In recent times, refereeing decisions in the NRL have been questioned by coaches, journalists and fans alike. Of course, this has been occurring for a long period of time now and across many different codes, such as AFL, union and football.
But why has this become a heavily covered topic in recent times? There is a claim by critics and fans in recent years that rugby league is becoming ‘soft’, but is this influenced by the calls made by referees?
Without a doubt, the decisions made by referees can be contributed to recent rule changes and crackdowns, such as the shoulder charge. Obviously, the NRL are no longer as lenient on certain tackles, as has been the case in recent weeks.
Issac Luke, Jorge Taufua and Aidan Guerra were all cleared of making shoulder charges at the NRL judiciary, despite calls made otherwise by the referees. These decisions can be detrimental for teams in the competition and can ultimately affect the success of the clubs in the following weeks.
It is the difference in getting the two points each and every week. In such a tight competition decisions like these should be avoided as much as possible. It must be noted that the referees do not intentionally go out to make these errors, but these occurrences shouldn’t be happening, especially in the top tier of rugby league.
One particular instance of such referring, which is still fresh in the minds of many supporters, was the awarding of the ‘7th-tackle’ try by the Cronulla Sharks against the Cowboys in the first week of the finals back in 2013. While the Cowboys had the chance to ultimately win the game, it diminished their chance of possibly winning the premiership.
It’s simply embarrassing that this happened, especially within the midst of a finals series. It is ridiculous that we can not go a single round without a certain refereeing decision being questioned.
This is a top-tier rugby league code which just signed a $925 million broadcast deal. Yet we continue to get these stupid and unprofessional refereeing decisions made by certain individuals, which belong to an Under-8s rugby league match. It is clear that these calls shouldn’t be made, at least not regularly.
Probably the best display of refereeing in recent months was the Sharks versus Tigers match, in which the video referee was not required once and the decisions made were spot on. It was a pleasant change from the constant bombardment of poor decisions made every single match.
The performance of these referees prove that the overall refereeing can improve and on a drastic level. Yes, recent changes and crackdowns have contributed to the calls made by referees, however there is no excuse for the constant questionable calls made each and every week.
up in the north
Roar Rookie
It's funny when the Cowbies are referred to as victims of poor decisions that the old chestnut of 'the' seven tackle set is aired. I don't recall that, that set produced a try. But if it did fine no arguments from me. My point though is that game had a dramatic ending , where the clock stopped and nobody noticed that the game should have been over officially. If the boys had have scored the Cowbies would have been the recipients of a reverse conspiracy to get them into the finals. Funny old world.
Sharks Fan
Roar Rookie
Look mate, i'm not willing to start an argument. I really couldn't care less if you hate me or this article. I created an article based on a discussion that I believe in and I am entitled too. Just because you may not agree with it, doesn't give you the right to just bag out the article without offering any constructive criticism. You're the one that started this, not me. You offered a valid response with your third post, but the rest of your posts were complete nonsense. There's no need to result in personal attacks either. I wouldn't of responded in the manner I did if you hadn't of posted this.. "To use another quote from our fine author “It’s simply embarrassing that this happened, ” Yes it is, sadly I’m not referring to the refereeing" Grow up. There was no need to post that. You offered your opinion in the first post, without resulting in petty attacks. There was no need for that comment. I'm willing to accept criticism, granted that there is a valid reason to. Not when it's just for the sake of it.
pete bloor
Guest
I picked up 9 spelling and grammatical errors so yes I'm clearly wrong in pointing out you have the logical argument of an angry 8 year old. Also if you want to hold yourself out as a literary genius don't repeatedly use the same adjective. You only had 10 paragraphs, get a thesaurus.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
I agree with you that refereeing can improve. To me, the problem is the current set up. Who are the referees responsible to? The NRL. Who tells the referees what they can and can't doon the field. Look at on field player penalties. A send off a week or two ago in the 79th minute. How many sin bins for professional fouls are given. Normally a rarity. Why is it that country referees can sin bin and send players off with impunity. It is the same game and the same rules (well, close anyway). One difference is that country referees belong to the Country Rugby League Referee's Association not their local Group or region association. And what exactly is this difference about. NRL referees are paid through the NRL and are responsible to the NRL.
pete bloor
Guest
I read the entire article, which isn’t a tough inference to draw given I quote from paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of the weighty 10 paragraph article. I am surprised after the grammar police post for my user name you didn’t use my lack of appropriate referencing to assail me for plagiarism. I find your explanation of it being a generalization to support your theory/idea puzzling when the run completely contrary to the point, and you don’t present any other information prior to making the statement that “it is the difference in getting the two points each and every week”. The only logical way that those three incidents could, in any way, support the assertion that these types of referring decisions are costing teams 2 points is if there were 2 more points on offer in those games. Which I know is me being facetious, but then you also suggest the calls are similar to an under 8 game, which is played under extremely different rules, so I figured we all had some leeway there. This is before going to the failure in logic that Ken points out as to what the judiciary opines on, or the just misrepresentation of acts regarding the Guerra incident. The only other decision referenced, after the statement, is one from 2013. Even this one didn’t have 2 points on the line which, given you are pedantic enough to call for the eradication of lower case proper nouns on the internet, you should have been aware of. You’ve basically come to a conclusion and then gone looking for information rather than the other way around.
Sharks Fan
Roar Rookie
Pete, clearly you did not read the article properly. Perhaps you need to take reading lessons. I never said that teams should get a special 4 points for these decisions. You're wrong. I stated that if a bad call was made which ultimately resulted in the opposing team being affected in such a way, such as a try and/or penalty, then it can really be detrimental to a club's season. Also, who cares if the teams Guerra, Luke and Taufua were playing for happened to win the game. Does it really matter? I was generalizing the topic at hand and simply supporting my theory/idea. You're the embarrassment. The fact that you can't even spell your name will capital letters (for your username) supports this. Before offering constructive criticism, perhaps learn how to read the entire article. Have a nice day..
pete bloor
Guest
To use another quote from our fine author "It’s simply embarrassing that this happened, " Yes it is, sadly I'm not referring to the refereeing
Ken
Guest
And they weren't actually cleared of making shoulder charge, that's not what the judiciary does. A high tackle penalised on the field and then successfully defended (or not charged at all) at the judiciary probably was a high tackle - just not one that required additional penalties.
pete bloor
Guest
“Issac Luke, Jorge Taufua and Aidan Guerra were all cleared of making shoulder charges at the NRL judiciary, despite calls made otherwise by the referees. These decisions can be detrimental for teams in the competition and can ultimately affect the success of the clubs in the following weeks. It is the difference in getting the two points each and every week.” Funny Guerra (who I don’t think was penalized even after a quick look by the video ref), Luke and Taufua’s teams all actually won the games you refer to so you are saying that their teams would have gotten a special double round 4 points but for those refereeing decisions?