We still talking about referees? We are? This baby has more legs than a Mongolian army.
So many legs. So many angles. So many sexy hot takes.
Scrap the bunker. Beef up the bunker. Empower the refs. De-power the refs.
De-flower Tony Archer on a torture wheel in Martin Place. Admittedly no-one has suggested that. Not in those words, anyway.
Arm former players with digital voting machines, ruling on every try with a little committee of group think.
No-one has suggested that one either.
Or have they? There’s been so many solutions, and so few solutions.
And we’ve heard bugger-all from referees.
Because in terms of solutions to issues pertaining to refereeing it would appear best to ask, you know, referees.
Indeed unless you have refereed a game of rugby league then you aren’t in the best position to pass comment on refereeing a game of rugby league.
Could be just me. And Tony Archer. Don’t think it is.
Matt Cecchin (Photo by Mark Evans/Getty Images)
Of course you may absolutely have an opinion.
But if you haven’t adjudicated the game – at any level much less the high-stress pressure cooker of this man’s National Rugby League – then your opinion on adjudicating the game could be treated with so many doses of Pfffft.
Pfffft?
Yes: Pfffft.
As in, Pffft – what would you know about it?
It’s like telling a plumber how to unblock the toilet because you once used one.
Referees’ overlord Tony Archer does good Pffft. Indeed Tony Archer doesn’t listen to anyone who believes they know more about refereeing than Tony Archer.
Because to Tony Archer, in terms of refereeing, very few of those people even exist.
And fewer again are not referees.
Bob Fulton was not, apparently, one of them.
People might call Archer arrogant. And they could make a case. Old mate Arch’s opinion of old mate Arch does not lack love.
But you need a degree of self-love, of protective love bark, if you will, to do the blessed bloody job of refereeing, and to appear so confident in one’s adjudication.
Hollywoods Hartley and Harrigan were the same. Still are. Love is in the air between mirror and those fellows, and no argument.
And they would brook no argument. They’re right, you’re wrong. Remember that thing in the ’89 grand final, Balmain’s Bruce Maguire being pinged for obstruction using a Raiders player, Steve Walters, I think, or Chris O’Sullivan, as a human shield?
Bill’s response to those who disagree with Bill on it, and I quote: “Here’s twenty cents, call someone who cares.”
NRL Referees boss Tony Archer speaks to the media at Rugby League Central. (Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
So yes – it takes a bit of mongrel, your top level reffing. A bit of the… I dunno… the uppity, the born-to-rule.
Mainly this: it takes belief.
Which doesn’t necessarily mean people like you. Not meant to. Such is the referee’s job lot.
Parking inspectors the same.
Anyway – we’ve had a week of hot sexy takes and suggestions as to how to solve the Refereeing Crisis, and the bunker, and all the rest, and we’ve heard little enough about refereeing at the highest level from high-level referees.
Old mate Arch is a case in point.
Arch, you see, has created a post for himself above the manager of referees, Bernard Sutton, like a director or overseer or something, which appears to mean Arch does not have to defend decisions or referees, or get blamed for stuff, or to talk publicly at all. Old mate Arch just floats above it all like a god.
Pretty good gig, your floating god boss.
Yet it’s a shame. For it brings us no nearer a solution from those who’d know: our whistlers.
Mr Harrigan’s had a crack on radio. Ref manager Bernard has thrown two bob at those who care.
And Greg McCallum said Bernard Sutton should drop Gerard Sutton.
Rang him the other day, G-Mac (whom they likely call thus), and talked refereeing. He was involved in video reviews from ground zero.
“In 1995 when we brought into Super League, we took a lot of convincing from the broadcaster, Sky Sports,” says McCallum. “Then it took a lot to convince the clubs. They didn’t want it to become a major part of the game.
“But they understood – if the ball is rolling around, kicked into in-goal, it would be good to have video assisting.
“That’s how it started.
“And it grew and grew and grew. And [in the NRL] it went through a whole raft of tweaks. Referee’s call, send it up, send it back. Artificial ways to fix it.”
How do we fix it?
“The focus has to be on processes,” offers McCallum. “At the moment what we have is a potentially really good system, the mechanics of which aren’t working.”
Fact: last Friday night in Cronulla the touch judge made a mistake. We’ve all known a mental aberration. The referee knew one too.
What should’ve happened was: touch judge is sole authority on sideline. Flag’s up? Whistle’s blown.
“Then there would’ve been no debate on the try,” adds McCallum. “There’d have been focus on the touch judge.”
Yes. And we’d have had a whole other conversation – Sharks fans howling about the touch judge.
But the system – and the consistent application of the system – would have been right.
“Next was the bunker,” says McCallum. “There’s three in the bunker. Two look at angles. For some reason they didn’t see or recognise that the flag had gone up. And they went on to adjudicate a try.
“It was sent to them as no try. But there was no counter-balance to make the right decision: no try.”
Humans make mistakes, though, G-Mac, right?
“You can’t keep saying human element. There’s got to be a greater emphasis on processes that don’t allow those things to happen.”
What about having replays only for grounding and touch line, which puts onus upon refs. And then all that second man, inside shoulder, obstruction stuff, let the dice fall where they will?
Oh? People would blow up?
They do that now.
Would it not empower our whistle-blowers to make decisions and to own them?
Can we not let referees rule!
“Referees have lost that decision-making edge,” says McCallum. “To me it came about on Friday night when Gerard Sutton – who is an excellent referee, and outside of Matt Cecchin our most experienced – he didn’t know how to handle it.
“He went to blow his whistle. But he was trying to think of too many things. He had everyone in his ear, another issue. They’ve got to get rid of all the talk so they can concentrate their job.
“It’s the same for the bunker. It can be effective – but it can’t be at the moment because it’s being asked to do too much too often.”
Rugby league is losing excitement because of it. Brisk, precise, confident decision-making – even if ultimately shown to be wrong by the television god box replay – contributes to excitement.
In the game’s quest for perfection, television has taken away one of the cool things about it: the referee pointing to the spot and blowing the pea out of it. Continuity is killed.
Can we get back to what it was? Ball goes over stripe – unless the grounding’s dodgy, make a call, whistle man.
We could do it, for sure. But we the people, like those Russians chanting for Rocky over Drago, would have to change.
[latest_videos_strip category=”league” name=”League”]
We’d have to admit that the referee’s call is right, even when it’s wrong.
We’d have to cop it sweet.
Are we grown up enough to do that? You’d suggest not. G-Mac’s positive, however.
“Deep down I think everyone would like to do that,” he says. “Nathan Brown, who’s a realist, said it last Sunday: we had a decision that went our way. Last week we copped one.
“Deep down everyone understands.
“But when you’re struggling like Canberra you’re your own worst enemy. The Raiders are potentially great but don’t measure up. And when Friday night happens it knocks them out.”
Pop quiz, G-Mac: Captain’s challenge?
“Ideal – would’ve fixed the other night.”
Two refs?
“I’d have one.”
The bunker?
“Get it working. The technology is world class. It needs processes and people mixing together.
“There are far too many decisions going to the bunker.
“The least involvement it has, the more effective it is.”
Mushi
Guest
Quick question on the Captains challenge response? Which incident is he referring to? Anything already involving the bunker would presumably bring the same result right?
Kurt S
Roar Pro
I'm currently overseas and have a few locals mates over to watch the game every so often. They have never watched league or union and initially thought it was like NFL so I am explaining the rules as we watch. Yesterday while watching the Broncs and Sharkies and after the Broncs fullback fell awkwardly, Gould and Vautin started carrying on with the decision. Mate turns to me and says " Kurt, you westerners think too much." Mate then goes on to say words to the effect of "Why can't you just enjoy what has been a really exciting game. That fullback was crazy. It was awesome. Why are the commentators trying to ruin the excitement?" Indeed, when it comes to NRL, us westerners do think too much.
Rob
Guest
I’d love to see the Ref and touchy work as a team and throw the earpieces in the bin.
Adz Sportz
Roar Guru
Referees are loyal to the current system, or they're told to tell you they're loyal to the current system.
Adam
Roar Guru
That's very true. That's why VAR has been immensely unpopular and took so long to bring in.
Parra
Guest
I agree with The Barry, RL needs to make a decision on what game it wants to be, stop start - review every play or free flowing accepting a margin of error. My view is free flowing accepting human error. Get all stakeholders to agree then move on. Note that in other sports mistakes are made including soccer how one incorrect decision can decide a game and the ususl response is 'that is sport' you win some you lose some. RL people need to grow up and get on with the game. Simple
steveng
Roar Rookie
For me, the bunker has ‘tunnel vison’ and that is why it doesn't work most of the time, that is why the referees go upstairs, which is pure laziness and its another way of the referees not being made accountable (even though, they are right there) they are looking for microscopic decisions and if its wrong then ‘blame the bunker’ and/or the touchy! The instance with the Sharks v Raiders and the touchy is a perfect example of what the bunker does and does not do! To me, the bunker shouldn’t have been used in that instance, G. Sutton should have make the decision of ‘no try’ (which he did) and it should have been a scrum with a Sharks feed! It was the same last night, in a few instances with the Broncos v Sharks, but especially when Isaako took that bomb and Moylan went for it at the same time, the refs call was ‘your penalised for putting a player in a dangerous position’ what??? That was even though Isaako put himself in a ‘dangerous position’ and it was a suicidal play! These are the sorts of things that ruin our game and this is what commentators like Gus and Joey and all that criticised the game are right about and I agree with them 100% but, there are many more of these sorts of incidents and the two above are not isolated! One of the solutions should be the ‘captain’s call’ and the refs and bunker should be challenged and made accountable to decision they make. If controversy decides a game, a team should have the means of an independent body that has the power to overturn, annul (after the game with thorough investigation) any controversial calls of the referees and/or bunker calls, which affect(ed) a game and have an impact of the other team winning! This independent body should also have the power to take a 2 pointer way from any side(s) that a blatant fault of either a referees or the bunker call resulted in a team winning controversially, simple lol!
Adam
Roar Guru
And I'm still waiting for that match award process to be fixed! There needs to be an investigation! Or a royal commission! ICAC I tells you
Emcie
Roar Guru
It's not anymore urgent then its ever been. The media has just decided we're in a crisis because of 2 questionable calls in one game. Two weeks ago post match award processes were the crisis that had to be fixed immediately
JimboJones
Guest
I really don't get this commentator hate . I don't think it would matter who called the games , someone would be having a meltdown and claiming bias . Just watch it and get over the commentary . The article was in fact about fixing the refereeing , which in mine and many peoples opinions , has a lot more urgent issues to deal with.
kk
Guest
GAS. Greenberg, Archer, Sutton. There is a simple remedy. Rugby League needs a packet of De - Gas to relieve all the Stomach wind and Bloating. Continue treatment until cured.
Wayne Lovell
Roar Guru
Amen! While we’re at it, put a clause in the TV deals to ensure neutral commentary. Maybe we will avoid the mob being whipped up into a frenzy every time a channel 9 caller loses a pineapple on the game they’re calling.
Nick
Roar Guru
Whatever other gripe Phil Gould and Andrew Johns have I suppose? Those two can always find something to spew into the Channel 9 airwaves with until it eventually hits the fans.
Adam
Roar Guru
Or we can leave it how it is. Gives us all something to complain about over the weekend. If you take this off us what will we have?
Paul
Roar Guru
All this discussion about fixing the refereeing issues is fine, but WHEN is actually going to happen? Surely Greeburg and co need to get this sort as best they can before the finals, even earlier if at all possible. If this means convening a referee focus group, fine. If this means bring Archer down form the clouds, good. What ever it takes, is doesn't matter as long as a) the standard of decision making improves across all aspects of the game and b) this happens sooner rather than later.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I didn’t have too much of a problem with the actual mistake in the Sharks v Raiders game. The touchie should never have raised his flag and put it down or confused the issue with “knock on, no it’s not” But I’ve watched 40 years of rugby league and never seen that one before so I’m happy to write it off as a series of unfortunate events. The problem is the response. Archer, Sutton and Greenberg all stick their head in the sand “no one saw anything”. ‘koff...we all saw it so how can the ref and the bunker claim they didn’t and how can their bosses accept that garbage. No lessons learned whether it’s people, process whatever. This isn’t just the refs problem though. The game as a whole needs to decide what it wants to be. A free flowing anything goes entertainment-a-thon or a whistle heavy pedantic penalty-a-thon or somewhere in between. Is touching the ball with a foot in the play the ball important or not? Is offside ok as long as it doesn’t impact the play or not? Does a slightly forward pass out of dummy half really matter? And then get on with it...not change interpretation every time someone posts an internet meme. For the rest of the season in the non finals impacting games - and were going to have a few of those. Let’s go back to one ref, no voices and see what that’s really like. Referees may or may not have been good at refereeing footy games. Doesn’t mean they no nothing about running a business department.
BA Sports
Roar Guru
I said it last week - the only people who know what it is like to referee with a bunker plus a third video ref in your ear are the current ref's - not Harrigan, Archer, or even McCullum. None ever experienced that. Not to say we shouldn't listen to these people (though at this point it seems like a drunk Sterling Archer is in the box not Tony) but let the current crew tells us the problem. And when they tell us it is Archer's stupid point system, lets scrap it and see if there is an improvement.
ferret
Guest
Spot on about killing the moment. Your team scores and celebrations are put on hold cos the touchie on the other side who is 50m away form the play says "better check, better check it. There might have been some completely obscure error which all four of us missed." 10 minutes pass - Nope no-one missed anything blow the whistle, but I'm kinda over the moment by now. (BTW - there's a reason you're running the line sone and not in the middle). I like Badger, he makes a call and even over-rules when he's sure.
Don
Roar Rookie
Or past coaches... are you listening Gus?
Womblat
Guest
I like the bit about good processes spoiled by human factors. Totally true in this regard. Simple solution would be to remove the human factors... like, I dunno, the players? This game is for people, by people and about people. The tech obsessed mealy mouthed morons in charge will work it out one day. A really huge Real Steel machine with a Paul Gallen face sticky taped on it running straight at an even bigger one with red wig and "NAPA" on the back. I'd pay folding money to see THAT. Then again... all the blow up dolls in the crowd would deflate when Robot Reynolds blows a penalty because the tackle was too hard. And C3PO turns to Optimus Prime on the commentary box and says "that doesn't compute".