The NRL season is sadly over, with the Sydney Roosters claiming the premiership on Sunday night, unfortunately under controversial circumstances.
In a sport that never seems to be far away from some type of drama, the grand final was no different.
Refereeing decisions were the biggest talking points coming out of the game, and this time, even a fervent advocator of not blaming the refs like me, totally understands why.
I hate discussing the referees after a game, but it’s pretty much unavoidable in this instance.
My intent was to lightly touch on the refs, then move on to revisiting my season predictions, however the word count got away from me and it rapidly became two pieces; so stay tuned for the predictions review tomorrow.
There were three calls that generated the most amount of controversy: the trainer incident, Cooper Cronk getting sin-binned, and the ‘six again’ fiasco. After a couple of days to cool down and analyse each drama objectively, let’s go through them one-by-one:
1. The trainer incident
According to the NRL rules: “Where play is irregularly affected in the field of play, the referee shall restart play with a scrum with the attacking team to receive the loose head and feed.”
As strange as the whole trainer incident was – and I’ve personally never seen anything like that in all my years of watching rugby league – it was the right call by the refs.
You can certainly ask why the trainer was on the field that early in the game, but that’s a totally different debate; albeit one worth having.
The decision was unquestionably unfair to Canberra, especially considering the Roosters scored a try directly after, but by the letter of the law, the refs made the right call.
End of story, no ref dramas here.
2. Cooper Cronk getting sin-binned
Let’s keep this very simple: Cronk gained a significant illegal advantage, with Canberra in a position to score a try. If that’s not worth ten minutes in the bin, then I honestly don’t know what is.
People complaining about that decision tells you everything you need to know about rugby league and its whinging culture. Often the referees simply can’t win.
Cronk illegally took out a player that was on his way to the tryline, so the refs had no choice but to send him to the sin-bin.
(Photo by Ashley Feder/Getty Images)
There should be no ref drama here either.
Quick aside: Sunday’s game reminded me why I’m glad I only have to put up with Channel Nine commentary for State of Origin and the grand final.
Gus Gould and Joey Johns were shocking during the sin-bin moment in the game, looking for any reason not to send Cronk off for ten minutes, irrespective of the rules or rational thought.
Cronk’s weight/size in relation to Papalii, the fact it was a grand final, and the acknowledgment that if the halfback tackled him a second later it would actually have been a fair play, were all used as reasons why the sin-bin wasn’t appropriate punishment.
Newsflash, but none of those ‘reasons’ should come into consideration, and it’s silly and unprofessional to suggest otherwise.
I honestly believe Gould has become bad for rugby league and is damaging the game; and has been for a while. Ironically, he’s now no better than his arch-nemesis, Buzz Rothfield.
Meanwhile, Joey has regressed as a commentator. Like Gould, he used to be a sharp analyser, but also like Gould, he now spends too much time whinging, or being bizarrely inconsistent with his opinions.
It’s quite sad that two of the best brains in the game now use their voice for ‘evil’.
3. The ‘six again’ fiasco
We’ll finish on the biggest controversy of the night: the ‘six again’ signal, and subsequent reversal of the call.
Like Josh Papalii close to the line, this is going to be extremely hard to defend, because it was ugly – plain and simple.
Watching the full replay of the action, it’s clear that referee Ben Cummins signals ‘six again’, then immediately gets word that the ball came off of Canberra, and changes his call by yelling out “last!” four times.
Sadly, the damage had been done. As Peter Sterling rightly pointed out, the minute many Raiders players saw the ‘six again’ signal, they have no reason to believe anything other than six tackles were coming their way.
They wouldn’t be looking to the ref to see if he changed his call; no player ever would.
Yet once that initial incorrect call was made, I really don’t know how the referees could have dug themselves out of this one any better than they did.
I thought the ball came off Tedesco, and so did many observers, including Cummins. So it’s hardly a ‘shocker’ that he makes that original ruling. He then gets notified it’s the wrong call, and therefore tries to change it.
Joseph Leilua of the Raiders (Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
If Cummins hears the overrule, but doesn’t change his call, it’s probably an even bigger controversy today, especially if Canberra score. As it turns out, it’s the Roosters that score next, and all hell – rightfully – breaks loose.
I understand why it’s a controversy, and I understand why Canberra should feel aggrieved. They should. I just honestly don’t know what else the referees could have done.
If I was reffing, I probably would have broken the rules by blowing the whistle, halting play, and then getting Wighton to play the ball from where he picked it up, with fifth tackle called.
And then I would have been crucified anyway. Who’d be a referee, huh?
It’s easy to bash the refs, and they most definitely should be held accountable for their mistakes, but when you calmly, rationally and unemotionally review the three controversial calls, the reality is the refs actually weren’t that bad.
Unpopular opinion, I know.
Kevin
Guest
Because the game is already stopped,but with the 6 again call the game was continuous and the referees action caused the play to be a completely different outcome. The whole game changed on that 1 call. Because we will never know if they kicked again what would have happened, they may have scored got a line drop out or the roosters could have scored a run away try, to many different outcomes to think of, maybe the second kick hits the ref or a trainer. This 1 call was and always will be the 2019 Grand Final
Womblat
Guest
As a long time referee and player of the sport, I agree with this. Leaving the idiotic "change of mind" incident behind (that was the first thing I learned as a ref, never do it), the ratings for both NRL and AFL are dropping through the floor, lowest in 25 years. Why? These sports have been sanitized and "safetied" into a kids game of tug-a-war. And what sports are booming? UFC, MMA, boxing and extreme sports where doctors, lawyers and other do-gooders haven't spread their PC safety first germs. That's what people want. Of course, the NRL (and AFL for that matter) managers will never work that out. They'll keep doing the millennial management thing of changing their minds, going with the flow and refusing to acknowledge the facts as long as they can until the sports in their custody and under their control are dead.
jsmith
Roar Rookie
Was the ball hitting the trainer decision the right call when it was reported that the guidelines state that the trainer's presence can't "constitute a disadvantage to the opposing team". This was as clear a case as I have seen in my time watching Rugby League.
Mark ryder
Guest
If you quote the official rule for the trainer incident then why not also quote the official rule for the 6 again incident. Apparently that rule states once a call is made it can’t be changed whether it’s right or wrong. That would mean rightly or wrongly that Canberra were dudded by reacting to a call that Subsequently changed to their obvious disadvantage as their last play was based on the rule they heard which was 6 again. Rules are rules.
Lew Nord
Guest
Thank you Ryan O'Connell for a sane assessment of what happened. I couldn't agree with you more. I've been saying for sometime that the commentators are making hysterical calls on referees mistake for some time. Look at the Jake Trbojevic call. Referees make blunders just like players but seem to get villified a hundred times more. We just can't seem to accept that it's not the referees fault that teams lose. Any good team will overcome. It's undeniable that the Roosters defended like their life depended on it and the Raiders couldn't defend when it mattered the most. A champion team like the Raiders should eventually have their day. I am not a supporter of either team but admire both.
elvis
Roar Rookie
Fair enough, it surprised me too because when I say the replay it was an obvious penalty and no one said thing.
elvis
Roar Rookie
But it wasn't a false premise when he asked and he didn't hear me say stop eating the biscuits..
My Little Pony
Roar Rookie
Out of all the over the top, long bows drawn so far this may be the longest of all.
mushi
Roar Guru
You can't do a genuine charge down and hit the kicker anymore. That's effectively a shoulder charge (no attempt to tackle with both arms). Soliola would be getting a rest at the start of next year if he wants to go down that route (FWIW he attempts to wraps the arms) Attacking the kickers legs supposed to be 10 in the bin now.
mushi
Roar Guru
But you discipline him if you tell him no before he eats the biscuits upon finding out that the premise of him getting the biscuits was false. Otherwise he's entitled to eat every biscuit you ever own for perpetuity.
Tim
Guest
That trainer rule needs to change, basically the rosters won with an extra man on the field. Sadly The raiders were ripped off. If it wasn’t for the blunders and the professional foul made, the raiders would have won20 points to 2 as both incidents denied them tries and the roosters scored from them
elvis
Roar Rookie
I don't know the rule in League. I'm pretty sure it would be a yellow in Union, league always seems a lot less strict, there would have been about 3 players a side left if the GF was played to union head protection standards. I've seen plenty of penalties for taking out the legs of a kicker, but have never seen what happens after a genuine chargedown where the legs get hit.
elvis
Roar Rookie
Just the general principle... if I tell my kid he can eat all the biscuits I can't belt him for it afterwards :-)
Glenn Price
Guest
Andrew, the difference is that either way (knock on or strip) play has stopped at that moment - so play has not been “altered” as such.
Glenn Price
Guest
Agree completely. Whether the 50/50 was a wrong call is irrelevant. These happen and it’s accepted they will always be part of the game. The issue was trying to correct the decision. You can’t do that! NRL officials (even this season) have admitted they sometime make an instinctive call, and know it’s wrong even when blowing the whistle or in the process of raising their flag - but by that stage they’ve said it’s too late to back out. And they just own it. I like Annesley but I think he’s been weak on this issue, which means it will probably repeat. He should’ve given guidance for his team. 1) Rightly or wrongly - stick with your call 2) If (like in this case) you’ve tried to correct it, but it’s had an irregular affect on play. Under current rulings it should be a scrum to the attacking team.
Glenn Price
Guest
Good article. 100% agree on the first two incidents you mention. With the third incident - you said you don’t know what else the refs could’ve done. That’s understandable because you’re not paid over $300k to be a referee. Cummins is - and there are three legitimate options he could’ve applied. 1. Accept that he made the bad call, and carry on with the new set of six. It’s more common than you think - usually the referees are embarrassed, but generally accept that once a call is made you cannot go back to correct it (if has altered the play). Some fans may have whinged, but not that many - it goes down as one of those 50/50 calls in every game. 2. Under the Laws, if the referee accidentally blows their whistle - it’s an automatic scrum to the attacking team. In this case, though the whistle wasn physically blown, one could argue the six more call could fit under this category. 3. Similar to the trainer incident, there is another area within the laws that relates to basically any extraordinary event that is not the fault of either team. If there’s an event that’s not covered by any existing section if the laws, but has an “irregular affect” on the play - then a scrum shall be awarded to the attacking team. So in my opinion, the most correct decision (according to the Laws of the Game) would be a Canberra scrum. Neatly, this would’ve balanced out the Trainer incident.
Rob
Guest
You could do a Harrigan and complete deny you got any call wrong and send any player that says otherwise to the showers. Ask Gordon Tallis about arguing an obvious stuff up.
astro
Roar Rookie
Yep, my error
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Who jumped for the ball and What’s name raised his arm,meanwhile Idunno ran with the ball but What’s name lowered his arm,then...
Rob
Guest
The rule is not about who is in possession it is about field position. Keary kicked in the Raiders half so they got it back. If he had kicked from inside his own half the Raiders get the ball back. Stupid rule that needs changing, but the referees got it spot on.