“Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?” I was reminded of these words from Walter Sobchak all too frequently this NRL season.
Every time the refs made a big decision, there would be those who railed against the game’s officialdom.
These whingers demanded that the whistle-blowers have a better ‘feel’ for the game and stop being such pedants about the rules.
So Jake Trbojevic took out an attacking player who didn’t have the ball, in a try-scoring situation. It doesn’t matter that his action was a professional foul and the rules dictate he be sent to the sin bin.
This was a finals game. The refs should have the courage to ignore the rules.
So Jared Waerea-Hargreaves tried to trip an opposing player and ended up at the judiciary for the sixth time this season. The panel should have had the stones to realise he didn’t need to spend time on the sidelines for what was his fourth guilty offence of the year, because he’s heaps good at footy and the fans want to see people who are heaps good at footy play footy.
So Suliasi Vunivalu didn’t actually brush the sideline in Melbourne’s crucial finals match against Canberra but ended up being mistakenly called out. The real problem here was that the touch judge cared either way, because the sideline isn’t actually there to be respected in certain situations.
Well, that was Phil Gould’s take in the days following the Storm’s controversial 12-10 loss.
Speaking on the Six Tackles with Gus podcast, Gould said, “If he did touch the line, one finger, is that really what the sideline rule is for? One finger? Is that really what it is? I don’t think it is.”
That’s where you completely lost me. What do you mean “is that really what the sideline rule is for”?
(Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
Granted, touch judge Michael Wise got the call wrong – Vunivalu was, in fact, always in the field of play – but Gus thinks that our officials should now ignore something as clear-cut as whether a player is in or out.
Because apparently the sideline rule’s sole job – to determine in or out – is not actually what it’s there for.
I once again defer to Walter: “Fuck it, Dude. Let’s go bowling.”
Seriously, what’s the point arguing about whether the NRL’s officials are up to snuff or not with people who suggest that something as black and white – well, green and white – as the sideline rule is actually a grey area?
You don’t get to decide when the sideline matters or not – it’s in or out.
Likewise, refs don’t get to decide if a professional foul in a try-scoring situation isn’t worthy of the sin bin just because the incident occurs at an exciting moment. It’s right there in the rules, yet apparently a ref should only give a penalty because the game’s nearly over and we wouldn’t want an incident like that to determine the outcome – even though, by committing a professional foul, Trbojevic had purposely broken the rules to try to determine the outcome.
Nor do the judiciary get to decide a player should just get a fine instead of being barred from a game when they’re fronting the panel for the sixth time in a season. It’s a three-strike policy – you can commit two low-grade illegal acts and pay to play – yet apparently, the judiciary have gone soft by not letting players act like grubs all year and just do a bit of salary sacrificing so as not to miss a minute for foul play.
While there was no end of controversy over the game’s officiating, the refs and judiciary have correctly deferred to the rule book far more often than not.
And, on the whole, it’s a pretty good rule book.
Professional fouls in try-scoring situations should result in sin bins.
Low-grade illegal acts should result in suspension when it’s become clear a certain player isn’t learning their lesson.
(Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
And – I can’t believe this needs to be written – out should be out.
As for the concern that a lack of understanding of the subtleties of rugby league – not allowing for any grey areas – would ultimately ruin the biggest game of the year, well, let’s revisit the incident that caused the decider to be permanently tarnished (well, the second incident).
In the wake of the ‘six again’ controversy, NRL head of football Graham Annesley sorta-kinda backed the call that “six tackles should not have been awarded” after referee Ben Cummins indicated it was a fresh set, then expected the Raiders to have heard his about-face over the screams of 82,922 fans.
“I accept it created confusion among the Canberra players,” Annesley said, going on to say his officials “actually got the decision right – but they got it right in a way that’s caused controversy.”
So the call was right but in a way that’s wrong. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the explanation of a man who is neck-deep in a grey situation – and it offers cold comfort for steamed Raiders fans.
Events such as these are the times the game understandably attracts controversy because there is no black and white explanation – otherwise, Annesley would have quoted extensively from the rulebook to back his team.
And I’m not saying that all the game’s rules are perfect – seriously, that Roosters trainer being on the field in the opening minutes is such a farce and needs to be completely overhauled because every team does it.
But maybe we save the outrage for incidents that deserve it and simply ignore people who want to argue that there are times when out isn’t actually out.
League4Ever
Roar Rookie
This seems like far too logical and considered for a discussion regarding the referees, far better to have Phil Gould's hyperbole and conniptions that contradict his own earlier statements.
Brett
Guest
Thank you, finally someone has said what I’ve been thinking all year. The only difference is that I think joey johns is the worst offender not Phil Gould. The best one for joey was when someone knocked the ball on and he thought it shouldn’t have been called because in real time you wouldn’t have seen the knock on
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I hate the call when a ref bins or sends off a player for an offence that requires that punishment, it's the ref that has ruined the game..
Cole
Roar Rookie
Exactly. I love to watch the league but can’t stand this culture of the refs are the bad guys for enforcing the rules! The fact is that this is so ingrained in the commentary and a lot of my mates who watch the game that it is a losing battle. It appears fans would rather watch a game with some very grey rules arbitrarily enforced as long as it is a spectacle and someone gets smashed!
Greg
Roar Pro
Whilst a manifesto of political correctness isn't actually a bad description, the 2 documents aren't supposed to reconcile. The 2nd document supersedes the first and is only (supposed to be) applicable to the NRL competition, not other rugby league competitions (eg. park football or international football). Both documents form the rules of the NRL.
Albo
Roar Rookie
Or in the wise words of the Dude : "This is a very complicated case. You know, a lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, a lotta strands to keep in Joey's head, man. "
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Could Nine just leave Gus on the footpath in Artamon,maybe some other sport will pick him up - like Lawn Bowls or Croquet
Superspud
Roar Rookie
I agree he should've been sin binned twice actually because of the hold down after the tackle. However, bottom line is Addo Car made the two errors to lose the game. The default option is is to find a refereeing decision and blame that. That was just one example and I am sure that had he not dropped the ball and Canberra lost then there would've been something in the game that they could blame the ref for.
Cat
Guest
I would like to point out in the Addo-Carr situation, if the player who tackled him had been sent to the bin for the professional foul he committed a few minutes earlier in a possible try scoring situation he would not have been there to tackle and thus Addo-Carr would not have made the error.
Col walters
Guest
The six again debacle ! The raiders benifitted from a not called knock on but an incorrect 6 again call in the set previous !!!!!! Where is the outrage on that call?
Noosa Duck
Roar Rookie
when I was looking for the rules into that Rule 16.9 business that came out in the paper, I found two different sets of rules #1 The Australian Rugby League : Rules of the game and amendments for the NRL competition #2 NRL Rules and Interpretations (Published by the NRL independently of the ARL I found that document #2 did not reconcile with document #1 The first one being the rules and the second being a manifesto of political correctness
Brendon
Roar Rookie
So to be clear, you want the game officiated to the rule of the law and the refs to follow said rule as required. And when said rules aren't followed we simply accept it, ignore it, and move on without showing outrage? Errors and 50/50 calls happen. When a ref breaks the rules of the game themself, how can that be acceptable?
Insider
Roar Rookie
One example, what about the rest, funny every excuse is used to try and give balance to decisions that have no balance hence the current state of today’s game,
Superspud
Roar Rookie
Yeah maybe they are but it's not that big an issue for them. A crucial turning point, Salford behind and kick a 40 20 then on the first play they lose the ball in the play the ball. A 50 50 call at best and I reckon should've been a penalty but the decision was made and it didn't take the prominence it would've had that been in the NRL. Everyone got on with it.
Succhi
Roar Rookie
Good article Joe. I agree, the problem is not the referring but the commentators who continually and publicly criticise the refs, which then gets the public all riled up. Channel 9 in particular has to show some responsibility to promote the game in a positive manner - not continually looking for and focusing on referee calls.
Insider
Roar Rookie
Cause there not black n white, gotta say the refs in this SL GF are equally unqualified
Nat
Roar Guru
Except he comes with a no return policy.
Superspud
Roar Rookie
I was watching the old grand finals on NRL website and without doubt the best thing about it was referees made some obviously wrong decisions and some iffy ones but it wasn't replayed 20 times in super slow motion it was move on with maybe a passing comment from Red. The blame the Ref mentality is wearing on me. Manly didn't lose because JT was sent to the sin bin tthey lost because they bombed 2 tries and let Souths go 90 metres and score in the 39th minute. The first try in the GF was scored due to the A defender turning his back on the play the ball not because the ball hit the trainer 5 minutes beforehand. Addo Car drops the ball against Canberra and then over chases and leaves a big hole for Raiders to score but no it was the touchies fault for making a bad call on the sideline.
Noosa Duck
Roar Rookie
if Phill were still playing and the opponents finger just brushed the sideline , I bet it would have been out by a country mile. However one question I ask is "what is a professional foul" and why is it only a professional foul if it is inside the attacking 5 metres ? So if the attacking team is all over you inside your 40 and you give away a deliberate penalty so that your team can re-set their defence line, how come the player does not go to the bin for a professional foul? Good Question I reckon. Even from 40 metres out it may have been a try scoring situation "try scoring situation 9 times out of 10 is an assumption.
Simoc
Guest
A thought entering Goulds brain. That's pushing the envelope Matt. Referee bashing is a national trait in all football sports, and of course is not restricted to Australia. That is why these guys do it all the time, because many of their audience will agree with them. But commentator Warren is very good. One comments person is plenty. Channel 9 carry so much dead wood and they're losing money.