This isn’t about referee bias or a ref costing us the game. This is about whether the ‘crackdown’ was really about enforcing the rules of the game.
Paranoia and conspiracy for sure, but also hopefully a reasonably objective look at one example of how the referees are exerting their influence.
The game in question is Sunday’s clash between the Sharks and the Bulldogs, which is a perfect microcosm of what’s wrong with NRL refereeing at the moment.
For the record, I tipped the Sharks.
After a tight start, the Dogs got away to a 4-0 lead. They had conceded two early penalties to the Sharks’ none by the time Josh Morris scored.
Protecting a narrow lead, the Bulldogs gave away three penalties in quick succession, yielding two tries to be 10-4 in arrears. The penalty count stood at 5-0 to the Sharks.
Canterbury were penalised several times for leaving the line early or being offside, yet the Cronulla defence was meeting the ball carrier at the ruck, tackle after tackle.
So far, so what?
However, having forged their way to a lead based on discipline and looking like they comfortably had the Bulldogs’ measure, the Sharks suddenly changed tack and gave away five consecutive penalties themselves, between the 29th and 38th minutes. Sure enough, Canterbury scored to make it 10-8. A penalty goal with two minutes remaining and we’re at 10-all.
The Bulldogs went from conceding five penalties in the first 17 minutes of play to none in the next 23 minutes, when they looked like they were on the ropes.
Does that seem natural? Didn’t look it. Didn’t feel it.
[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby-league” name=”League”]
There was no perceptible difference in how either team approached the game but suddenly the Dogs were no longer offside and the Sharks were.
The result was a 10-10 halftime score line and 5-5 penalty count. What an even contest. Crackdown’s working.
So, after having forced their way back into the game on the back of conceding no penalties for the second quarter-and-a-bit of the game, the Bulldogs came out after a rest and an orange and conceded three penalties in the first 12 minutes of the second half, a Sharks try the result.
The Dogs conceded their fourth and fifth consecutive penalties in the 67th and 68th minutes and the pressure eventually told, with Matt Prior scoring.
Cronulla was controlling the ball, not giving away penalties and looked like they might put a couple of tries on in the last 13 minutes.
But again, instead of pressing home their advantage, Cronulla seemingly lost the plot and conceded another five penalties between the 72nd and 80th minutes while leading by eight points. If ever there was a time for a disciplined side to play disciplined football and close out the game, this was it. Apparently not.
So we have the Dogs conceding five consecutive penalties while they’re in the contest, the Sharks the next five with the game in their control. Canterbury then go five again while they’re back in the game for Cronulla to concede five of the last six in the final eight minutes.
The Sharks conceded no penalties for 60 minutes of the game but gave away a total of ten in the last ten minutes of each half. Does that seem right?
Do teams really switch between being uber-disciplined for large parts of the game, when the result is up for grabs, to completely haphazard when they can close it out?
Yeah, teams can be cynical to protect a lead, but there was no perceptible shift in how the teams were playing.
If the Bulldogs had somehow scored in the last minute, the home fans would have every right to be blowing up.
Andrew Fifita of the Sharks. (AAP Image/Joe Castro)
The better team won on the day and, if I’m honest, the referees kept the Bulldogs in the game at least as much as they stopped them.
None of the flow of the game and the penalties seemed organic. None of it makes sense. Except…
22-16 score line, 11-10 penalty count. One score away from golden point. Nice, tight, even contest.
Except it wasn’t. It felt like a completely manufactured result.
Not manufactured from the perspective that the home side were supposed to win, but that neither team was supposed to lose too badly. Both teams were to be given their shot.
This happens often enough for there to be a perception that it’s a pattern.
Paranoia and conspiracy. The cynic in me can’t help but feel the crackdown from the refs has nothing to do with adherence to the rules but to create a contest.
Why did the Bulldogs concede five straight penalties to start each half? We’re having a crackdown.
Why did the Sharks concede all ten of their penalties in the last ten minutes of each half? Crackdown.
Conspiracy and paranoia.
farkurnell
Guest
A lot of good points. Teams may deliberately infringe on there line to get a breather and strategise giving away 2 point is better than 6. I'd like to see a mandatory 5 min sin bin after 3 penalties in the red zone.Just wondering the impact of that on the defence.
farkurnell
Guest
The easiest thing in league is to criticise the refs,always has been always will be.-I do it, everybody who loves the game does it.NRL diehards have a death wish for the code .I remember at the start of the season the majority wanted a crack down -with the refs to get tough.Now thats been happening,sections of the media in particular Channel 9 commentators are screaming blue murder,promoting ill will among all stakeholders.I listen to others in the media who are still happy with the crack down, thinking - a short term pain for a long term gain Last time I looked Gould is the head of a NRL club ,he appears to be a protected species -his rant the other day against the whole establishment was nothing short of disgarceful.,yet he gets away with it. Back to the refs -the issue with the dummy half milking a penalty by throwing the ball into the tackler in the ruck,is not that easy to fix.I guarantee you will get 6 different solutions on this site .Gould said it was easy to fix ,but didnt offer how. Who are you going to penalise?,if the refs yell play on- the ruck becomes an even bigger mess,if he packs a scrum who does he give the feed? Of course the whole scenario is against the spirit of the game ,taken advantage of by players and coaches . I think RL is its own worst enermy,and the diehards constantly nagging about the refs is turning a lot of people off our great game ,as well
The Barry
Roar Guru
Your second last paragraph completely contradicts your last... The penalties the Dogs got in the last ten were to even up the count. The game was done and dusted. The completely my point - the refs are keeping an eye on the count or the scoreboard as opposed to refereeing the game in front of them. Please don’t start with forward passes...the Sharks threw just as many...as every club does every week.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Rugby league is based on the 6 tackle "formula" -sharing the "love"-you have 6 ,we have 6..It doesn't work out that way. In every game the"formula" is affected by:- Forward passes by the attacker Dropped balls Intercepts or failed intercepts Penalties and boy have we had some Repeat sets, where the defending team continues to be tackled in their in goal And the rare sighting like the cassowary of the 40/20 kick Players being tackled into touch within the 6 tackle period. Refs have that fallibility which is inborn in humanity,ie prone to errors on occasions, and having tow probably increases that risk. Do they respect some players more than others? I'm sure they do, as any self respecting person would. When the game is played with such speed, intensity,emotion and there is the need to keep ones eyes on the on side/offside/discretions in the PTB,whether a player helps old people cross tghe road or pushes them on to the roads irrelevant. He refs as to what he sees or at times misses.Even two refs can miss something on the spur of the moment.Do we want the bunker to intervene every time, it would end up like Gridiron. Refs in my view very time they hit the field ,have everyone in the crowd on them at one time or another, players less so. I don;t believe they are dodgy, some weeks they do a better job than other weeks, bit like many of us in the workforce. The NRL has a salary cap, which supposedly gives a more level playing field, and judging by the matches I have seen this year with the playing talent(taking out the ref factor).t is one of the most level comps I have witnessed.Ask the Storm, ask Parra,ask the Roosters. And one sided scorelines thrown in.The ref had little say over that I propose. Then we come to the matter of deciding whether a try is a reality, a bees d*ck from the corner post or one where a herd of bodies covers a ball lodged over the goal line.The bunker replays it like a politician,the fans who follow the then attacking side in unison"It's try" ,those against"no try". We sit back with the availability of the replay, like armchair generals making a comfortable decision,yet we are able to bag a ref or refs about decisions made on the spur of the moment, with no such backup. Of course they make mistakes, but a conspiracy no siree ,unless you happen to be on the losing side.And mea culpa on that one. Just as an aside TB.,Im a Shark's supporter and every decision made our way was a correct one.No correspondence to be entered into.I could count at least 3 forward passes by the Dogs ,that were missed, and the fans let the refs know.Both sides were guilty of regularly infringing in defence ,particularly the backs.And the late penalties to the Dogs were gimmees.Dugan to the bin with 47sec on etc clock what the!!!! Refs are there to control the game, if players from either side ,stuffs up either illegally or incompetently,it' ain't" the ref's fault(whilst he'll no doubt miss something or make an error),the overwhelming factor in the final result 99 times out of 100,is the players' ball control ,their defensive capabilities and playing within the rules.Not a conspiracy.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Haha...fair enough. That’s definitely on the cards no matter how impartial or objective I try to be. Mike Gordon wrote something similar above. It’s not just this game though (and maybe if have been better served waiting for a non Bulldogs game). What I will say in my defence is that I’ve pointed out the switch the refs made in each half saved the Bulldogs from getting pumped at least as much as they cost the Bulldogs. Anyway, have a look how often penalties flow one way and then when a team gets well behind, the penalties reverse and all flow the other. Have a think about how often you can remember a 5-0 penalty count turning into a 10-0 count or a 15-0 count. It literally never happens. Some people have suggested the penalty count is about momentum. But why does it always shift back? If a team is under the pump by a better team, playing a high risk, penalty inducing style, a 10-0 count should happen at least occasionally. Even on a random distribution of penalties there’s a 1 in 1,024 chance of 10 penalties in a row which equates to once every five years, assuming there’s 10 penalties per game. Once every 2.5 years if we have 20 penalties a game. Now we don’t want to see 10-0 penalty counts but it should happen very occasionally. But the fact it never does also suggests that referees are managing games rather than refereeing completely objectively. Now if you say “derrr, that’s the way it’s always been” I won’t argue. But that’s sorta my point. And this method which is becoming more and more common of five penalties in a row then “oh, shoot that’s too many I better switch” is not good for the spectacle. As a long term footy viewer and noting my biases, I could not believe the Dogs were consistently getting pinged for leaving the line early or being offside, yet the Cronulla defence which was getting to the ruck far more quickly and consistently than the Bulldogs wasn’t called once in 30-odd minutes.
PNGBF88
Guest
this comment had me bawling...gold!
Emcie
Roar Guru
It'd probably be easier to make it so that a play is finished once the tackle is complete and that the next play begins from then on rather then once the ball leaves the ruck
Lovey
Guest
What if they allowed one more play as an advantage? If any other offence occurred in that play by the defence then the same thing, but only one shot at goal. If by the attacking team...mmm...maybe lose the penalty, I guess. This deliberate giving away of penalties needs to be rubbed out.
Brian George
Guest
Thebarton, I'd put it largely down to confirmation bias. That is, you believe it's going to be that way ergo that's what you see. Don't be too down on yourself, everyone suffers from it and only some are aware of their own bias and look to correct it. ?
Jason Hosken
Roar Guru
The first one, plenty of time to complete a set and the ref was busting to dismiss someone.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Ideally Emcie, coaches are the one group which should never be allowed near the rules committee. They will support changes which helps their style of coaching and that is it.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Which penalty though? The two penalty goals were kicked in the 39th minute and the 80th minute. I don’t think there was time for either to guarantee a player sinbinned...
Albo
Guest
Spot on Jason with that observation regarding Pay's decision to go for goal rather than the certain extra man for 10 ! I am still scratching my head too !
kk
Guest
The usual suspects to fill their quota book.
Big Daddy
Guest
I am sure there are players that are targeted by the referees. I am sure they won't admit it.
Nat
Roar Guru
It's hard to find any empirical evidence but some decisions are baffling. We, the viewers, tend to brush them off as 50/50 due to their innocuous nature, like the offside. However, I can't get past that "we've evened up the penalty count now" from a few weeks back? Why has no one followed up on that? Even if it's not intended to be result manipulation, they have little control over the ensuing play that can alter the outcome of a game.
Mike Gordon
Roar Rookie
The Barry, I think you are logical in your reasoning, but I suspect your facts support an underlying theory that the refs are being dodgy. This was always going to be a close game (I tipped the sharks mostly based on the Fifita factor and home ground). So, it had its ebbs and flows. I don’t think the dogs gave away cynical penalties early, they over enthusiastically rushed their defence under the pressure of an attacking sharks with plenty of ball in hand. After 5 penalties they we’re warned of a sin bin, pulled their heads in and played with discipline you’d expect from highly paid professionals. At the same time the sharks were sprinting off in a disciplined solid line of defence. As so many penalties have been given up in this area, perhaps Flanagan has the team focused on this. I can’t recall Fifita being so disciplined ever. It should be a focus of all teams given it is 2018- the year of the disciplining. The dogs regathered, putting the shark under the pump, whose discipline went out the window (or was it cynical play?) and copped 5 straight penalties and their fairs fair warning of a sinning. So after pushing the envelope, they pulled their heads in. It’s understandable that a team under attack, where the refs mostly blow their whistle, either get a bit rattled, or give away cynical penalties. It seems after 5 the refs suspect the later. Conspiracy and paranoia yes, built on isolating facts from circumstances, confirmational bias, and passion, the later especially when it involves the dogs.
kk
Guest
Top post, Duncan
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
Some refs do try to even up the penalty count, in the attempt to show neutrality. But some penalties are 'more equal than others.' A penalty given on the first tackle is pretty much useless to the attacking team, but a penalty given on fifth tackle is a bonus set of six. Not equal. Also a string of penalties conceded on the try line within a couple of minutes is misleading. At the end of the game, the ref can point to a 13-12 penalty count, for example, but 4 of those might have come from one passage of play. The refs might also say, in the Easts vs Brisbane game last week, one player was sin binned from each side. Well, yeah that's true - but Napa went off ten minutes from the end while the Broncos player got binned one second from full-time. Not all penalties are equal.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Just imagine how much worse would it be if it was the other way round