If someone were to open up my iPhone and look at my most frequently used emojis you would see the following: a face crying with laughter, a Queen, an upside down smiley, a face with love hearts for eyes, a footy and a woman shrugging her shoulders saying ‘I don’t know’.
In my life there are plenty of circumstances where I don’t know the answer to a question or how to respond in a certain situation – whether it be because of a lack of knowledge, a lack of information or because of my indecisiveness.
In these situations, I often become a real life emoji. I shrug my shoulders and say ‘I don’t know’.
The opportunity to shrug their shoulders and say ‘I don’t know’ is not one that is afforded to referees in the NRL.
Despite the availability of technology, additional pairs of eyes and the multitude of camera angles available to the NRL officiating team in the Bunker, referees in the NRL are put in a position where they are forced to make a decision at all times (particularly when it comes to ruling on a try).
I was reminded of this during the game between the Cronulla Sharks and the Penrith Panthers on Easter Sunday.
In the 60th minute of this game the Sharks were on the attack after getting possession through an intercept by Ricky Leutele. In the minute following this intercept, Andrew Fifita charged towards the Sharks try line, but fell just short.
In the very next play, Paul Gallen tried the same thing and charged toward a very tired Panthers defensive line. Gallen broke through the line and carried Peter Wallace and Matt Moylan over the line with him and appeared to ground the ball.
Or did he?
Gallen looked up towards on-field referee Gerard Sutton. Sutton indicated that his on-field decision was try and it was sent upstairs to the Bunker for this to be confirmed.
To be clear, the rule in this circumstance is that the on-field referee must make a decision of try or no try. If the ruling is try, then the Bunker must find sufficient evidence that a try has not been scored to overturn the decision. If the ruling is no try, then the Bunker must find sufficient evidence that the on-field decision should be overturned.
After watching the replay several times, despite the on-field decision being try the footage was extremely unclear.
When I watched the replay, I could not see any evidence of Paul Gallen grounding the ball. What I saw was a very committed defensive display from Peter Wallace and the ball initially being held up in the air on top of Gallen’s arm. Even after Gallen wriggled around and tried to ground the ball, it looked to me like Peter Wallace’s arm had acted as a barrier between the ball and the grass.
Had I been in charge of making a decision after seeing this footage I would have said no try.
Unfortunately, however, because the on-field decision had been try and the Bunker was unable to find sufficient evidence to overrule this decision, the on-field decision stood and the try was awarded.
To be fair to the Panthers, the game was already out of their reach by this point.
The Panthers went into the sheds trailing 12-2 at half time. Penrith’s performance up until this point was characterised by one-dimensional attack and silly errors. Frustration slowly started to creep in as more and more passes found the turf instead of the intended player.
Despite putting the Sharks under immense pressure in the early stages of the first half with the Panthers having plenty of possession in their own 20-metre zone, they simply could not break the Sharks line.
In a bitter blow for Penrith fans, despite having most of the possession in the opening exchanges, the moment the Sharks made their way down-field, they managed to score points – first through James Maloney and then later through Sosaia Feki.
The Sharks went on to win this game comfortably, by 28-2 but just because this decision did not have much of an impact on the final result, does not mean that we should not strive to give the on-field referee’s every opportunity to make the correct decision.
This year, I have noticed the on-field referee’s being bolder. More tries are being decided on the spot and there is far less reliance on the Bunker. As a fan I appreciate this – it keeps the game flowing and demonstrates that the on-field referee is firmly in control of the game. I also respect a referee that has the confidence to back themselves and to make a decision.
However, there are some circumstances where it’s clear that the on-field referee cannot make a call, either because they were not in position or could not get close enough to the play.
In this circumstance (which should be rare), I would like to see the on-field referee have the opportunity to refer this decision to the Bunker. The Bunker has the benefit of many angles and the opportunity to slow down the play and make an effective decision. We should absolutely utilise this technology when appropriate.
Had Gerard Sutton had this opportunity on Sunday, I have the feeling that a different decision would have been made and that Paul Gallen would not have been awarded a try.
Despite wanting our referees to be indecisive, I would like to see them being given the opportunity to shrug their shoulders and say ‘I don’t know’. This is not a sign of weakness or poor refereeing – it’s a sign of humanity.
We have a Bunker – let’s use it to its full potential.
Cedric
Guest
yeah Bill B, that was a shocker; also when Scheck scored, ( he said after the game that he had ) it appeared he had scored or maybe was held up, so how was it that the ref gave the benefit of the doubt to the Raiders and went upstairs calling NO TRY? Then it was called NO TRY because we couldn't see the ball grounded!!!!! I am a Warriors supporter but that game was so one sided by the reffing it was crazy; Wonder what Forans thinking after being rubbed out of that game! The Warriors had the Raiders on the ropes in the 1st 40 then........ Sorry to go off track but; 82 sets in the game, maybe 45 in 1st half and Warriors had 67% of possession in the 1st half and 2 tries both denied, that equates to Warriors 30 sets! 2nd half and Warriors end the game with 46% possession total after enduring 5 penalties to 0 against them, a denied strip that was called by one ref and overturned by the other, Malmalo no play the ball was total b/s as replay showed, Thompson was penalised, rightly so, for head shot during tackle but was not given a penalty earlier when after tackled he was hit with knees to ribs and forearm to the head. Warriors visited the Raiders 22 metres twice in the 2nd half. After all these things plus a couple of dropped balls by the Warriors the stats say they only had the ball for 6 sets total in the 2nd half. Is that a bell ringer!!! I would advise all to watch your team closely on away games and report here if this type of thing happens to your team! That is home town syndrome overboard.
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
Yes absolutely. That's always something I am at pains to point out... particularly since there are 37 screens in the Bunker (we definitely aren't seeing what they are seeing).
Magnus M. Østergaard
Roar Guru
For some reason, what we see on our screens this year is not always what the Bunker is looking at. Worth noting that the bunker will also be looking at 2,3 or maybe more screens at once.
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
More than happy for you to disagree Kilgore Trout. So then out of curiosity where you happy with the Gallen decision? :)
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
Does the BOD belong with the team in attack or defence?
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
Doogs, just to be clear - this is not a story criticising the Bunker - I also think it has been excellent this year too. As I said, I've also loved the referee's being a bit bolder and having the confidence to make a decision.
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
I love when people 100% agree with me - thanks Charlie. I kinda like the rugby approach too.
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
Honesty is my favourite policy too, B-Unit.
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
There you go - thanks for that info Norad. I didn't know that. To be fair, I'm not outraged here, just making a comment. :)
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
I think in general the refereeing has been really good this year. I've heard Todd speak about the number of decisions that referee's have to make per game before (and it is literally hundreds). Out of these hundreds of decisions they only tend to make a couple of mistakes, which is pretty incredible. There will always be mistakes made - I guess the nirvana is trying to work out how best to use the technology to make sure these mistakes are as minimal as possible.
Mary Konstantopoulos
Expert
Good comment oingo boingo and the reluctance for referee's to use the sin bin is something that really frustrates me too. What are your thoughts on the 5 minute sin bin?
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don't agree with this. It's the referees job to make decisions. If there was no video referee the infield ref would have to make a call on every incident and the thought of them shrugging their shoulders and saying "I don't know" would be ridiculous. That's all they're being asked to do now and he video ref is in place to over rule any decisions the onfield refs have clearly got wrong. It's the way it should be and the most effective way to use the technology.
Lovey
Guest
You know, this is just going around in circles. You want to leave every try to the video? Actually, I agree, but this is just how it was. Then the calls for speeding up the game, leave it to the refs etc, and this is where we are.
Kilgore Trout
Roar Rookie
Love your articles Mary but have to disagree on this one . The referee making an onfield call was designed to stop the video refs taking 2 minutes or more to make a decision . Decision times have improved a lot this season and the game is better for it . I am happy for the video ref to overturn " howlers " only and to keep their noses out of it the rest of the time . If we are going to have video technology as part of the game and not totally undermine the referees in the process I think the balance of video ref involvement is pretty good at the moment .
Mike from tari
Guest
I have been a player, referee, treasurer, judiciary member & supporter of Rugby League for nearly 60 years, I have accepted many of the changes during those years as good for the game but I have come to rue the day that Bill Harrigan changed the refereeing of the game, by ignoring penalty situations so he could keep the game flowing, the generation of referees & their coordinators have carried on in the same way, one incident on the weekend that caught my attention was when George Burgess put his elbow into the Bulldogs player, that player had grabbed Burgess around the neck, then sat down & flipped Burgess onto his head & over on to his back, that tackle could have broken Burgesses neck, the referee after separating both parties did not penalise anyone & said play on, Burgess was not charged by the match review committee due to extenuating circumstances but the Bulldogs player gets off for a dangerous tackle, there were actually 2 of the Souths players tackled the same way by the same Bulldogs player & no penalties for either, their were other incidents over the weekend that were ignored but it would take a tome to fit it all in.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
I agree with you here, Charlie. When used, a common request to the TMO is "try or no try" or "any reason why I can't award a try". The other sticking point between the two codes is the use of the sin bin and send off.Even though we were told at the start of the season that professional fouls would not be tolerated and would be punishable by a sin binning, when? In union, the sin bin is used by the referees and occasionally a send off is also used (in a recent Super Rugby game, a player had two sin bins in the same match so he was sent off).Why can't can't our referees do this, particularly as there are two on the field.
Billy boy
Guest
The on field ref has a feel for the game and should be required to give an opinion. We need a black and white answer where the best information available may only be 'grey'... to the bunker and ref. So it worked perfectly, because no one really knew 100% .
Cadfael
Roar Guru
The problem is the converse. Its lack of use can cause a team to lose the two points.
AJL.
Roar Pro
So then what happens with a situation where the on-field officials aren't sure, and the bunker has no conclusive evidence to make a decision?
Moonshot
Guest
Sutton blotted his copybook by having a lopsided game FTA TV before the news - he may be sacked though he wasnt sacked for putting Chambers on report for off ball shoulder charge but not penalising the Storm in a close game last week but rewarded with plum Sunday arvo game so perhaps he is untouchable and perhaps they have different criteria...