussed with the refereeing group. If an unusual law needs to be applied it is raised as well, so that whatever happens one weekend the same ruling can be applied next time it happens on another weekend at another ground.
The footy fans watching their team go around generally have no idea of the work match officials put in to get the right decisions each week. When they make an error they try and find out why it happened and how to prevent it happening again. There is almost always an answer, whether it is positioning, fatigue, loss of concentration or any other factor that contributes to an error.
That’s what I think the fans would like to see on NRL HQ.
But Tony Archer showing me three isolated decisions that were correct? That is stage-managed nonsense. Let’s look at how the game in Brisbane was at risk of falling apart with frequent intervention from the video referee.
The referee looked rattled to me by it all and it didn’t help his performance. At one point the touch judge had his flag in the air and the ref sent the decision upstairs anyway.
Instead Andrew Voss ate up four minutes talking about correct decisions. Let’s have a bit more meat on the bones next week.
Daniel Eastwood is a former NRL touch judge, running the lines between 2008 and 2014. He officiated the 2011 grand final and State of Origin series.
GTW
Guest
I'm completely happy with some mistakes being made by the on field referee. Some aerial contests are almost impossible to be 100% sure about, but if the ref said "try" it'll be a try unless it's very obviously not. As long as the ref is pretty fair to both sides, it's his opinion. To go to a 3 minute review of what happened and make a damned stupid decision, is just crap.
GTW
Guest
Yes, I wrote my earlier post a few posts down the page. The Nebuli non tackle was a make up. Not a tackle in a million years. Slight difference in that Croker's decision cost 6 points.
Anthony
Guest
Archer is not the right person for the job. He has a squad refereeing with no confidence. He is a political animal that was instrumental in knifing and manipulating Harrigan and Raper out. The house of cards will tumble soon. And the fans need that to happen as the majority of the referees are unhappy because of Archer's favoritism, political self preservation and he is a sociopath.
The video technology improvement necessitated a re-evaluation of the laws. That was how the 'interpretations' and then 'guidelines' evolved. They are by no means ideal or exhaustive. My argument is that we demand perfection, which we cloak in 'consistency'. If the rugby league world was happy to live with the referre's decision on the park then we would have no need to have a video ref at all. Except we aren't, and this common ground we've found doesn't seem to please anyone.
Mike from Tari
Guest
What about Thurston strip on Gidley, ball carrying arm on the ground,Thurston takes the ball off him, should have been penalty Knights but Cowboys score. On refs decisions well if they review the bad ones they wouldn't have time to ref any games.
no one in particular
Guest
This all goes back to the days when Finch and Harrigan looked after the referees. Before this time, everybody – players, fans, refs, commentators – knew the rules. Then Finch and Harrigan brought the term “interpretation” into the game. A tackles was no longer a tackle, it became a type of a tackle – dominant, etc. A shepherd was a shepherd, now we have to find out if the player ran through the line, how far the player ran. Advantage off a knock on was over when a pass was made. Now we have to guess if they ran 10 metres or not. Separation became the buzzword when grounding the ball, then it went out. I could go on. Get rid of interpretation and bring back the black and white rules. That will get rid of 80% of the stuff ups.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
In the same game, a Canberra winger was brought down, as he was getting to his feet, referee one says play on. he does. Whistle. Referee 2 calls him back to play the ball. As the player played on initially, shouldn't this have been a penalty as he continued playing after Ref 2 called him back. This is the joke that rugby league has become with our referees. This isn't a one off occurrence. We hear the same thing time and again from the on field referees. The rules used to be so black and white, that is why league was such a great game. Union was the game with all the intricacies in the rules.
The Barry
Roar Guru
The problem is that the video refs overall approach seems to be to wanto to prove how much more clever they are than everyone else by coming up with arcane ways to deny tries. Get rid of double movements altogether. Is the game any better because the rule is in place? Would it be any worse if the rule was removed? No and no. Bin it. It's an old rule that causes more problems than it solves. Who cares where the ball first hits the ground, if the attacker can reach out and score before the tackle is completed then so be it.
It's Bizarro World, GTW. As I said if Benny Cummins points to the spot we don't have much argument. Once it's referred upstairs the Video Ref's are in a bind.
geoff evans
Guest
AJL< if a player falls over and an opposing player places a hand on him he is deemed to be tackled. Crocker was on the ground and a Dragons player dived on him , he is tackled. In that case you do not have to hold him.
zim
Guest
I was at the match and Eto Nabuli should have been allowed to play on. It was just a make-up for their earlier interpretation. I'm sure you've seen many games where they screw up an interpretation early and then have to continue it throughout the game.
Boz
Guest
The Video ref should be used for two things only. 1. Checking whether the player has grounded the ball correctly in attempting to score a try. 2. Checking whether a player has gone into touch, or dead in goal before they have managed to ground the ball. These are two of the least 'grey' areas for them to have to make decisions on. Don't let them decide on things like double movements, obstructions, or whether contact to the head warrants a penalty or not. Fans become frustrated from inconsistencies with not only the video refs decisions, but also to when and what they are being used for.
The eye
Guest
It's in the quote ''a player is tackled when he is held..' He was never held..more Archer dribble..really poor interpretation..which unfortunately for the Raiders became a 12 point turnaround and end of game moments later..not that they deserved to win anyway..
Dean - Surry Hills
Guest
It did happen - in the same game to Eto Nebuli, with the same result. Did you happen to see the match?
GTW
Guest
However, you are using LOGIC, which doesn't apply for some reason. I don't think there'd be many Saints supporters who think that wasn't a try, at least 999 times out of a thousand on any other day. It doesn't mean Saints didn't do almost everything right and deserve to win on Sunday.
GTW
Guest
Watching Fox last night with highlights of tries from heaps of games, how many tries are automatically awarded even though the ball carrying arm hits the ground (in-field) at the same time an opponent is touching them. The factor in these tries is that the try scorer is moving fast and the momentum of the tackle easily takes them into the in-goal area. Had these seemingly automatic, every day of the week, tries been sent up to the video ref, they would see that there is contact between the ground, the ball carrying arm and the tackler, but because momentum took them across the line, it's SURELY a TRY. Unfortunately almost all tries scored by the Raiders seem to be examined with a view to finding a sub clause within the rules to justify the on field refs decision that it was a no try (Cummins and Devchich for some reason almost always go to the VR with a No Try ruling). Take a look at tries the Roosters score, the on field rulings seem to be - if it looks like a try, it's a try. Which is fair enough too, but do this for all 16 teams please. The officials know they got the Croker ruling totally wrong, otherwise why the hell would they have pulled up Nebuli later in the game when he was making a break? He was momentarily tackled, but the defenders fell off him, so he rightly took off again, only to be pulled up. Two wrongs don't make a right.
zim
Guest
A good question to ask is what happens if that "tackle" is made 30m further back down the field. It would have been play on as the ref wouldn't have called it a tackle. Simple test really.
AJL.
Roar Pro
Dan, I'm going to argue the toss there. Maybe Tony Archer and I interpret things differently, but a Dragons player falling across Croker doesn't constitute "holding" him. When the ball-carrying arm hits the ground, there is nobody holding him. Not held.