The horrified public reaction to ‘our’ Aussie cricketers ball-tampering efforts in South Africa gave me some cause to pause this week.
Many thousands of words and social media posts extolled the virtues of how we Australians see ourselves through our love for sport – a people with strong moral codes who play hard but fair, abiding by the rulebook and taking responsibility for our mistakes.
Admirable sentiment, no doubt. But also a complete fantasy.
Want proof? Check the weekly reaction to any round of NRL games. In particular, look for the reaction to the one team that seems to cause half the league to lose each week – the referees.
An incredibly rare thing happened when Wests Tigers played Brisbane last Friday night. It wasn’t the 9-7 scoreboard, it wasn’t the Broncos being held tryless by the ‘wall of Ivan’.
It was that a referee’s decision literally decided who won the game.
The NRL has since said that the decision to award Brisbane the decisive penalty was wrong, copping to the error and demoting the referees involved. Tigers fans can rightly feel aggrieved but like I said, these situations are thankfully incredibly rare.
Going on the reaction from analysts and fans though, you’d think the greatest injustice in the history of mankind had transpired, and that it was a weekly occurrence.
Outrage and angst towards referees is hardly new – it’s pretty much ingrained in the rugby league community – but the most concerning issue is that holding the torches at the front of the lynch mob are people who should know better.
From Thursday to Sunday it’s an all-star pile on – Paul Vautin, Ray Hadley and Phil Gould spend the channel nine broadcast panning decisions, most of the time because they want transgressions ignored and for referees to pick and choose their decisions ‘in the spirit of the game’.
The Daily Telegraph’s Phil Rothfield regularly lights up Twitter with his disgust at how games are refereed. Rugby league immortal Andrew Johns is no shrinking violet when it comes to #RefsFault either, saying that last Thursday’s Storm-Cowboys game was “destroyed by penalties”.
(AAP Image/Tracey Nearmy)
Referees are staying true to preseason warnings around playing the ball after a tackle and keeping a consistent ten-metre defensive line. Indeed, Fox League’s stats says we’re averaging a tick over 17 penalties per game, the most since 2004.
Johns is right when he says games riddled with penalties aren’t a good look, but the only people who can change that are the players.
But surely people of Johns’ standing should understand that their constant (and usually wrong) ref bashing is bad for the game.
Don’t want stop-start play? Angry that your team’s getting penalised? Tell them to get their line back. To time their run better. And maybe, just maybe, to put their foot on the ball when they play it (it’s the easiest skill to execute in rugby league, but it’s still beyond some folks).
The rules are the rules. Stop whinging about them being applied correctly.
Rugby league’s future is American
It was disappointing this week to hear that moves are underway to torpedo the June 23 international between New Zealand and England at Mile High Stadium, home of the NFL’s Denver Broncos.
It was even more disappointing to see the frankly laughable ‘health concerns’ being floated as part of why the game shouldn’t happen.
As the name suggests, the stadium is at a high altitude, 5280 feet above sea level. This, plus the travel involved, is the hook on which opponents hang their argument that the game is too much of an injury risk for players.
Spare me. This doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.
State of Origin players compete in brutal midweek contests, backing up within days.
Just last week, four NRL clubs played in extreme heat with no water breaks or extended halftime.
Super Rugby teams regularly travel to South Africa and play at high altitude, returning to New Zealand or Australia and playing the following weekend.
Socceroos players regularly fly over 20 hours from freezing Europe to furnace-blasted locations in the middle east or to Australia for World Cup qualifiers, spending barely five days in town before flying back and playing for their clubs almost immediately.
The ‘rejigged’ Australian cricket team is about to play the fourth Test of their South African tour at the New Wanderers Stadium in Johannesburg – roughly 5300 feet above sea level. Those fellas will be out there all day for five days – should the Test be called off on account of the risks to player’s health?
The United States is a market tailor-made for rugby league. There’s a huge number of athletes who graduate from college but don’t get drafted, so have no sporting outlet. The physical nature of the game, combined with its skill is perfect for American tastes. The game is a treat on TV, which is a non-negotiable in the USA.
The growth potential for rugby league in the USA is phenomenal.
The Denver Test is a critical step in introducing quality rugby league to the ‘land of opportunity’ ahead of the 2025 World Cup. Rugby league is running out of chances to get its hooks into places like this and self-interested, here-and-now thinking makes the game’s future ever dimmer.
People can argue against playing the Test, that’s the great thing about the world we live in. But don’t insult our intelligence by trying to say it’s because you’re worried about the health of the players.
[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby-league” name=”League”]
Strategic Plan or Penske file?
In some good news, this week the NRL released their 2018-2022 Strategic Plan! I know that’s not really exciting for most of you, but my goodness I do love me a good strategic plan.
This one seems a belter, too.
NRL CEO Todd Greenberg and ARLC Chair Peter Beattie hit the hustings, spruiking their five-year plan for increased participation, better rugby league pathways, the new women’s competition, better stadiums, expansion with possibly more overseas teams, you name it. The plan’s a veritable cornucopia of delights for governance nerds like me.
The NRL website carried four stories plus an awesome five-minute video hailing the strategic plan, the NRL’s social media saluted the strategic plan and overall, it seems the principles behind the new strategic plan were pretty well received.
I was excited by all the talk, inspired by the video and ready to delve into it.
There’s just one thing though…
Has anyone actually seen a copy of the NRL’s 2018-2022 Strategic Plan? I looked everywhere and at time of writing it wasn’t available on NRL.com, or anywhere else for that matter.
I can only assume it will be released to all of us very soon.
1st&10
Guest
Good points But1st step - STOP calling players by their first names. As authoritative figures, they must be called “sir” and the players “Captain Manly or number 10 Broncos” This would have an immediate positive effect and example to the junior game. Respect the game-Respect the Whistle 2nd step, they are refs, not orchestrators to a planned outcome. This crap started in other sports. The ref celebrating with the New England Deflaitriats was a great example
MikeFromOZZ
Guest
If rules are rules then why aren't halfbacks not being penalised for incorrect feeding of scrums?
Forty Twenty
Guest
Of course not Easter Bunney
1st&10
Guest
Integrity and perceived objectivity are everything Step One - STOP calling players by their first name. They are the authority on the field, not mates . And if a player is more matey with a specific ref, then what? Impartiality is gone and a conflict of personal interest may exist I cannot call a higher rank by their first name. It is “sir” etc. I expect to be called “sgt”. It’s all about respecting the rank, not the man and perception
Albo
Guest
Baz, what concerns me is that the refs have now opened a can of worms where there will be all sorts of controversy on decisions of "minimal contact" or not , for try decisions going forward.
BA Sports
Roar Guru
Whatever dude. I don't have an agenda against the Tigers. I have a dear friend who's one true love in life is the Tigers. So when they win it makes him very happy and that makes me happy. All i have said is their attack has been woeful (which isn't opinion, it's fact) and you can't complain about losing when you are only scoring one try per match - You are relying on officials to be perfect, and they are not. Klein had a terrible game in Rd 1 (Panthers v Eels). He was incredibly inconsistent with his penalising of incorrect play the balls - the one's he pinged, the one's he let go. But I don't blame him for impacting momentum or costing the Eels a win. You can "rubbish" all you like, but we have had two, two point thrillers on Sunday nights which have not rated a mention by anyone in anlaysing games - because nobody watches them. And we had all the build up of the Pearce return to the Roosters ahead of Rd 3 and then zero about it after the game. If that game had been a Friday night with the Roosters winning by 30, we would have had a weekend of how much better Cronk is and all the talk about whether it was Pearce holding the Roosters back - because about 350,000 more people would have seen it and thus had an opinion.
Forty Twenty
Guest
Great to see some honesty from the refs boss. The call was wrong and the timing was wrong. If he doesn't say anything he is condoning a human error which he doesn't want repeated. It was an error of judgement by the ref and the only way forward is to admit it. He could tell Cleary to grow up but he appears to be better than that.
AJ Mithen
Expert
It really does detract from the broadcast for me Rilo - and I've got no doubt it puts young viewers off wanting to be a ref, which is more of a problem.
AJ Mithen
Expert
Rilo
Guest
Agreed, the ref bashing is out of control from the commentators and analysts. Nobody talks about the missed tackles or dropped balls that decide games. It's too boring, it's more difficult than bashing refs, and it doesn't generate enough controversy. Thank God these guys don't commentate rugby union - they would need a new TV channel to analyze every call.
Nat
Roar Guru
That's the point, it's not the same thing. One is looking inward while the other is looking outward. Similar situation with the refs. Passing an opinion on a call, most likely instigated by the media, shouldn't be an issue nor should they be muzzled. Blowing up, making lists etc - lighten their wallets plenty.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
"I actually feel for Klein ...". Of course you do BA ! He made a blatantly incorrect decision in Golden Point that deprived the Tigers of a win. That assists your agenda against the Tigers. "If the game had been the 6:30 Sunday night game, nothing would have come of it." Rubbish ! Fox would have dined out on it. "We don’t have referees that conspire to cost teams wins or losses ..." Who is suggesting that we do ? (Another straw man BA.)
BigTooledTiger
Guest
If the Refs were on-top of all this years ago we wouldn't have this problem. They need to simplify and ref the rules not interpret them
Bargeall
Guest
Has Roy masters finally lost it https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/great-expectations-why-our-cricket-cheats-are-copping-it-worse-than-the-nrl-s-20180327-p4z6gs.html
Forty Twenty
Guest
Yes Bennett is saying that a player and one incident could well have cost his team the game and not the ref. It is not a controversial statement yet if he says the same thing about a ref's call then he runs the risk of being given a lesson in logic. It has the same effect. Short answer is to keep your mouth shut in public but hope the referees boss isn't so defensive . It appears that the new one is on the right track.
Nat
Roar Guru
I'm not sure that is the same point as we are discussing. If a player makes a mistake and the other team capitalizes and eventually runs away with the game, hasn't Bennett just highlighted that the result was came back to the actions of his team and not a ref's decision? I would have the same opinion as above if Bennett accused a ref of making a call that cost the game (given it wasn't like Friday but then you could say Brisbane failed to capitalize on 3 scoring opportunities prior; Birds, Kodi's break and Jet's obstruction) I understand your point that a single event can change the course of a game but I cannot accept the premise that a wrong call lead to a try. Eg, Melbourne received 18 penalties against the Tigers but the Tigers won.
BA Sports
Roar Guru
It would be kind-of palatable for the coach to whinge about the momentum shift caused by an officials call, if he acknowledged when they worked in his favour, but i don't think I have ever heard that - Usually in those instances it is "i haven't seen the replay"... funny that.. I am happy to listen to his opinion (usually) if he acknowledges when he benefits from errors.
Kangajets
Guest
Yes fair enough Barry , you make some valid points , I think my old man did the same thing as you when watching the football. The counter argument is if we don’t emotionally invest in watching the game , it’s not the same , it’s just another show on tv ..,
Eden
Guest
Phil Gould is a scourge on the game when in the commentary box. He should be limited to only comment on the match at hand, not some agenda he wants to push, and he should not linger on a topic when the match has moved on. When referring to something that is outside of the boundaries of the match the commentators should only make a brief referral to it and leave the rest for punters and pundits. When he disagrees with something like a referee decision he shouldn’t use words like ‘disgrace’ and other hyperbole. He shouldn’t bring it up over and over. He should call it as he sees it with non-inflammatory language and move on. So that the viewer can move on. I hate listening to Gould and Rabs
AJ Mithen
Expert
I can't understand why people wouldn't want to be taking advantage of one of the biggest sporting markets in the world...