When I was still a kid, yet old enough to stay up later than 8:30pm, I would sometimes flick through the free-to-air channels and stumble across a magic show called Penn and Teller.
My memory tells me it was terrific. The two American illusionists would entertain their live audience with the usual card tricks, levitation, straightjacket escapes, and everything else you would associate with a magic show.
However, what made this duo stand out from other entertainers of the same brand is that from time to time they would expose the way their illusions were performed. The audience was for a short time invited into their mysterious world, where the skill and deception used was revealed.
The intimacy with the audience and candid nature of the show puts Penn and Teller in the league of the best of illusionist entertainers. I place them with famous names like Houdini, Copperfield and Thurston.
These creators are spellbinding and ‘magical’, most of the time leaving the audience befuddled with how they had been tricked.
Little did I know that – despite all the episodes of Penn and Teller – the greatest of all great magicians had not yet been revealed. To see him in person you did not need to be at a casino in Las Vegas, nor the Sydney Opera House, nor your local RSL Club, but at ANZ Stadium on Monday afternoon.
Of course, the man of whom I speak is none other than Canterbury forward Tony Williams. His sleight of hand created a try that has never before been seen: a pass for self-ricochet knock-on negated by regather after clearing a defender’s head.
Remarkable. In fact, it was so remarkable that the NRL Bunker couldn’t find anything wrong with it according to the laws of the game.
I wasn’t surprised by the decision and neither should anyone else. I was more disappointed that something like this was inevitable. I’ve written before about the black and white nature of the video referee, which is why we found ourselves in a position where a try that should never have been awarded got the green light.
There is no room for discretion for the officials in the Bunker. The NRL has completely ironed out any possible opportunity for common sense to prevail.
Let me firstly explain how the officials came up with their ‘try’ decision after the Williams deception.
Only one section of the law book covers what we saw on Monday and that is Section 10: Knock-on and Forward Pass.
The section is separated into ‘deliberate’ and ‘accidental’ infringements, whereby a player is penalised if the knock-on or forward pass is deliberate, or else it is deemed accidental.
Further, if the knock-on is deemed accidental, the same player can play on if the ball is kicked or regained “before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent.”
What the Bunker officials saw was the ball touching nobody but Williams after it left his hands, not deliberately passed or knocked forward, and not touching anything mentioned above that – by the letter of the law – constitutes a knock-on.
Well done Bunker: process followed, job well done.
Or was it?
Rugby league, as with any sport, is deeply rooted in equity, or ‘fairness’. What we saw on Monday was the Bulldogs extend their four-point lead to ten points via a play that may not be illegal according to the laws of the game, but was certainly outside the limits of fair play.
The Bunker officials would not have wanted the try to stand. Touch Judge Ricky McFarlane showed the viewers he was not happy with it by pulling up well short of the corner post as the Bulldogs crossed the goal-line.
Yet they were all hamstrung by the ‘process’; that no matter what it looks like, don’t use your judgment outside the letter of the law, even if the laws don’t cover what you’ve just seen. It’s being driven this way in the name of ‘consistency’, with common sense and fairness cast aside.
Had the Bunker officials been given any latitude with Section 10 they may have found the answer a little further down. There are only four points in that section: Deliberate, Accidental, Charge-down and Heading the ball. We’ve dealt with the first two, and the charge down is well known. The fourth line states: “It is illegal to head the ball in a forward direction.”
Similar to the way a legal precedent is created, the spirit of this line may have been used to deny the try. ‘Intention’ is implied, but it’s in the laws to prevent a team gaining a significant advantage from it. Similarly in the Williams case, the ultimate advantage was gained – four points.
Granted, in our desperation for fast decisions there was no time for the three officials to debate the nuances or lack thereof in Section 10 of the laws. However, everyone knew a try wasn’t the fair decision, except we had no mechanism to deny it.
So how did Williams manage to deceive the Bunker and ‘accidentally’ knock the ball over the Dragons to regain possession and set up a game-breaking try?
Not even Penn and Teller could shine a light on that!
Red Dog
Guest
You c#%£s are all seriously brain dead if you believe the result was fair . Deadest clowns the lot of yas .
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Nice summation. Thanks.
Lancey5times
Guest
Indeed. I also have a theory on the mankad debate, what to do when coins land on their edge and streaker management in round the world yacht races
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
Absolutely agreed. This call was dead set 50:50. And to be honest, I don't really have an issue with the call the referees made on this incident. I, after having the luxury of cross-examining the rules of the game (and time up my sleeve), see it as it may have been an incorrect call, but, it was so marginal, this could happen 20 times and the result could be different every time (mind you, we'll have to wait years to see it 20 times!). As many people have said, it was a 50:50 call, and these decisions are not the issue with referees these days. It's the howlers that need to stop...and there are still a few of those occurring. There needs to be a challenge system in place and the referees need to be accountable for terrible calls...not that this was one...
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
The Barry. You are not reading what I am saying: I am not "providing" a definition of a pass, and a forward pass, I am quoting, verbatim, what the definition of a pass, and a forward pass are according to the international rules of the game... http://www.playnrl.com/get-involved/laws-codes/ I am sure you know the rules, but, I am merely stating that the literal wording for the forward pass rule does not include "another player", hence, it could/should cover precisely this situation. I have said, time and time again, that I don't believe this was deliberate, but, can you seriously suggest that a player can pass and knock-on in the same movement when throwing a two handed pass? I can't. To me, it was an attempted pass that became a forward pass...
The Barry
Roar Guru
That's a good point re: ref bashing. Calls of 'rugby league is a disgrace' or 'refs in crisis' because of a 50/50 call on a one in a million incident are ridiculous. Every one of us would have been crucified because 50% disagree with the decision regardless of how we called it. Even the author of this article - a former ref - has said that technically the decision was correct but he would have ruled the other way because it doesn't seem right. The refs are on a hiding to nothing with this one.
The Barry
Roar Guru
How can he have passed it forward if he didn't pass it?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Squishy - if the definition of a pass (as you provided) is a throw from one player to another then Williams didn't pass it. The ball never reached any other player. So if he didn't pass it, it can't be a FORWARD pass by definition. So he must have knocked the ball forward, but by the laws of the game it's not a knock on until it touches the ground, an opposition player or the goalposts, which it didn't, so it wasn't a knock on either.
Womblat
Guest
And this is from someone who refereed more than 1000 games junior, senior and rep. Not gloating my resume but I would genuinely know, it's my thing.
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
I am just quoting the rules as written, Pete. If you read the definitions of a pass, and a forward pass in the rules of the game, it is not defined that a forward pass has to go to another player. But, a pass does have to go to another player. It's a bit of an anomaly in the wording and I can only assume it is worded that way for precisely this reason. If you run forward & throw the ball up in the air over an opposing player then run past & catch it again, that is a forward pass. However, only a pass specifically states that it must be thrown from one player to another. I am not for one second suggesting that what T-Rex did was on purpose, but, in essence, that is what happened. He "forward passed" the ball to himself, no matter how clumsy it was...
pete bloor
Guest
Wait a minute you've just argued that it can't be a pass because it didn't go between two players but then you argue it is an unintentional forward pass. "However, again, intent or not, there was no “legal” pass made, just a messy accidental forward pass" If no pass was made how can you consider it a pass or in the act of passing?
pete bloor
Guest
But if we take a step back - are we not just creating confusion on something which happens at least once a game in order to remove confusion from something which has happened once in what 5000 games? Sadly that probably means the least credible governing body in the world of sports will do it.
pete bloor
Guest
How often has the same play happened in the NFL? The same ridiculous comparison was trotted out yesterday undermining any credibility then and now.
Celtic334
Guest
The decision was 100% correct. Passing it over the head of someone or forward to yourself is classified as a forward pass. However the video ref cannot decide on a forward pass. Let's also cut the refs some slack. I'd say 99% of us believed when it happened that the ball had been knocked out of his hands by the opposition players. So you can't blame the ref for missing this. This also highlights the biggest issue in the nrl these days, which is ref bashing.
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
Hi Barry. I couldn't find Hayne mentioned in the article (I did bring it up though), but, I don't disagree with the call that was made there. I have mentioned it in other posts, but, I think too many people here are interpreting this play solely with the view that there was a pass, then a knock-on, then a regather. This is where I, and some others, differ. In my view the "knock forward" is still part of the act of passing. Intent or not, under the definition of a forward pass, T-Rex has made a forward pass. In order for it to be a pass and then a knock-on, the pass has to be touched by another player, or else it isn't a pass (from the definitions section of the current rules). If, say, Benji had touched it in between it leaving his hands the first time and then T-Rex knocking it forward, then the ruling would have been correct. However, again, intent or not, there was no "legal" pass made, just a messy accidental forward pass and there should have been a scrum put down...if there was intent, then it should have been a penalty...
MrJSquishy
Roar Pro
I think the most surprising facet here is that a (former) touch judge is stating that it isn't covered by the current rules. It is. But, it is covered by the most basic rules. Tony Williams did not "pass" the ball (as stated, a pass needs to be between two players - even if one player is an opponent). But, he did do a "forward pass" (under the definition in the rules). Very simple stuff. I agree that his second touch was accidental, but, that just enforces that it wasn't knocked forward because it needs to be played at to be a knock-on (which the video referee claimed was the case, while conceding it was accidental?). He went to pass and it went forward. The rules well and truly have it covered!!!
Dan Eastwood
Expert
I think I would have denied the try and summarised it as 'ball thrown forward over the defender's head - penalty'. I think that would have been the fair result but then I would have had to take the heat later on. I can't imagine permitting the try, but then I'd be only one of three in the Bunker. Interesting that Tony Archer's comments were "I can understand why" they awarded the try. That tells me that he is not completely sold on it either. You can read his comments here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-14/tony-archer-controversial-canterbury-bulldogs-try-decision/7510348
The Barry
Roar Guru
Hey Dan - a question for you - if you're game enough. What would you have done if you were in the bunker? Try to think of it from the point of view of being live, only having a couple of replays and no time to discuss or consult the rules. Would you have taken the clinical approach and ruled try because of the lack of reason to overturn or gone the 'spirit of the game' tact and denied it?
Womblat
Guest
There is no rule that explicitly covers it but at the end of the day, it's about the defence, not Williams. You can't tackle a bloke without the ball. When he hit the line Williams didn't have it, and they backed off him. That gave him an unfair advantage, especially as he was heading the other way. By the time he regathers he's through. Compare that to Valentine Holmes, who both fumbled and regathered through the defence line and no-one had to make the hard decision. That's not fair, and certainly not in the spirit of the game. If you want a close second for an applicable rule, go for International Rules of Rugby League, Section 15, subsection 1, part (I), "behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game". Intent is irrelevant. It was designed for those grey areas like this one. I don't think it's a penalty but it sure should have been disallowed.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Scotty - you can only make an argument for it being intentional because you're looking at it through one eye. :-) I would have been satisfied if the refs call of try would have been over ruled, it's not how rugby league is meant to be played. But there's no way on earth Williams did that deliberately.