Rugby league’s demand for consistent application of the rugby league rules has seen referees apply those rules in a consistently incorrect – and occasionally nonsensical – manner.
Multiple knock-ons do not travel forward.
Multiple forward passes do not travel forward, either.
And when the refs do rule to the letter of the law, the absolute, what’s-written-down-in-the-book, black-and-white, technically-speaking, and all that, then Andrew McCullough can claim he missed a tackle because, as Billy Slater would tell us, he couldn’t see around Gavin Cooper.
See it last night, Broncos and Cows: Cooper was between McCullough and Jake Clifford, who scooted into a gap for a try.
McCullough, though, couldn’t see around Cooper, for a bit, until he could. And when he had ample chance to tackle Clifford, he did not. Barely got a finger on him.
Nothing to do with Cooper. He was just there, standing, out of shot.
But referee Matt Cecchin and his bunkerman declared that Cooper had stopped McCullough tackling Jake Clifford, who scored a try in every dimension of the universe other than the one which hosts our National Rugby League.
For dear sweet Rocket Reddy’s sake.
The obstruction rule, all that inside and outside shoulder stuff; perhaps it is important.
Perhaps coaches and Cameron Smith would verily exploit the game otherwise, and throw crash-test dummies, big bodies, into holes, and thus obstruct opponents.
Perhaps they do need a blanket, “consistent” application of that rule.
Or perhaps for an obstruction to be an obstruction, someone needs to be obstructed.
You’d think that would be, you know, the completely freaking obvious, for dear sweet Rod Reddy’s sake!
I give up.
No I don’t. For there is the knock-back, which is dead, and is my thing.
Remember Ben Hunt in golden point in the 2015 grand final? Under the letter of the law – that the ball must be projected towards one opponent’s try-line – it was not a knock-on.
Ben Hunt (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)
Of course as the rule is applied – as if the game is touch football which has “drop-ball” as a rule – it was called a knock-on.
But it was not a knock-on. And that’s not being pedantic. That is simply what the rule says.
Not. A. Knock. On.
Last week, Sharks and Souths, Josh Dugan put a solid shot on Adam Reynolds and the ball jolted free, backwards, towards Reynolds’ line. It spat out the back of the ruck and it was called a knock-on because that’s what happens, and everyone mobbed Dugan.
Because consistency.
Not. A. Knock. On. Either.
I remember another one in 2015, a semi-final, Sharks and Cowboys. It was a wet night. Johnathan Thurston grubbered and the ball went between Andrew Fifita’s legs, tunnel ball style.
On the way through, Fifita bent down and the ball brushed his fingers, and continued through his legs behind him.
Called a knock-on.
Not. A. Knock. On. Either. Either.
How was it a knock-on?
Physics does not allow it. The ball could not have travelled forward, even INFINITESIMALLY, and then continue through Fifita’s legs.
Andrew Fifita (AAP Image/SNPA, Teaukura Moetaua)
Can’t happen.
Called knock-on.
Not one.
There are passes which go backwards (one assumes for they aren’t pulled up) which brush a man’s fingers and continue roughly along the same path, which are called knock-on.
Everything dropped, nearly everything, is called knock-on.
Does my fat head in. I shouldn’t care but I do. Am I the only person who cares?
Everyone else – as Hunt’s and Reynolds’ and Fifita’s knock-ons show – just cop it. They cop the ball being not being propelled forward but being called forward.
The forward pass rule says the ball has to go forward out of the hands.
Roger Tuivasa-Sheck – and thousands before him – shot a pass backwards which floated forwards as the speeding-along-the-Nullarbor-and-throwing-an-apple-out-the-window-and-immediately-stopping-but-the-apple-continuing-forward-at-150-km/h-example would attest.
League needs to re-think its mindset. It’s too negative. Too just-in-case-it’s-forward-call-it-forward.
Why not switch that on its head? Unless it’s completely, flat-out obviously howling a knock-on or forward pass – you know, as the rules say – rule it play on.
Footy would win.
See the Raiders game against the Warriors. There was a possible, even probable forward pass by Josh Hodgson to Jarrod Croker.
It was short, off his hip, at speed, and too short and close for the touch judge to call.
And it was play on. And rugby league won. You couldn’t 100 per cent tell, so play on.
Ironically, and this is very rugby league, but had Croker been wider out and the ball gone backwards out of Hodgson’s hands and floated forward they’d have called it forward.
When it was not.
Rugby league should err on the side of attack. Flat, straight-across passes should be called flat, straight-across passes.
Even marginally forward ones, like Hodgson’s, call play-on if you can’t 100 per cent tell.
You certainly couldn’t tell about Hodgson’s on the fly. Even slowed down, well, maybe.
Tuivasa-Sheck’s you still can’t tell. Why call it forward? Because you want consistency?
Have it consistently advantageous to the attacking team. You’d have a better game.
Roger Tuivasa-Sheck of the Warriors. (Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
The Rah Rahs rule like this unless a knock-on or forward pass is completely flat-out obvious.
And league fans might diss that because it’s Rah Rah.
But it is a better mindset to err on the side of attack.
And rugby league needs to change its mindset. Because we couldn’t 100 per cent tell on the fly Hodgson’s pass was forward, the same as RTS’s last week.
And there’s only one way to fix it. Well, not fix it. This may never be fixed.
But we need to do this: GPS chip in the ball.
We need a random match or three in any given round, or across a few rounds, in which there’s a GPS chip in the ball.
We don’t tell the referees. They just referee as they have – the negative just-in-case mindset, the way they’re told to because consistency.
Then afterwards everyone can see which way the ball actually travels on all the knock-backs, forward passes, whatever.
And we can see which way the ball actually goes, because the satellites tell the computers who tell us it’s so.
And consistency be buggered.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
You said "The rule should be left simple as it is. The ball is forward when caught in front of where the ball left the passer’s hands that’s it." but that isn't the rule. The rule is simple it is just the direction of the pass from the hands must not be forward. The ball also takes on the passer's velocity at the point of leaving the hands.
Matt
Guest
Hi M.Cleary, in last weeks Panthers /Sharks game, the Morris one went to the bunker for potential double movement, instead the Bunker ruled NO TRY and tackle complete in the millisecond that his arm carrying the ball hit the ground. By this definition it is now impossible for a player to be penalised for a double movement, or was it just “again” a case of the refs trying their best for the team playing Penrith?
Chris Love
Roar Guru
While the rule book always talks about being projected forward or backwards, for over 100 years if a player drops a ball and it lands in front of where he dropped it (ie in front of his feet). It doesn’t matter if the trajectory was slightly towards his own goal line, it’s a knock on. I think him lunging forward as he drops it is clouding your judgement.
Phantom
Roar Rookie
Honesty is all that is required. Despite giving the opposition a really towelling last night the warriors were on the receiving end of some horrendous decisions. How man times must these apologies be given before this appalling behaviour stops.
Insider
Roar Rookie
What’s consistency got to do with it? Another “word” APPLY THE RULES ! Don’t vary them, don’t question them just blow whistle, don’t yell “Stay back “, “hold”, “dominate” that’s coaching not referring! Your a Game Police officer, wanna coach then DONT BE A REF
stevesyd
Roar Rookie
Here is some consistency for you. When it comes to horses for courses Ashley Klein is on a 8 match winning streak if the Roosters beat The Raiders tomorrow. The last time the Roosters lost a game where Klein officiated was in R8 2018 v Dragons in the Charity Shield. In the 7 games since then where Klein was the ref the Roosters have won all which included the semi and GF last year. Since the 2018 semi Roosters v Souths and GF v Storm Ashley Klein has in 2019 officiated in 3 crucial Rooster games (v Broncos R4, v Storm R6 and v Knights R18 after the Knights beat them in R 11). The Roosters won all 5. In the 10 games the Roosters have lost since R8 2018, Ashley Klein has not officiated in any of them. I am not accusing Ashley Klein of cheating or exercising deliberate bias but it just may simply be an amazing case of coincidence regarding this streak and that his appointment as ref is in crucial games for the Roosters with tomorrow’s game against The Raiders no exception. Now that we are once again nearing the business end of the competition my curiosity will be focussed on which of the Rooster games Klein will be appointed and if this winning streak currently at 7 becomes 8 tomorrow. I will be watching with keen interest for the next time the Roosters lose a game where Ashley Klein is behind the whistle. If the Roosters were a race horse and Ashley Klein was a jockey the form would read very well for this horse to make it 8 straight with this jockey in the saddle.
Pete
Guest
The leaguies have probably the worst inconsistent refs of any of the codes just look how many of then get stood down in a season. I sometimes wonder whether it's to make the game faster therefore attracting more spectators to the game i.e tv ratings.
Noosa Duck
Roar Rookie
Adam, the legal system works more around precedents more so than interpretation. You are either innocent or guilty. Most of it is to do with sentencing. Rugby League is a pretty simple game with basic rules ....what's to interpret.....A knock on is either propelled off the hand toward the opposition dead in Goal line or it isn't. A forward pass is one that leaves a players hands in a forward motion, not a ball that happens to float a bit forward ....how hard is it to tell which way the players hands were facing as he passes the ball?? There is far lees biff and barge and thuggery in the modern game that there was in the game right through the 50's 60's & 70's so it should be easier to referee, well one would think so. The problem was that the 'Super League" phenomenon wanted to make the game slicker & faster ...and we have stuck with it only to end up with a product that has become very sloppy and harder to manage. I am not suggesting in any shape or form that we go back to the 1970's style but a little bit of common sense and some better management of the game & rules will still produce an excellent product as well as a better managed product. It just takes some willingness on behalf of the NRL that it needs to be done.
theHunter
Guest
Like I stated the passer's motion will definitely affect the ball's movement but the problem is you will need science to prove it beyond any doubt. The angle of the ball when it leaves the passer's hands, the speed at which the ball leaves the passer's hand, the distance the ball travels before being caught by the runner, the trajectory, etc...These are just some of the factors that affects the ball's movement Our ref's ain't robots, that is a very hard thing to determine in real time. How completely sure would you be if the ball had momentum to move forward or it simply just left his hand already away but slightly to the front of his hands? In real time? The rule should be left simple as it is. The ball is forward when caught in front of where the ball left the passer's hands that's it. The passer should have this skill to ensure he takes his motion into consideration and as some good players do either Kick for his chasers who is/are a fair distance away from him where a long pass will travel forward or give a short pass to a player near him. It is a skill they need to have. Our players use physics (whether knowingly or not) to vary their kicking styles and manipulate the movement of the ball in the air or the bounce of it but these are within the rules. Using physics to deliberately throw a forward pass will be taken advantage of or make the game a very hard thing to referee without the science and it will then have to be referred to the bunker for someone to determine the angles, speeds, trajectory, etc... before coming up with a decision 10 minutes later. It is a very hard thing to determine a forward pass with all the above thus making it simple will make the ref call the decision from just seeing where the ball leaves the passer to the catcher. It makes it simple and easy. The consistency will be kept and no one will complain about whether there was momentum or not.
Ad-O
Guest
Exactly. Ref bashing is so boring. It's a way for poor pundits to generate controversy and thus become relevant, and it's also a great distraction for coaches looking to shift the blame. The NRL should totally ignore these types of comment, and the opinion of individuals who engage in them.
Ad-O
Guest
If you don't allow for the ball to float forward after its left the hands, then you've basically outlawed the draw and pass whilst running at top speed. The NRL can change a lot of its laws, but it cant change the laws of physics.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
It doesn't matter if it lands in front of the feet. It starts from well in front of the feet and drops mainly sideways but also backwards. Players react like that because they always call drops like that knock on's whether they are or not , except on the odd occasion when they play by the rule book.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Just did, it was a knock on. Even Ben Hunt himself knew it was a nock on well before the whistle went. It landed forward of where his feet were.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Agree with everything except the Ben hunt call. He knocked it forward for sure. The fact that he also lunged forward himself after dropping it (putting the spot where the ball landed behind him) is irrelevant.
elvis
Roar Rookie
No. Because of the laws of physics. If he is stopped in the tackle the ball has 0 forward momentum from the player and can travel 0 degrees forward and still be legal. If he was allowed to keep running and still passed it on that angle it would have been even further forward.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
"Under the letter of the law – that the ball must be projected towards one opponent’s try-line." When I was doing some software for the NSWRL back in the 90s I pointed out to them that the definition of a knock-on should say "projected towards the opponent’s dead ball line" and they changed it because the old wording is incorrect. You may have an old copy of the rules of the game.
Randy
Roar Rookie
So if player is running and passes it backwards when they get to the half way line, the ball will not land behind the halfway line, you understand that right? It is not possible unless they come to a complete halt and pass it.
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Ben ...of course there’s no whinging or carrying on ,on this site., we love n respect all our fellow Roarers
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Soda … the non enforcement of the Vol.Tackle is like a virus out of control.Started with the Fullbacks allowed to dive at defenders feet on the Goal line to avoid being trapped Ingoal,next allowed to defuse obvious obstruction,soon they’ll allow VT to stop one on one strips.As I said on another unrelated post- the NRL just make it up as they go alone.
Soda
Roar Rookie
Yeah he is a big yes man for Gus, but he's just a generic presenter. The podcast is dreadful, it's just basically Gus complaining about the game while brace laughs along to pad out the dead air