In rugby league, as in life, everybody has a beef about something.
Could be flat passes being called forward.
Could be on-field referees who seem to send every bit of try-line action upstairs “for a look”.
There are still those who, like Don Quixote charging off to fight windmills, rail against the soft joke that is the modern scrum.
And there are those, like myself, who believe – indeed know – that referees, on 50/50 calls for strip or knock-on, will rule depending upon the state of the game and how it might affect the result, and thus how their performance will be evaluated in media, coach’s report, and later analysis by peers.
And I know that because a referee told me. And we will set his quotes free one day, oh yes, when the time, and price, is right.
For now, however, we will talk of the Friday night fixture between Bulldogs and Sea Eagles in which several typically vexed things happened.
Now, one of the major talking points, for sure, will be Ashley Klein sending Josh Reynolds’ first extra-time match-winning “try” upstairs to be forensically-examined by Stevie Wonder and Helen Keller who were well into their second flagon of Royal Reserve Brown Muscat.
We could have talked about that, no doubt.
Yet it was a moment in the 66th minute that got my billy-goat.
Ironically it was something the video box guys got right.
But rugby league got it wrong.
It was Jorge Taufua’s double-movement.
Remember it? Scores tied 16-all. Manly attacking the left flank before Jorge rumbles through a tackle and lands bare inches from the line. Inches. And there, tackled but not held, he sees in front of him that glistening white stripe.
And what does he do? You know what he does.
He places the football over the white line as is his job as wing man of rugby league. That’s the entire game’s point – put the ball over the line. And Jorge’s done it 60 times in 97 games.
And Jorge did it again.
And upstairs we went as we always do and fair cop Helen and Stevie, after a good scull from that fat silver goon-bag, they had a decision and were going to the board. And there it was, as expected – “No Try”.
And that was fair enough. To the letter of the law, it was double-movement every day of the week. You can’t fault the officials there.
But you can fault the law.
Because it’s an ass! It’s a stupid law. They should brush it and it would be better for rugby league. There would be more tries. Everyone likes tries.
Yes – it’s been around forever. And sure, rugby league probably has bigger things on its plate now that there’s a $5 billion bunker run by ego-driven sticklers and pedants drunk on power (and brown muscat) who are changing rugby league as we knew it.
Yes – there are those things.
But double-movement! The law is an ass!
Why, if the referee hasn’t called ‘held’, can’t a player just reach out and score the try, even if his ball-carrying arm has touched the ground?
I asked Graeme Annesley about it a while ago, in fact it was ten years ago almost to the day.
Remember Graeme? Used to be the NRL’s General Manager of Football, or something, he was under David Gallop and one of the go-to men when rugby league’s latest “direction” needed explaining.
And Graeme could explain for Australia. No wonder he had a stint in politics. He could articulate, spin and toe a party line with the very best.
So I asked Graeme about double-movement. I said surely it’s natural for a player to reach out and touch the line with the ball, if the line is right there in front of them.
And Graeme said: “The rule is that when the ball-carrying arm has hit the ground, you can’t extend that arm.”
And I said, yes I know the rule. But why, as old mate the professor on the chocolate advertisements would ask, is it so?
“Because there has to be a delineation between when a player is tackled and when the ball is ‘live’, if you like, and in play.”
And I said: “Shouldn’t that be when the ref calls ‘held’?”
And Graeme said: “No.”
And here we are.
Now, I didn’t think then and I don’t think now that double-movement even needs to be a rule.
I think that when you are near the line, and you aren’t called as held, then you should be able to place the ball on the line because that’s the natural thing to do. It’s just there in front of me.
The un-natural thing to do is tuck your arm into your chest and not reach out and score the try.
Scoring tries is what footy players are meant to do. And it’s defenders job to stop them. And they should try to stop them, until the ref calls ‘held’.
If after the ref calls ‘held’ and old mate reaches out and puts the ball over the line, that would be a penalty, essentially for incorrect play-the-ball.
Now, you may think I’m off chops and that there’s bigger fish to fry. But by God man, did you not see the Reynolds’ thing in which Klein sent some perfectly good rugby league upstairs for a look to see if the perfectly good rugby league hadn’t contravened any of the eight million rules the game seems to now have and which are only applied when there is a possible try?
And you may have a case.
But double-movement is a dud rule and should be dispensed with and the rule made like rugby union’s in which once you’re tackled you can place the ball any way you like be it backwards for your fellow man or forwards for the honey.
Again you may think I’m off chops offering up rugby bloody union as a salve for a perceived ill in this greatest game of all rugby league.
Why does that game not literally have eight million laws that no-one knows how they may be adjudicated any given week?
Answer: Perhaps, yes, it does. But unlike league, union, for the most part, just gets on with it. Players, pundits and punters acknowledge that it’s rather silly in that respect, but there it is. We need not rail against it, it’s just how things are, aren’t we a funny mob, more top-shelf please, ho ho.
But rugby league? It rails baby. And if rugby league finds a scrum or corner flag or six-tackle-set-from-a-kick-dead-in-goal it doesn’t like, then that thing is gone baby gone.
And yet we still have double-movement. And we still have Jorge Taufua penalised for doing what comes naturally.
And it seems to be, like the poor old eunuch that is the modern-day scrum, accepted. Bit silly, perhaps. But the game has bigger fish to fry.
And here we are. No closer to those windmills.
Art Vandelay
Guest
It's not rugby union. Do you want guys pushing their teammate over the line while the defenders are pushing back? You can't keep crawling forward off the mark after a tackle because the play is deemed complete after a tackle. I thought the reason for not allowing double movement where plainly obvious. It's one of the fundamental differences between league and union. The foundation the game was built on was deeming a play complete after a tackle and it allowed space between both lines. The rule must never change. If you don't like it watch Union.
Matt Cleary
Expert
Hi Brendan. Re: "Can you imagine what would happen in practice if you removed this rule. You literally could not defend one-on-one on the goal line, as players would spring forward or twist off the ground to extend the arm to score constantly." And I reckon that'd be good. The defenders have to stop them doing it. He's tackled when the ref calls held, when he's not going anywhere. Defenders would have to keep defending on him. More competition. Tire them further out. "If a player is tackled on his back, can he roll onto his stomach and reach out?" Yep. Unless the ref's called held. Defenders wouldn't do much different in the tackle close to the line, they'd still be desperate to stop the try. Just that attacker would have a chance to do it. I mean - if he gets in-goal, he can wriggle and fight all he likes, to slam it down, sideways, backwards, forwards .... but before the line Jorge Taufau, not completely held and wrapped up can't just reach out and score? I think it's a dud rule, however long it's been around.
Rod
Guest
I can see it now . The NRL release a statement of rules changes , after well over 100 years we have decided it is simply to tempting for the modern footballer to make a second effort to score a try. In 2017 we have now introduced the triple movement rule. We will consistently review this as time goes by, fans never fear if we need to introduce a quadruple movement rule we will. Yep let's do away with double movement?
Busty McCracken
Guest
@Matt Cleary, I wouldn't say it's inconsistent at all that you can do one thing from your in goal area vs against your oppositions try line. Thats just different rule sets for different ends of the field. You can pass the ball backwards in basketball til your hearts content , but once you cross halfway , you can't go back behind it. Thats not inconsistent, that's just different rule sets for what end of the field you're playing at. What is inconsistent is defending players continually taking out attacking chasers off the ball without any penalty unless it directly leads to a try scoring situation.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Agree, Sham. thought he was stopped short initially but the defence pushed him over, he didn't e a second attemto promote the ball over the try line.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
The rules have to be looked at. The way the NRL is refereed (not rugby league), if players are called back to play the ball correctly, even though it should be a penalty, then double movements should also be pulled back for a the ball. There are so many rules gone by the wayside. Apart from that Souths tackle on the Melbourne player, how often do we see a kickable penalty in the last ten minutes of a close game. How often do we see penalties in kicking range given in golden point time? When was the last time anyone saw a voluntary tackle penalty given in an NRL game (it is still in the rule book). This is where the game gets so frustrating. Rules seem to be made up or disregarded as thegame goes on.
David C
Guest
Rugby league needs to get rid of more than just the double movement rule. Get rid of the "scrum". Actually if they are to be retained then let's call them for what they are, bendovers. Because that's all a player does these days. The play the ball should become a rollball because so many players (Darcy Lussick, for one) have bastardised that too with the refs' backing. So rugby league should just simply evolve into a contact version of touch football. Get rid of the two ref system and in so doing make the refs make a decision by getting rid of the stupid bunker. Get rid of the 10 metre rule so players don't have to wrestle in the ruck to slow everything down as per coach's instructions. Gee there's a lot to get rid of isn't there?
Rod
Guest
I just thought any drop ball is a knock on these days.
Oingo Boingo
Guest
Big time
sham
Guest
Must have been - that is how I saw it and that is how the bunker saw it. He was pushed over the line by a defender and that is why the try was awarded.
J Schro's Afro
Guest
This is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. Actually, it surprises me that the NRL haven't thought of it themselves seeing that they are trying everything possible to ruin this game for the average fan (i.e. shoulder charge, punching, and (at times) tackles which are too good being penalised) Are you sure you haven't been drinking the Royal Reserve Brown Muscat yourself?
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
I see this point has been made more clearly by others. Sorry!
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
We should have canned technology in sport after the 1948 Melbourne Cup when Rimfire was controversially declared the winner by the newfangled photo finish technology.
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
I think it's a fallacy that because it's natural to try and put the ball over the line, it should be a try. Think about it this way, when a player used to walk off the mark to play the ball, the ref could only call a penalty. Now, the ref stops the game and asks the player to play the ball at the correct mark. So, I can fully accept that a double movement shouldn't be a penalty because it is not an infringement if you promote the ball to the other side of the 20m line, only the other side of the goal line. But the tackle is complete because the ball or the players arm holding the ball has touched the ground, and anywhere else on the field the player is supposed to play the ball from that mark. Therefore, if you want to change the double movement law from a penalty to a play the ball, I'm all for it. But from no try to try, I'm dead against.
The Barry
Roar Guru
The Tedesco try wasn't a double movement though...it was a call on whether the ball had touched the line. I reckon 90% of double movements are clear cut.
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
my only massive gripe is with the scrum. Not because it's pointless and boring but because the ref is constantly coaching teams on binding and staying in the scrum until the ball is out. Either stop coaching the players and blow a penalty for not doing something so overwhelmingly simple or do away with the scrum altogether.
Bulldog
Guest
I think there are 20 or 30 other more important issues to deal with than this. It is the rule, it is easy to rule on and understand, move on.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I think a penalty is too harsh for a lot of infringements WDD. Example - a player chasing an attacking kick grounds the ball and scores. Replay shows he is 30cm offside. It's clearly not a try but does the defending team really deserve 30 metres from a kick to touch AND a set for someone mistiming his run? It's pretty arbitrary that's a penalty while something like a player not playing the ball correctly is a scrum or handover. I think handovers for a lot of infringements that don't involve foul play would be a better solution.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Yeah...it's a good point that I hadn't considered. I guess the trade off is that they will be killing any momentum they've built up and allow the goal line defence to re-align and have a breather. You'd imagine coaches would be right up players for doing blatant ones that end up wasting time and costing momentum. You'd also like to think refs would be able to rule on the obvious ones without sending them upstairs - but who knows? Overall it's one of the areas of least concern for the NRL. Of all the rules of the game this is one of the most straight forward and least controversial.
Brendan
Guest
Can you imagine what would happen in practice if you removed this rule. You literally could not defend one-on-one on the goal line, as players would spring forward or twist off the ground to extend the arm to score constantly. If you have tackled a player around the waist and he hits the ground, he could immediately push off his legs for the extra metre and reach his arm out. At what point is he now tackled? When you have your arms wrapped around the ball? At any other point of the field you see players wiggle around trying to free them self to play the ball, often they even crawl forward to gain slightly more ground. If they are near the line, when would they not be allowed to do this? At what point would the Ref call held? If a player is tackled on his back, can he roll onto his stomach and reach out? When has momentum stopped, when has the tackle been completed? What is the definition of this? Removing the rule would create chaos and provide a million grey areas. Dumb idea.