Here’s the problem with being consistent: sometimes it costs sides the game.
However, consistency is a great thing to bring back to the game of rugby league. Possibly the most necessary thing.
Where Gerard Sutton went upstairs in the 80th minute of the Broncos-Bulldogs game with the scores tied, I had no idea what he was looking for.
When the replays showed Moses Mbye had deliberately pushed the chasing Darius Boyd – albeit not very forcefully – there was a sinking feeling in my belly that the game would be decided by a penalty.
It seemed hideously unfair. The struggling Dogs had played so well. How could it be right that they’d lose on such an ineffectual incident?
But that is the way it panned out.
And we’ve all got to suck that up. Not just because it was technically the right decision but because the referees are being consistent.
We want the referees to be consistent. We need the referees to be consistent.
This season we’ve seen Ryan Matterson sin-binned for laying an offside finger on the swan diving Billy Slater. We’ve seen Latrell Mitchell sin-binned for holding back a Bulldog who wasn’t in possession. We’ve seen Jarrod Croker sin-binned for having a finger on Angus Crichton before he got the ball.
In all but one of those cases, it cost the dismissed players’ side the game.
Moses Mbye – in fact all NRL players – should have known not to even touch Boyd. Sure, it was instinctive. Sure, it probably didn’t stop Boyd scoring. But that doesn’t matter one bit.
(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
The rules say you can’t do it and the referees have been consistent in enforcing the rule and punishing infractions with the bin.
It’s a horrible way to lose a game but the rules have to be the same whether it is the second minute or the 80th. The fact that it was the 80th minute amplified the incident. But that didn’t make it wrong.
Plus, none of it happens if Moses just catches the damn ball.
I’ve hated watching the referees swallow the whistle at the end of games or in extra time for fear of deciding the game on a penalty. The players knew the refs were paralysed and as a result mercilessly played offside, weren’t straight at marker, held players down, stripped the ball and held players back.
All the while some commentators were celebrating that the game was allowed to “flow.”
The problem with that was it wasn’t the game of rugby league that was being allowed to “flow.” It was some sort of mutated, bastardised version of rugby league. An ugly version where the rules seemingly mattered far less than a player’s stature in the game.
The shock of all NRL fans when Matt Cecchin sin-binned an insolent Cameron Smith in Round 4 was huge. It signified – more than any of the huge penalty counts – a seismic shift in the officiating of the game. The officials were taking back control of the game.
(AAP Image/Craig Golding)
And anyone paying attention should have known it. And you would hope that NRL coaches and players are paying attention.
It isn’t just Matt Cecchin prepared to make hard calls either. Gerard Sutton is no shrinking violet when it comes to making a call and he surely made one in this case. Sure, the Broncos got a mystifying knock back call in the 50th minute that really helped them keep momentum. But that stuff will always happen. Unless of course a captain’s challenge is instituted.
I maintain that it is high time for a captain’s challenge to be brought in. One that allows incidents that have been let go or missed to be reviewed. The review can be of any incident during play, not just scoring plays, as some of the worst calls or missed incidents that affect games happen outside the actual scoring play itself. Just ask Bruce McGuire.
How would it work?
Like this:
• When an incident occurs the captain will let the nearest official know as soon as possible that he has a challenge. The official will ensure the other referees know of the challenge.
• At the next appropriate stoppage in play, the lead official will ask the captain if he’d like to continue the challenge and, if so, the nature of the challenge.
• An appropriate stoppage is one where there would no longer be lost advantage to the opposing side. For example, if a quick play-the-ball might still lead to a line-break or try.
• The challenge would be treated as incorrect until there was clear evidence to uphold it.
• One challenge per half per side. If the challenge is upheld the team keeps it.
However, I think the NRL is a long way away from instituting a captain’s challenge.
What is clear though is that the officials are taking back control of the game. They are going to make the hard calls whenever those calls are there to be made and – apart from Bernard Sutton’s bizarre demotion of Ashley Klein and Matt Noyen for making just such a call – NRL HQ is right behind them.
So while it is a very bitter pill for the Bulldogs to swallow, the officials didn’t cost them the game. Moses Mbye did.
Ellery
Guest
That one was ok, but what about a player dropping a ball facing the other team's try line and it was called a knock back - points came from it a few plays later. Also, what about a penalty on a morris boy who was nowhere near the play that did not affect the play at all resulting in the bulldogs captain being penalised for calling the 'ref' out on it. Led to more points. The calls seemed to go very much in favour of the home team on this occasion, as I don't recall any of them resulting in points for the bulldogs.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Remember when Harrigan sent Gordon Tallis off for calling him a cheat? Good times...
Matt H
Roar Guru
Actually their acting is bad. Isaako gave himself up.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Cam Smith had the stones, but he lost them on the weekend, poor fella.
The Barry
Roar Guru
...and technically Billy slater was kicking a field goal against the Broncos. Just because ‘technically’ there’s a way to justify the call, doesn’t make it the right call...
The Barry
Roar Guru
With all due respect you’re happy with the ruling because you’re a broncos fan. The ball hit Isaako and from that moment on the ball was never behind him. How can it be a knock back if the ball is never behind him? The refs might be able to find a way to splain their way out of it but it was a rubbish decision and inconsistent with how they’ve been called for the last 40 years. Anyway time to move on. Good win, congrats on the two points.
Emcie
Roar Guru
"its been the rule all year"? why is this getting trotted out? That was certainly not the first knock back this year, not by a long shot, it's just the first one to make headlines. It's almost like the Broncos were playing or something
McTavish
Roar Rookie
It is astounding that what fans claim they want is consistency but then seriously suggest the way to achieve it is not to have the referees decide, as best they can, whether or not an infringement of the rules has taken place. Instead, they should be instructed to also consider 'the spirit of the game', the vibe, how close the game is, when in the game the penalty occurred, where on the field it was, how much the infringee' played' for it and the "situation of the game". I am sure that will lead to greater consistency?! How does it even make sense to claim a decision was correct yet "atrocious"? Even robots would not keep all fans happy, especially those viewing things through their own team coloured lenses.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
Tim, you say “However, consistency is a great thing to bring back to the game of rugby league. Possibly the most necessary thing.” You then go on to say of the referees “They are going to make the hard calls whenever those calls are there to be made…” You seem to be confusing referees making the hard calls with consistency. Take Klein’s penalty that denied the Tigers an opportunity to win the game against the Broncos. There were many more egregious examples of markers not being square in that match which Klein chose to ignore. Check out for example the markers when Brooks dropped the goal to tie the game up just before full time. It was the most blatant example of off-side at marker in the entire match, and yet it went un-penalised. If Klein were consistent he would have awarded a penalty in front, and the Tigers would have won the game in normal time. But he was not consistent. As RobertF says in a comment above: “…the lack of consistency and randomness of some penalties leaves me dumbfounded …” I agree. The referees are not being consistent in their application of the rules. This randomness influences the outcome of matches and turns fans off the game.
Bargeall
Guest
As masters wrote some years ago its all about getting a close game and the overwhelming majority of decisions went to the trailing team to get aclose finish. The rubbish about the Broncos knock on - its a RL knockon whenever a ball is dropped its a knock on - its been the rule all year
Yoshi
Guest
But give it a go, because as sure as the sun shines (Well, at least for the next 4 billion years give or take), Tim would be back here, writing articles based on how much the game's negativily affected by it. It happened already this year when commentators/journalist, who previslousy calling out for the rules be enforced, got what they wanted and then whinged how much the game slowed down.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Yeah, I'm not sure that a phillosophy only meant to apply to competing hypothetical answers has much relevence in whether the ball went back or not.
Yoshi
Guest
Now come guys, leave Tim and his irrational hatred of Cam alone. Facts will just confuse him :) .
Emcie
Roar Guru
Um, that's not physics Barry. A player moving parallel with the ground is always going to have more momentum then a ball heading towards the ground at a 60° angle. What saved Isaako was that he was travelling towards his own goal line, if he was standing still or coming from his goal line and the ball dropped and went back I'd be with you saying that that's always a called a knock on but as it transpired all but the biggest of mistakes on Isaako's part would have resulted in the ball continuing towards the Broncos goal line, which is why I'm personally happy with the ruling.
Ray Paks
Roar Rookie
Let me put this to bed. Has anyone heard about a philosophical principle OCCAM'S RAZOR ? It says; Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. When presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the one that makes the fewest assumptions. All things equal, the simplest explanation is the right one. Now give a simple answer to a simple question, did it look like a knock on or did it look like a knock back ? People of earth, it was a DEADSET KNOCK ON everyday of the week since the cosmos came into being (except that day). I rest my case! see you all at the footy. GO THE DRAGONS!!!
The Barry
Roar Guru
Of course he knocked the ball forward and of course it has to be relative to body position. At the point the ball hit the ground it was a good 1-2 metres in front of Isaako. Did he knock the ball backwards and then move so quickly that he got behind the ball before it hit the ground? What a load of rot. That actually defies the laws of physics. After the ball touched his hand it was always in front of his body. That’s s knock on. Those have been called knock ons as long as I’ve watched footy. Anyone saying it’s not a knock on is making excuses. I note only broncos fans are calling it a knock back. Neutral fans are calling it a knock on.
Ray Paks
Roar Rookie
Do you even recall the events leading to the 'backchat' ? One shocking thing led to another extremely shocking thing! For starters, that incredibly outrageous call by the touchie (a one Michael Wise, whose head should be on the chopping block) for a block that never actually happened is just downright crazy. It's that kind of refereeing stupidity that would set anyone off I don't care who they are, in this case it was Klemmer. Jonathan Thurston, Cameron Smith, Gareth Widdop would have reacted similarly!!! This led to another very questionable offence, apparent backchat which led to the inexplicable relocation of the penalty mark that IMPROVED the angle for the penalty kick. Don't tell me they were not given those 2 points by the refs, they were! And Bulldogs fans should feel they were unlucky... or cheated!
ken gargett
Guest
tim, good article. i was agreeing with the lot, until i saw the comments about gallen above. seriously? anyway, as you identify, the key is consistency. if we have that then no one can complain. may be technically that was not a knock on, though it was seriously close. but you are right. it has been a knock on for a decade. players, fans can all wonder what the hell goes on (and this from a broncos fan). i expected it to be a scrum. and i'd have been furious if it had been the other way around. the one that gets me is the play the ball. the refs were tough on it early and about time. there was another penalty last night in the panthers v cowboys, though it seemed a bit tough. but in between, they have gone back to allowing the play the ball to become rubbish. go back to the souths broncs game and there was a shocker from a souths player - an immediate penalty earlier in the season. nothing done and souths went on to score, that play or the next - apols, i forget which. same game we had the world's most forward pass since tom brady last played. perhaps the broncs were due some luck last night, but you'd prefer a better quality of officiating. mind you, the refs in league are truly stellar compared with rugby. and they are getting worse.
Mycall
Guest
It is questionable if it was legitimate back chat or if the ref didn't realise Klemmer was acting captain. Regardless, the ref did cost them the two points because the penalty was near the sideline and when he penalised Klemmer for back chat he should have advanced the mark 10m forwards and inline with the original penalty but he actually brought it in field 10-15m making the decision a lot easier to kick for goal. Even though he was striking them beautifully, I doubt the Broncos would have elected for a shot at goal if the mark was 5 in from touch.
Mycall
Guest
The rule book is not clear either way tbh. For mine, he knocked the ball toward the opponent's db line but without sufficient force to change the direction of the ball. The key and as most people tend to agree on is that this incident would almost always be called a knock-on. I've seen refs explain to players after a pass has gone over the head of a player and they got a touch to it, that even though the ball continued backwards, they propelled it forward. This is how the refs interpret the rule... except for this one occasion. I dare say they need to add a note to rule book to explain a knock-on in relation to a moving ball. That is if you are right, then if the ball is moving toward's your team's db line, a knock-on can only occur if the player touches the ball with enough force to change the direction of the ball to travel towards the opponent's db line.