The dust seems to have settled somewhat on the furore surrounding refereeing referrals to the Bunker in the first week of the NRL semi-finals.
A week’s a long time in footy so let’s recap.
In three out of four games there were difficult refereeing decisions that could have changed the outcome of the match. Afterwards, the coaches walked into the press conference and unloaded on the referees, and the NRL reacted with fines and warnings.
The fans and media feast on these controversies all week when they occur, and the coach usually settles down and apologises to everyone for the outburst.
Life cycle complete? Well, not quite. It will happen again unless some issues get addressed.
There have been calls to scrap the Bunker and there have been calls to go back to one referee. That would be as sensible as going back to contested scrums. People forget why these changes happened in the first place.
We have the Bunker because TV coverage now has so many cameras with such high resolution that refereeing errors that previously went undetected now look like howlers.
Go to YouTube and watch an old match. A scrum is packed down, there is no obvious tunnel, both hookers have dropped their blind-side arm so they can get their feet into the middle and close to the ball, the scrum wheels, the halfback chucks it in and then Greg Hartley whistles a penalty to the team that fumbled the ball leading to the scrum in the first place. It’s gold!
It was inevitable that the NRL would use video replay to help make the correct decisions. Unfortunately, the NRL probably set our expectations too high when they were spruiking the new bunker technology prior to its introduction.
The fans aren’t asking for much. All they want is to see the correct decision made every time and for it to be made immediately.
In 2016, the Bunker took far too long to arrive at a decision and they have been noticeably quicker in 2017. It’s a completely different skill for the Bunker boys and more like a TV production engineer than a referee. They need to improve their knowledge of the cameras at the ground so that they choose the best view at first opportunity.
Sometimes they need to use two camera views synchronised on a split screen. In their haste to provide a quick decision they have made the odd blunder. I’ve seen instances where the TV coverage later shows a better camera view which exposes a mistake from the Bunker.
The referee determining ‘try’ or ‘no try’ before going to the Bunker is a slightly flawed process. It is the same process as the ‘ref’s call’ in the past, only back then we were held in suspense, not knowing what the referee would rule.
What we need is a default ruling applied to any situation where there is a lack of certainty. In other words, does the benefit of the doubt go to the attacking team or the defending team in every given situation? These default positions need to be debated in the off-season by an impartial panel and then written into the laws of the game.
Don’t bother with the premature ‘I have a try’, just ask the Bunker to check the grounding, knock on, obstruction, offside etc. The referee went to the Bunker because he was uncertain and if the Bunker can’t provide any certainty then it should revert to the default benefit-of-the-doubt position.
For example, the ‘behind the kicker’ rulings that are line ball, the rule may give benefit of the doubt to the attacking team and award a try. But in the case of a knock-on ruling when players contest a high ball you might give benefit of the doubt to the defending team and rule no try because of the scrappy nature of the lead-up.
The sooner we get the virtual-line technology the better for the ‘behind the kicker decisions’. Until then, the Bunker should use the high overhead camera shot from between the posts. That view shows the players in relation to each other and the existing line markings which best show the players’ positions relative to the goal-line. You may not clearly see their feet on the ground but if it is that close you revert to the default ruling that the impartial panel has agreed to.
The next issue is with the rule book. If a law is difficult to police then change it so that it’s referee-friendly while still upholding the integrity of the game.
(AAP Image/Action Photographics, Colin Whelan)
A good example of this is the stripping of the ball in a tackle, which results in the most number of contentious decisions. The rule does not help the referee at all because it does not adequately define what a strip is.
In my opinion, a defender coming into contact with the ball with any part of his body is not a strip. Pressure applied to the ball with a hand after first contact is a strip. A player carrying the ball away from his chest and losing the ball should be classified as a loose carry.
Once the tackle is completed, the referee should go hard on defenders anywhere near the ball and benefit of the doubt should be with the tackled player. This will also help to speed up the ruck. When the referee is uncertain, default should be a loose carry and scrum. The scrum provides adequate time for the Bunker to view and, if needed, inform the referees of a penalty for a strip.
It would be great if everyone could put aside their bias or agenda and provide constructive input. We don’t want it to be an us versus them between the referees and clubs. When the referees are under attack, it’s human nature for them to defend their actions and their processes. Any discussions around changes to the laws or the default position for refereeing situations cannot involve any current coaches or club officials because of the obvious conflict of interest.
We need to all acknowledge how difficult the referees’ job is. In each ruck, the referee watches what happens in the tackle and in the play the ball. At the same time they have to look through 180 degrees across the ground for the 10 metres. They share the field with 26 players and they have to position themselves with a clear view at the correct angle.
Everything is evolving quickly, it is no longer just the one individual, they are now a team requiring a broad range of skills involving knowledge of the rules, athleticism, communication and technical knowledge of video equipment. It would be better if everyone connected with the game was working on solutions that can improve the game, not just raising the problems and criticising.
And lastly, don’t expect perfection but work to create a total system that reduces the difficulty of the referees’ role in the game.
Neil Pollard
Guest
Rob, your right about there being little incentive for a low tackle. The popular opinion is that Melbourne are to blame but really it started with Warren Ryan's dogs of war gang tackling era. He was the first to realise the benefit of first man attack the ball and then 2 more can hit because the ball carrier is upright and leads to slow play the ball and damaged opposition. The only way a low tackle could be rewarded would be if they just allowed a blanket 3 second limit for holding in a tackle. The gang tackle is slower purely because the tacklers peel off with the ball carrier underneath and last to get up.
Neil Pollard
Guest
Yes Greg, the stripped ball decisions are the hardest for the referees. Players are cunning and will continue to push the rules in this area as long as they can get away with it. It looks like the referees are guessing. The perception is that they are guessing because we are seeing too many replays that expose an incorrect decision. Interestingly, the rule book does not use the term 'strip' but refers to it as 'stealing' and no definitions for stealing are provided. My opinion is that the guidelines for referees should be that impact on the ball is not a strip/steal even if it is a hand or arm that impacts the ball. My opinion is that the responsibility lies with the ball carrier to hold the ball to withstand impact. I have no sympathy for players who loose the ball when carrying it away from their body but i applaud their skill in selecting when to do this in order to offload before securing it against their body in the tackle. The biggest issue we have is whats happening after the tackle is completed. Its not just the tacklers holding on too long, tackled players are continuing forward. The referee should give them 3 seconds to disconnect before penalising the tackler or the ball carrier if he leaps forward. If the ball goes loose and the referee doesn't know why then go to a scrum. The bunker immediately goes to work on the close-in camera shots and should go hard on defenders with hands on the ball or touching the tackled player. This is the process I would adopt between referee and bunker.
Neil Pollard
Guest
I agree Womblat. The last thing we want is NFL type of tempo in League. I urge the bunker to know their equipment expertly so they get the right view, first go as often as possible. Regarding the strip, fast rulings and fewer errors from referees start with clearer definitions within the rule book such as those I described in the article. When the ref rules a loose carry he awards a scrum. This should also be his default move when not sure and the bunker boys then inspect the tackle while the scrum is setting which is about 45 seconds. If they see a strip inform the referee. It's teamwork.
Neil Pollard
Guest
Thanks Matth. My personal stance is that the benefit of the doubt would go to the defending team when ruling on tries. Maybe I am conservative but I always apply the 'what if it happens in the grand final' approach. Near enough isn't good enough. That's my opinion though and my point was that you could set the default policy differently for any particular situation. For example you could rule in favour of the defending team for any possible knock on or grounding. But for obstruction or behind the kicker rulings that are line ball it might be better for the game if we have tries allowed if it truly is line ball. The main point is that there is a default determined and everyone knows it so it can be applied consistently. Once these defaults are set and the ref asks the bunker to check one or more specific parts of the try scoring play it's because he wasn't sure on that part. The bunker checks and everyone including fans, commentators and referee know what the default is. If the bunker can't rule on it then the default applies. Let's face it, this is about minimising errors not perfection. Six cameras see more than a referee so if the ref isn't sure and then the cameras can't confirm no one can be critical of the ruling.
Peter
Guest
If you don't want contested scrums, why have scrums at all? Find an alternative - e.g., 6 nominated players from each side have to hold hands for a count of 3 or, if that's too hard, just give the ball to the non-offending side and start a new tackle count. On the other hand, if you are happy to call for the ref to just penalise the hell out of everyone in relation to play the ball, offside at the kick-off, feet not behind the goal line when defending within ten metres of your line, then why not do the same for scrums? The rule is there - either enforce it or scrap it. I suppose this might be too much of a challenge for current players, but it would be fun to see everyone whinging about how unfair it is that Cam Smith and his front row win so many tight heads.
Rob
Guest
I really hate the blatant forward pass being let go and then a player being penalised for not realising fast enough when making a good legs tackle. The strip rule was simple when the first man in, had every right to take the ball but that was in an era when 2 players were committing themselves to the tackle. Surly we can bring back the rule about players getting to their feet before placing the ball on the ground.
Womblat
Guest
Wonder what the end of season reward will be for the player that takes out the drone with a spiral bomb?
Womblat
Guest
Yes, very in-depth. Infinite too. I see a huge layer of imperfections that need to be ironed out, and once they are done, here comes the next layer of imperfections. The game has so many loose edges, gut decisions, instinct calls and pivotal moments, you'll never get them all. It would be chasing one's tail, or hunting Santa Claus, or guessing the magic trick. Look at NFL. Very enjoyable, but over policed much? Every single action of every single player is under the microscope and nothing gets missed. It's video referral every play. Each game is like 3 hours long and frankly it's more like a game of chess or putting together a motorcycle engine. That's the price of hyper-vigilance. Nothing is left to chance. Mistakes are rarer than chook fangs. But we need that uncertainty, just like we need our bad memories. They are part of us. Rules are rules but the very beauty of Rugby League lies in it's instinctive, reactive, unpredictable nature. Hyper analysis derails and stifles this. The tighter we try to grip and control it, the more of it slips through our fingers. I agree on the "I don't know" ruling for flexibility, but I disagree with the strip notion, knowing it's too easy to abuse. No-one will completely agree on everything. But overall I'd prefer to just enjoy it for what it is and let the chips fall as they may.
matth
Guest
This is a well thought out article. One area I disagree with is handing the benefit of the doubt to the attacking or defending team in different circumstances and removing the referees soft try or no-try ruling. There are times where the ref obviously has no idea what happened and in this case your system works well. However there are many times where the ref has a good view and has a fairly strong opinion, but he still sends it to the bunker (because of fear of backlash if he happens to be wrong). In those cases it is appropriate for him to signal his intention and then if it happens to look 50/50 on the replay, we go with the ref's call. So rather than eliminate try or no-try signals, let's add a third for 'who the heck knows', maybe a coin flipping motion.
bazza
Guest
The bunker won't go but still we miss so many forward passes and things like offside which are basic. I do like the idea of a camera high up above the goal line. How good are drones at Tracking the ball player and keeping in line to give a live vertical imagine from above of the ball. I don't know the answer posing the question offseason testing would give an idea for this.
Nodge
Guest
I think most fans are accepting that wrong decisions will at times be made by the refs and the bunker. What irks most is the seamingly minor difference in ruck management between teams. Example, the Storm seem to get away with an extra 2 to 3 seconds per tackle without the whistle being blown. When the opposition try the same thing out comes the whistle. This extra time doesn't sound much, but over the course of the game, it's a huge momentum advantage. And stop all players pushing and walking 2 metres forward or to the side to play the ball. Penalise them early in the season and it will soon cease. Biggest blight on the game at the moment.
Greg Ambrose
Guest
Rational article which is a catalyst for fair debate. We have seen some tries this year where it looks impossible that a try has been scored. I seem to recall one from Corey Oates a few weeks back where it looked like he was easily bundled into touch but it was in fact a try. Take away the Bunker and we deny the most deserving tries of all , the miracle tries. You say that in 3 out of 4 games that decisions were made which could have changed the outcome of games and I believe you have stated something which helps a debate move forward. Contested scrums would drive people away from the game. The idea is right but in reality they were dismal. I agree with just about all of your article but I'm still thinking about the stripped ball thing I also think we need more rulings along the lines of the late off load or playing the ball off the mark. Here the ref can say go back and play the ball without a penalty. If the strip is not black and white maybe they could just give it back and play on so a game isn't decided either way. Trouble is with a lot of previous debate is you get accused of bias just by suggesting that a wrong decision could cost any team a game. All you are trying to do is limit these wrong calls inflicted on all teams, nothing more or less.
McThug
Guest
Most excellent, Neal. I agree totally, especially with the stripping suggestions, hand on the ball stuff which are by far the hardest to take if they are not made right.