If the National Rugby League wants to continue to describe itself as ‘the greatest game of all’, it had better take a look in the mirror, grab the botox and remove a few wrinkles.
The game needs to continually strive to present itself in the best image possible. If it doesn’t, then it can’t make any such claim about being ‘great’.
A few things have started to tarnish the game over the past few weeks.
Posting an Instagram pic of you and your footy buddies having dinner with bikies gang associates and a bloke on charges for fraud and money laundering?
Yep, that will do it.
Hanging out with a “flamboyant”, “colourful” former brothel owner and “porn baron”?
Yep, that will do it too.
But there are other areas that the game can control.
More from our Experts
» The predicted rise and fall of AFL teams in the second half of 2016
» If Japan and China can play in the Copa America, why not Australia?
» Eddie’s right to play the underdog – this series is the Wallabies’ to lose
» The strange and unforgettable career of ‘Kimbo Slice’
» Lyon’s golden chance to push ODI case
» Why Formula One should adopt virtual reality
Firstly, put your hand up if you thought last week’s first State of Origin was a wonderful exhibition of rugby league? OK, I see a few hands – some former players, Phil Gould, anyone in the media with a stake in the television ratings and website clicks – anyone else?
I didn’t think so. Anybody I talked to agreed the game was tough, grinding and an ‘Origin style’ contest. It was physical at times, and the scoreline remained close.
Is that what makes an Origin game? It might be to many people, but it isn’t to me.
Rugby league’s State of Origin is unique in world sport for its concept and acceptance. Other sports and countries have state matches, but nothing like this, where we deliberately exclude some of the best players in the game yet paradoxically it’s more successful for missing big stars.
Sam Burgess, Semi Radradra and James Graham can’t get a start because of eligibility. That’s fine by me, it’s an exhibition game. More people in our region and around the world watch Origin matches while they wouldn’t normally watch any other game of league.
For this reason, the game has a responsibility to showcase the best that the sport can offer. Rugby league attracted more eyeballs globally to the match last week than any other in history. Yet instead of flair, ball movement, offloads and risk-taking, we had a grind up the middle of the park with one try apiece.
Sure, the coaches want to keep their jobs and the players don’t want to play in a losing team, but the sport is bigger than all of that. I hope the Suncorp Stadium match in two weeks’ time provides football worthy of its position as the most-watched game we can provide.
The second problem I had was not the game we provided on the park, but the image we projected from what we did off the park.
In Perth last Sunday – another showcase opportunity, to a smaller audience but in a niche market – we saw an epic contest between the South Sydney Rabbitohs and Gold Coast Titans. After skipping to a 12-0 lead at halftime and extending it after the break, the Titans found themselves getting reeled in by the Rabbitohs and the game went to golden point.
At that stage, both teams deserved a competition point, with one side dominating the most part of the game and the other launching a stunning comeback.
Yet the headline from the match was not the stellar game we had seen, but what the hell was South Sydney forward Nathan Brown doing stomping on Agnatius Paasi’s groin? He took a stomp at him and missed, but after taking a look down as Paasi started to roll away he copped another whack for his trouble, right next to the crown jewels.
The incident was missed by the on-field officials, and I can explain how that happened.
Two Titans were holding on to the upper part of Brown’s body, wrapping up the ball. That’s perfectly fine, but after the initial contact in the tackle, the referees’ focus turns to the ball and the hands on it.
The stripping law is so problematic and open to exploiting by the ball carrier that the officials are determined not to judge a lost ball incorrectly.
The control referee was beginning to set the ten-metre defensive line, the touch judges were moving upfield to assist, the pocket referee was moving forwards to clear the tacklers, and all the while the eyes were focused on the ball. This was in golden-point time, with the tackle on the Titans’ 30-metre line. A penalty here means game over and a Rabbitohs victory. The officials are acutely conscious of this.
The strike from Brown was late in the tackle, so the officials aren’t always going to see it. In fact, most of the time they won’t. If you factor in the touch judges being at least 30 metres away, with the refs so concerned about the ball and defenders’ hand position, I’m not surprised at all.
What did surprise me was the determination of the match review committee. The contact wasn’t “forceful”. It didn’t pose an “unacceptable risk of injury”. You can read Michael Buettner’s comments for yourself.
What nonsense. If it wasn’t forceful or wasn’t going to cause an injury, how about we just go with the unacceptable part and leave it at that?
Brown’s act was certainly an unacceptable look for the game. A player in possession stomped at a player on the ground. There was no question of contact and while any intent can’t be proven, the game’s image was tarnished.
Former first-grade players Brett Kimmorley and Gorden Tallis hit straight out at the lack of punishment. Rightly so, because even if the match review committee feels there might be no chance of injury, every parent of every league player who saw it has another reason to say: “If that’s rugby league, I’m not sure I want to be part of it.”
Let’s sell the game by protecting the game. Use its on-field vehicles like Origin to drive the exposure of rugby league.
And when some cretin behaves in a way unpalatable to every supporter, then let him know by means of a bit more than a formal warning.
Ice Man
Guest
"Ban the cretins ?" Than you should probably give thought to distancing the game from the Channel 9 Footy Show!
pjm
Roar Rookie
Myles, Bird.
pjm
Roar Rookie
I never said to change it like that. I said due to the poor quality of the matches Origin no longer deserves to disrupt the season as much as it does.
Your kidding
Guest
Okay NZ has a team. But their main game is rugby union by a mile.
bear54
Not sure you did tell it like it is. Given the Auckland Warriors participate how about the International Rugby League????
Johnno
Guest
Ah not so sure. Clyde may of played ACT A-grade first I believe?
Geoff Evans
Guest
Johnno , As far as i know they are both Aussie born and played and played there first senior match in NSW. No double standards there.
Your kidding
Guest
Why do we continue to call it the national rugby league when it is really only played in two states? Really, they need to change the name. The other states must have a good old chuckle. Origin is an exhibition game but it destroys the club competition. We all know that. But nothing will change as it hugely popular. Money has sucked them all in just like the gambling revenue. Sorry but I had to tell it like it is.
Johnno
Guest
But Geoff, you ay your cool and comfortable with Brad Clyde/Josh Dugan(ACT) playing origin, you have double standards.
Mac
Guest
Agreed this is just a terrible idea...
Geoff Evans
Guest
Johnno, SOO is between NSW and QLD so your idea is a totally stupid idea.
Johnno
Guest
turbowed, good points you make, and yep agree with 1-state for life for "mercenary" no flip-flopping. Steve you say that but already state of origin is cheating it's "eligibility rules" of what it is to be NSW or QLD, and is bringing in mercenaries from other parts of Australia. eg- ACT born players get assigned to NSW e.g. Brad Clyde/Josh Dugan- NT players to QLD, not sure any players from NT have played for QLD yet though. But ACT/NT are not in NSW/QLD. So what makes Brad Clyde anymore a mercenary than Semi Radradra yet Brad Clyde can play for NSW but "Radradra" can't yet he can play for Australia like Brad Clyde, you tell me.
Christov
Guest
Pretty sure State of Origin was always about QLD vs NSW, not the 'best vs best'. Let me make my point this way, say you changed origin to be the 'Maroons' vs 'Blues'. These two teams have no geographic location, no heartland, just are generic teams. Now let's say they play in 3 matches during the year, where all players state their loyalty to either team at the beginning of their career. That way the 'best' players would always be selected (sort of an All Stars match). My question and point (please comment if you would), would anyone care about that sort of match? Would it get the Origin-hype which SoO gets? Would it get the eyeballs and the $$$$? My thinking is that no it would not - SoO is about the tradition of the rivalry, not the best vs best.
Mike from tari
Guest
Tell me how 3 or 4 players have more time to get off the tackled player than 2 players, I agree clear the ruck area, the worst part of this is on the try line, the refs give the defenders too much leniency to get off. If the markers get penalised for not being square then the guy playing the ball should get penalised for walking off the mark. I am getting sick of the ref calling "held" and the defenders then put the ball carrier on the ground or they don't let him go because they have their hand wrapped around the ball( which could result in frustration & stomping on someone, just joking) but to see the ball carrier trying to shake off the defender when the ref has called held is frustrating for the spectator, I agree with you that in all games not just origin just penalise every discretion and the players will conform.
ads2600
Guest
I agree with what you say Steve, my question is, isn't there enough eligible kiwis playing origin already? Might as well pick the rest of them & have a test match???
steve
Guest
After years of Qld and NSW supporters arguing over the eligibility of some players for their respective states, now someone is advocating rules allowing ineligible KIwi and English players to play in it? Ridiculous. Unless the said stars would like to go through the residency procedures and become Australian citizens then I would suggest its a pretty stupid idea. Why not have rules allowing us to bring in one AFL player for each side, or maybe the best water polo players from each state being eligible?
pete bloor
Guest
Which guys wouldn't be in the top 20 at their position
pete bloor
Guest
The old saying “be careful what you wish for” couldn’t be more aptly applied than to the chorus of we need to do something to make origin more entering. It’s funny you call it unique and then label it as an exhibition game. Every commercial sport has exhibition games, they are vacuous displays where the result matter less than getting out uninjured. They also tend to be viewed by diehard fans only with casual sports fans choosing to tune into the games that mean the most to the guys on the park.
Al
Guest
Grade 5s require dismemberment, I'm pretty sure. More seriously though, I don't remember ever hearing of a grade 5, the really bad offenses go ungraded straight to the judiciary.
turbodewd
Roar Guru
Johnno, ive been floating this idea for a few years. Let me put it this way. In all wars in the past there have been either mercenaries or alliances. In WW2 for example a lot of Polish fighter pilots fought every effectively for the RAF. And the Allies and Axis in WW2 were alliances. So, like you suggest, each team should be allowed an Honorary Blue or Honorary Maroon. Players would have to be drafted by either side. But once, say, Semi Radradra is selected as a Blue he is a Blue for rest of career. Now some purists don't like this - but look at Lote, Brad Thorn, Adrian Lam, Tonie Carroll, etc And also, most casual Origin fans have no idea about rugby league...but if they saw Radradra or SBW going around they would be interested!