Last week I did something embarrassing and out of character. Unfortunately, after years of ripping into people that rip into referees, I inadvertently did the exact same thing.
Thankfully, it wasn’t a conscious decision to ‘ref bash’, otherwise I’d be a fully-fledged hypocrite. As it turns out, I’m just a quarter-fledged hypocrite.
In the process of discussing which game/incident from the opening week of the NRL finals had the biggest impact on the 2019 premiership race, it was somewhat impossible not to weigh in on the touch judge’s incorrect decision to rule Melbourne winger Suliasi Vunivalu’s hand as out, in the closing minutes of the Storm versus Raiders game.
To be fair, my argument was that due to their impressive defence, I believed Canberra were the better side and deserved to win, and as such, the touchie’s mistake didn’t have as much impact on the premiership race as other matters from the weekend. It was a non-controversy, for mine.
Problem is, in the process of communicating that point, I called the touchie’s decision a “howler”, and certainly didn’t back away from that opinion in my subsequent banter with Roarers.
Such provocative language – and a stubborn refusal to budge from my viewpoint – meant the focus of many a conversation I had with other fans was focused on the refereeing gaffe, and that’s something I actually detest in rugby league.
All too often the referees are lazily blamed for outcomes, while player and coaching errors are glossed over. After all, it’s much easier to blame the whistle blowers than admit your team deserved to lose.
Worse still, it also affords the usual crisis merchants in the game the opportunity to pick at some low-hanging fruit, and bash the refs. Which, as some long-time readers will know, is a bugbear of mine.
Unintentional or not, I contributed to that type of lazy narrative last week, and for that, I’m truly sorry.
Thankfully, as a rugby league writer – much like the teams still alive at this time of year – I get a chance to redeem myself just a week later. And what do you know, but a fresh batch of controversies present themselves after the semi-finals on the weekend! Ah, rugby league, the gift that keeps on giving.
This time, the refereeing dramas from the weekend centred on the sin-binning of both Jake Trbojevic and Cameron Smith, which brought the punishment of ‘ten minutes in the bin’ into the limelight.
Fear not, there will be no ref-bashing here today, because I don’t think either decision was a ‘shocker’. Far from it.
Yes, you can go straight to the comments section now to vehemently disagree with me, if you wish. Take a number, I’ll be with you in just a minute.
I can understand why the Trbojevic binning was controversial. It was a big game, and a big decision.
However, here are the facts, presented without bias, embellishment or subjectivity: Trbojevic took out an attacking support player by pulling his jersey and pushing him. It hindered Souths from a legitimate chance of scoring a try. It was an illegal play.
I’m not sure any of the above is disputable.
Manly coach Des Hasler said himself that a penalty would have been justified. Which means the controversy is really only about whether it should have been a penalty, or ten minutes in the bin. Technically the debate is about the punishment, not the call itself.
For those saying the sin bin changed the game, you’re undoubtedly right, as Souths ran in two tries while Trbojevic was in the bin. But in this case, that’s the entire point of the sin-bin; it was a drastic punishment designed to change the game, because the offending infringement was judged to have changed the game in the first place.
Des Hasler: “Not. Happy. Man” (Photo by Mark Evans/Getty Images)
Trbojevic and Manly gained a significant advantage by taking Dane Gagai out illegally with Souths in a scoring position; a score that would have changed the game. Does that not deserve significant punishment?
It was unquestionably a big call, with so much riding on the result, but that doesn’t make it the wrong one.
Oh, and by the way, Manly kind of lost the right to blame the referees when they proceeded to drop the ball approximately 496 times after the decision. But sure, “ref’s fault”.
As for the Melbourne versus Parramatta game, the sin-binning of the Storm captain was the quintessential Cameron Smith experience. There was enough evidence for his haters to say he hit someone in the head and should have been binned. And, enough evidence for his fans to say there was absolutely nothing in it, and that it shouldn’t even be a penalty.
The incident was a brilliant a microcosm of Smith’s career: polarising.
Personally, I thought ten minutes in the bin for what Smith did was a little bit soft.
Then again, he did strike someone in the head. Sure, it was with an open hand, but you’re asking for trouble going around intentionally whacking people in the head. Doing such things should come with a significant punishment. Like, say, maybe, 10 minutes in the sin-bin?
Said punishment could really change a game, so it represents a pretty solid deterrent to not hit people in the head, no?
Cameron Smith. (Photo by Kelly Defina/Getty Images)
As such, I can certainly understand why the Smith call was made, even if I disagreed with it.
Of course, that didn’t stop the ‘sky is falling’ brigade from loading up, led by Gus Gould.
I bow to Gould’s knowledge of the game; he’s forgotten more about league than I’ll ever know. But I’m sick and tired of his constant whinging. Not every minor incident or drama is proof that the game is dying. On Sunday afternoon, I’d had enough and tweeted out this little outburst, which got some traction:
The ‘cranky old man’ whinging routine – perfected by Gould, Buzz Rothfield, Paul Kent, etc – is turning off many fans, and doing damage to the great game. Every week it’s some hyperbolic, sensationalistic, overblown drama. It’s so boring.
Just put a sock in it, you energy tampons.
This weekend’s predictions
Now, before we get to my predictions for the preliminary finals, just a quick recap of last week’s.
“Melbourne will regroup and be better for the wake-up call by coming out and defeating Parramatta comfortably, while Souths versus Manly will be a tight affair for the first 60 minutes, before the Rabbitohs pull away down the stretch from a gallant Sea Eagles outfit.”
Yes, I reserve the right to keep recapping my correct predictions, and completely ignoring my wrong ones!
This week, I predict the Roosters will beat the Storm by 1 point, courtesy of a Cooper Cronk field goal in Golden Point, in a game that will become an instant classic.
In the other match, Canberra will be too good for Souths, and win by a 6-point margin that will flatter the Bunnies, and make the game feel closer than it really was.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Davico I think you haven't read it properly. The poster notes a decrease in one area, an increase in the casino area, and refers to the difference between the two, the net decrease as the measure for it's success.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I've never been in to conspiracy theories and Gagai has confirmed what I have said all along. Jurbos hands had nothing to do with the fall. It was pretty obvious to me but I understand why they missed it and how a penalty and sin bin could be technically correct. My whole point is that they don't normally worry about minor contact and were fooled by the trip. I stick by that.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I'm the Manly fan who you are incorrectly ridiculing. You are the crack pot. Show me the post where I said Jurbo hadn't touched Gagai. There isn't one , you are making it up. Gagai has confirmed what I have been saying all along. he fell because of the trip not the grab. A sin bin and penalty for a grab will be fine by me if the are consistent. That is the whole point. Penalise and sin bin for grabs no matter how minor and no worries. Gagai has confirmed that Ryans indisputable fact that Jurbo ''took out an attacking player by pulling his jersey and pushing him'' is incorrect. As I've said all along ,he fell because of an accidental trip. You had better get on to Gagai and tell him he's wrong and a crack pot. Another thing you are wrong on, i don't vanish when I'm over a barrel . I stop responding to you because you never stop and it gets tedious .
Gus O
Roar Rookie
Inconsistency does not have to equal hypocrisy. It is almost impossible to be fully consistent, judges have the opportunity to review case law and the luxury of time and reflection before issuing detailed written rulings whereas commentators are commenting in the heat of the moment... I thought the Cody Walker sin bin was a correct all every day of the week, but it was horrible in this game because the refs have had a hundred opportunities to sin bin the third man in over the season and have declined, and they declined to penalise or sin bin Walker for catty niggle (eg. head into Cronk’s face) early in the season which is when they should have jumped on that sort of rubbish from round 1 to set a standard for the season. All season we see “that’s on report”, or a penalty, or no action at all for worse offences that are equally sin-binable. It’s a bit late in the season to claim some moral high ground and claim “that’s what the rule book says”. This is my frustration... But what a stupid, stupid, unnecessary game changing act by the Manly player. Reminded me of the Steve Waugh “you just dropped the world cup” comment...
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
''Trobojevic took out an attacking player by pulling his jersey and pushing him'' ''I'm not sure any of the above is in dispute'' I'm like a dog with a bone Ryan but I've just had a look at Gagais thoughts on the topic and he does dispute it. He backs up what I've said all along. It was the accidental trip which bought him down and not the hand on his shoulder from Jake, according to Gagai. I reckon that's pretty clear from the replay and I'm correct. I also understand how they missed it.
Davico
Roar Pro
Just one thing. Those statistics include Newtown, Bondi etc but DO NOT include the Casino precinct. If you add the increase there I think you will find the net decrease is negligible. There is a reason the government is now looking into relaxing the laws!
Dutski
Roar Guru
This is true that assaults have risen in those areas. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has some figures released last month that confirm this. Here's an extract from their website: "Over the five years following the Lockout reforms we find non-domestic assaults decreased 53% in the Kings Cross precinct and decreased 4% in the CBD Entertainment precinct. Over the same period assaults increased in various displacement sites. Non-domestic assaults rose 18% in a ring of suburbs neighbouring the Lockout zone. Among a group of four alternative nightspots accessible from the city (Newtown, Double Bay, Bondi Beach and Coogee) non-domestic assaults increased by 30%. Despite this, BOCSAR estimates the reforms delivered an overall reduction in non-domestic assaults over 5 years, with an estimated net benefit of 395 fewer non-domestic assault incidents (1350 fewer assaults in the Lockout precincts versus 955 additional assaults in the displacement sites)." Still not sure how it counts as "solved nothing". 395 less assaults overall. 1350 fewer assaults in the target area. This is the point - the laws were introduced to decrease assaults and alcohol related harm in the King's Cross region. They have achieved their aim! The effect on businesses and increased assaults elsewhere are outcomes of the law, no doubt, but don't try and tell me the laws have solved nothing when they have done exactly the job they were introduced to do. And as much fun as it is finding facts on this stuff, I'd really rather be talking about sport.
Davico
Roar Pro
Suggest you head to Newtown or the Casino on a Friday or Saturday night post lockout hours! While you are in the area drop by RPA!! Moving the problem solved nothing and just killed the Cross and plenty of businesses.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I can imagine. We didn't even try very hard on that one . . .
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Hey Glenn, thanks for the comment. There's a lot to unpack here! And just a few things that would be good to discuss with you. And apologies, they’re mainly questions! Arriving at the conclusion that "the ball runner didn’t even know Gagai was there" seems a little presumptuous to me. Gagai is the one that passed him the ball - why would he suddenly think Gagai would disappear? "Gagai was blocking him (cleverly and legally)". I'm not even sure Gagai knew Jake was there! And even if he did, he’s more than entitled to continue running with the ball runner. He didn’t change his path. "There was no advantage for Jake to bring Gagai down really." Isn’t Gagai a legitimate support player in the action? Bringing him down is certainly an advantage, no? “There was no cynical play from Jake and this is backed up by the evidence (which suggests Jake was trying to shift Gagai to the right).” Shifting Gagai to the right is cynical, isn’t it? He’s trying to gain an unfair advantage. “The leg tangle might not have happened if Jake didn’t use his hands – but that doesn’t change what the ‘intent’ was.” If his intent was simply to get past Gagai, and he does it illegally, it’s still a professional foul? “Were Manly the better team? Yes.” That’s debateable and subjective, for mine.
Censored Often
Roar Rookie
If it's 10-10 with five minute to go Smith doesn't even get penalised. And that's why most fans find Melbourne, Smith and the thought of impartial officials laughable. This was an opportunity sinbin for effect only.
Papi Smurf
Roar Rookie
Then WHY make the call? Wouldn't it have been best for the touchie just to say that he was unsighted? That would have saved all the "He should have gone to Specsavers" jokes. Or do you think he was cashing in on a photo op? ;-)
Adam
Roar Guru
It's a conspiracy and nothing you say will make me believe otherwise. Just wait until you hear about my theory on you and Ronan...
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Ah, got you there! Tim and I have definitely been in the same room - we have witnesses!
Glenn Price
Guest
Hi Ryan, a good article. I do believe some of the items are disputable. What’s not debatable though is that it was an illegal play by Jake, so at a minimum a penalty is justified. If he doesn’t breach the rules, he doesn’t get binned. Why would he do it though? He’s one of the best tacklers in the game and had Gagai covered so there was no way the ball runner could get the ball to Gagai (in fact I’d argue the ball runner didn’t even know Gagai was there). There was no advantage for Jake to bring Gagai down really. So again - why? What is his intent? Well, Gagai was blocking him (cleverly and legally). Jake is closing on the ball runner and wants to clear the other that Gagai has blocked. So the obvious answer is that rather than “bringing Gagai down”, he was trying to get past him. He did it illegally, yes (so easy penalty). But a professional foul is about intent. There was no cynical play from Jake and this is backed up by the evidence (which suggests Jake was trying to shift Gagai to the right). Ultimately their legs ended in a tangled mess that brought a Gagai down. The leg tangle might not have happened if Jake didn’t use his hands - but that doesn’t change what the ‘intent’ was. Were Manly the better team? Yes. Did they deserve to lose - will, yes. They had their chance to close it out but missed two tackles on Gagai in that same play. I can accept the loss, but I’ll argue all day that there was NO professional foul. Trbojevic took out an attacking support player by pulling his jersey and pushing him. It hindered Souths from a legitimate chance of scoring a try. It was an illegal play.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
It's pretty simple what I want. The NRL say there are no grey areas in these rulings then stick to your guns and bin a player every single time he grabs an opponent when a try is possible. If they did that when Gagai impeded Tafua I would have no issue with Jurbo being put in the bin. Burgess warns the refs and bunker prior to the game that he's not going to change his ways and hits Parker late and high but the bunker does nothing. It's not OK to miss Burgess's high shot and notice Jurbos incident. it changes the course of games.
Peter
Guest
“I can accept that, if that’s what the rules say, provided everyone is binned.” “Strictly applying the rules doesn’t always work.” So what DO you want if those two sentences are your considered opinion?
Peter
Guest
Seriously, which bit of “jersey-pulling is illegal” do you not understand? Jurbo shouldn’t have been stupid enough to put an end to a great contest, should he?
Rob
Guest
Fair enough Ryan, The call seemed too harsh for mine at the time in that situation and basically put an end to a great contest unfortunately. It is what it is.
mushi
Roar Guru
He didn't but the touchie had a player obscuring his view.