Criticism of referees used to be about the inaccuracy of their decisions, but during the NRL grand final the referees came under spotlight because they arrived at the correct decision.
Critics took umbrage at the referees correctly ruling last tackle after Ben Cummins waved ‘six again’. Their crime? They breached process.
This call has been cited as the defining moment the Raiders were robbed of certain victory. Such has been its prominence in the analysis and dissection of the game, a few other contentious calls have escaped attention. More on that later.
First to the outcry over Cummins changing and ultimately correcting his decision.
NRL head of football Graham Annesley confirmed after the game that ruling last tackle was the correct call. His words don’t carry sway for those who insist James Tedesco touched the ball. Incidentally, supposing he did, can we say for certain there was no Canberra knock-on and with it a required handover to the tri-colours?
(Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
The crux of the criticism against the referees centres around law 16.9, which essentially states a referee cannot alter their decision unless foul play is involved. What is striking about the groans over injustice for the Raiders is the indifference shown to the prospect of the Roosters defending an unwarranted fresh set of six tackles commencing just a few metres from their goal line.
If Ben Cummins had not changed his decision and the Raiders proceeded to score matching winning points, would the result have drawn comparisons with, as one prominent tweeter stated, horse excrement?
When Cummins signalled six to go there was always going to be a rightfully aggrieved team regardless of whether he reneged his decision. But if justice is what is sought in this scenario, could it be argued that the Roosters receiving a handover ten metres from their goal line was the lesser of two evils compared with the Raiders possibly scoring?
By arguing the referees should have followed law 16.9 is an open-and-shut case ignores how NRL matches are officiated. Despite 16.9 referee decisions not involving foul play are overturned. These include reviewing decisions over which team was last to touch the ball before going dead, 40-20s, obstructions, field goals and stripping – yes, stripping is not foul play under Section 15 of the laws. Need I remind anyone of the belated penalty given to Canberra after Elliott Whitehead lost possession, leading directly to the set Cooper Cronk was sent to the sin bin.
Decisions on restarting tackle counts are also within the bounds of being overturned. Consider where a referee has ruled fifth and last only to then restart the tackle count courtesy of a notification from another official.
Critics counter that Cummins’s change of call in the grand final occurred during live play and not during a stoppage as most of the above scenarios involve. However, if we are to follow law 16.9 to the letter, there is no distinction made between decisions made during live play or stoppage.
Criticising Cummins for correcting his decision is to support the means justifying the ends. Yet this philosophy is at odds with the direction the game has taken over the last 20-odd years. Once upon a time, prior to the bunker and second referees, the responsibility for decision-making rested clearly with a sole whistleblower. Say what you want about the decisions of referees back then, but what cannot be disputed was the process. There was no ambiguity over responsibility for who made the decisions.
However, the powers that be, much at the behest of fans and media, deemed the game could not sit by and watch incorrect decisions stand. To amend incorrect decisions required altering the decision-making process. Enter the introduction of the video referee with its ever-increasing tentacles along with the second referee, and the rest is history.
The main reservations for conservatives who resisted abandoning the centralising of power with one whistleblower were based not on the accuracy of decisions any new system would reach – although, admittedly, this from time to time is a problem – but rather on the process for how any new officiating system would be implemented and what effect it would have on the presentation of the game. Mainly, how would responsibility for decision-making be demarcated between the various officials and how would concerns about consistency be addressed if only certain decisions were subject to review and not others. Not to mention disruption to the continuity of the contest and the reluctance for referees to take responsibility for making decisions, leading to an over-reliance on technology.
These concerns were deflected by officials and, it must be said, many fans, with the mantra that the overriding priority of reaching the correct decision takes precedence over any concerns with process. In other words, the ends in reaching the right decision would justify whatever means used to reach it.
Commentators often pointed out that if you have the technology, use it. Sometimes while lamenting an incorrect decision someone would remark, “Everyone can see the error, it would only take a second to check and reverse the error”.
Cummins has been criticised for acting on the advice of his fellow officials, which prompted the decision to rule last tackle. Yet you only need to go back to the fallout from the Storm-Raiders clash during the first week of the finals to see the consequences referees face for not acting on the advice of fellow officials.
Raiders fans during the Viking Clap. (Matt King/Getty Images)
After that thrilling victory to the Raiders referee Ashley Klein was dropped for the rest of the finals after twice failing to hear or heed advice from assistant referee Chris Sutton, including an off-the-ball tackle on Melbourne fullback Ryan Papenhuyzen by Elliott Whitehead and another illegal strip by the Englishman.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported Sutton could be heard on the referee’s audio yelling at Klein to penalise Whitehead’s tackle on support player Papenhuyzen, a mistake which was compounded on the same play when Klein didn’t sin bin Jarrod Croker for holding down Justin Olam in a tackle.
Annesley later said either offence should have warranted ten minutes in the sin bin.
Although Cummins did not rule on foul play, he was faced with a conundrum. On the one hand he knows even an experienced official like Klein can get sanctioned for not acting on the direction of a fellow official, while on the other law 16.9 directs him not to overturn what he has been told was an incorrect decision.
Upon ruling last tackle Cummins and his fellow referee, Gerard Sutton, clearly signalled their decision with voice and hand for several seconds.
These actions are dismissed as inadequate because it is claimed the players, presumably the Raiders, could not have heard or were not expected to be attentive to the referees after Cummins had waved his arm. If a referee’s repeated yells and continuous hand signalling are not considered enough for conveying decisions to players, what is to stop players from continuing to use this excuse for not following a referee’s direction? Why should referees bother with their incessant verbal directions during play if players can claim not to hear them?
Without trying to embarrass the referees, this decision was one of several that attracted the microscope. The Sun Herald reported the NRL has admitted the Roosters were on the rough end of three incorrect decisions.
Firstly, the decision to send Cooper Cronk to the sin bin.
Secondly, the decision to give Canberra six more tackles after a midair contest between James Tedesco and Elliot Whitehead. That tackle restart led directly to the set from which Jack Wighton scored Canberra’s lone try.
Thirdly, the Roosters should have received a penalty when Luke Keary was taken out by Sia Soliola when he was attempting a charge down – the same charge down that saw the ball hit the Roosters trainer in the head.
This third admission sweeps aside talk of the Roosters trainer having an improper influence over the result even though his appearance did prompt an overdue discussion about trainers appearing on the field.
Again, this is not to criticise the referees but to reflect why these incidents were for the most part neglected in the talk about where the game was won and who was wronged.
Why, among the relentless criticism of the referees’ supposed bias and their oversights, did this barely rate a mention?
Gus O
Roar Rookie
So if i’m already committed to a tackle ... the rules don’t apply? Soliola took Keary’s legs and that is a blatant penalty every day of the week. Add to that the media reports in the lead up to the game about Keary carrying a leg injury - i thought it was a deliberate and cynical foul from Soliola, a player with history of late hits on playmakers. Inexcusable for mine.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
You clearly have not read what I have written. I am talking specifically about the Wrighton decision. I am talking specifically about what SHOULD happen not about what does happen. This is called an opinion. Feel free to agree or not.
Short Memory
Guest
You clearly didn't read the bit where he listed all the other situations in which refs routinely change decisions. Or the bit about Klein getting booted the week before for NOT changing his decision.
BAZZA
Guest
So apparently Cronk would stop Josh P if he was allowed to get the ball first from 5m out on his own i highly doubt it.
The Barry
Roar Guru
That’s how I saw that one too Ken. Definitely a penalty but not necessarily deliberate foul play I can understand the other argument though so while I disagree I don’t think the ten in the bin was a howler
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
They were in a good field position for a field goal so there was a good chance of success. There was no chance of a field goal once the players thought it was six tackles to go. It goes without saying that he may have missed but the reason the value of a field goal was reduced from two points was because field goals were becoming common on the 4th tackle near the opponent's goal line a much better option than bombing for a three point try. It was too easy to kick a field goal so their value was reduced accordingly.
RudyZarzoff
Guest
Because no one has ever missed a field goal .
Bill
Guest
Actually, never mind - you're clearly a Roosters fan who (rightly) feels that the gloss has been taken off the win by the dodgy calls and poor decisions. You're absolutely right, the refs made a mess of the game, and maybe the Raiders would have won. Wonderful stuff. Anyway, enjoy the shallowness of a premiership won, at least in part, due to a refereeing mistake, oh and your trainer ...
Bill
Guest
Wait up, I don't think anyone has claimed (as you have written) that "the Raiders were robbed of certain victory." Without doubt, it robbed them of a chance to secure points, at a time when they had the upper hand and had put a lot of pressure on the Roosters. We don't know what would have happened. But I've never heard anyone say they were 100% sure Raiders would have won if they'd got the 6 more as originally ruled. But who knows, right? Your article is ok, but how about leaving about the fiction/sensationalism, I does nothing to help you, just makes the article look like a bit of a joke. Thanks for writing it anyway. Bill
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Annesley said the blow up after the game would have been much greater if the six again wasn't reversed and the Raiders scored. He's wrong. The NRL are saying that Wighton scored his try after six again was incorrectly called but it hardly rated a mention during or after the game. Both calls were very hard to make and I can't tell even after looking at replays so they fall fairly into the scope of being 50/50's . If they want to examine the game in great detail then the Chickens should have been penalised for the markers not being square and Cronk impeding the chaser just before the contentious '' 6 again but no, only kidding'' ruling. If Annesley is endorsing on field, on the run reversal of decisions , which is what he appears to be doing , it's only a matter of time before disaster strikes and the reversal is found to be incorrect. I recall a game this year when Saints did the most blatant 'escort' at the end of the game and weren't penalised but the opposing captains pleas were completely ignored. Zero harm in going to the bunker but when one of the refs has a differing opinion on the run they are now encouraged to change their mind.
Noosa Duck
Roar Rookie
Funny we arrive here when once upon a time the touch judges played a far greater roll in controlling the game and the main referee would on occasions over rule a touch judge who came on the field to report foul play....Quite often got "I saw that and it was OK" when it clearly was not OK".....however we seemed to live with that. But now that we have so much television technology to analyse every bit of play in slow motion we get our knickers in a knot about every little thing. Oh one more thing, we have the blokes in the Bunker over ruling the match referee in just about every second game of the year.......So what has happened to rule 16.wotsit there?
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The problem was not the referees correctly ruling last tackle it was the referees letting the players know it was the last tackle. They clearly did not get it otherwise they would've kicked a field goal and taken an 11-10 lead near the end of the game.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Brendon , I think we all have to embrace the wrong call and move on quickly. I admit I stewed on the 7 tackle try against the Cows for a long time. I knew our premiership window was open and I didn't want to leave this earth without seeing the Cows take the prize. Since we won in 2015 I am much more reasoned. Bad decisions are like a mossie bite. They sting a little and annoy for a while after but they arent fatal. I don't know if you watched any of the Rugby world cup but that is the outcome of a game obsessed with 'getting it right.' Its unwatchable. The funny thing is even with that obsession they still don't get it right. As the Beatles once said .Let it be. Do wrong decisions afffect the outcome of the game? Sure , but nowhere near as much as you think.
KenW
Guest
Should clarify, I have no problem with it being a penalty - he got there early, deliberate or not.
KenW
Guest
The definition of a professional foul is not a penalty in try scoring position though. A professional foul is a penalty deliberately conceded anywhere to prevent the opposition playing on. I don't think there's any evidence that Cronk deliberately hit him early. I'm not a Roosters fan but I thought Cronk was hard done by, defending his line, he's read the play, knows he's got to make a one on one with a much bigger player. He's turned his head, got himself in position but hit him milli-seconds early. I just don't see any deliberate foul play.
Brendon
Roar Rookie
The problem with the Keary call is that it would be 50/50 at most. Look at stills on the following page. it shows the moment Keary impacts the ball, Soliola has already comitted the tackle I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying its 50/50. When has a 50/50 call like that been called so decisively "wrong"? I agree with Choppy, I think the timing of the claim is suspect considering V’landys has just effectively crapped on the refs. 1 bad decision doesn't lose you an 80 minute game is a garbage statement. When the game is as close as it was, then yes, yes it can lose you the game. "Oh, the Raiders had 80 minutes to capitalise" This may be a true statement, but its also accurate to say "the Roosters had 80 minutes to capatilise, but needed a dodgy call to win".
RudyZarzoff
Guest
“I know, how about we make up a penalty in the lead up” Really . You think Keary having his legs taken out was construed by the refs , and then not penalised , in order for them to use it , to argue the point later ? My goodness they’re exceptional planners. The thing that seems to be lost on a lot of people is that . One bad decision doesn’t lose you an 80 minute game of football.
Choppy
Roar Rookie
I have serious doubts as to the veracity of the NRL coming out and saying the Roosters were robbed by those three incidents. Honestly, how was Cronk's sin binning the wrong call? The only people that think that are Nick Politis and all 14 of the Roosters supporters. I can also imagine The NRL and Annesley sitting in a room somewhere, thinking... NRL: "How can we deflect attention away from the fact that we effed up by allowing trainers on the field?" Annesley: "I know, how about we make up a penalty in the lead up? That way, we can say the Roosters were not advantaged!" NRL: "Great idea! Let's do that!" Having said that, I'm one of the 'conservatives' that never wanted two referees on the field at the one time. The more people we can get off the field (trainers, superfluous referees) the better.
Brendon
Roar Rookie
I love an article defending a referee! I actually think you've pointed out why a lot of fans were so angry at the Cummins "6 again" debacle quite nicely, and its something I hadn't considered previously. The referee doesn't change decisions. They should, but they don't. We are told that ref's make mistakes, that nothing can be done about it, that we need to suck it up. So why is it that in this situation, we have to suddenly accept that they can accept them? You pointed to a few errors in the Melbourne game where the Storm were really hard done by (I don't think you called out the hand of Suli though?) that despite the call being an error and obvious evidence it should have gone the other way, there was no change of call. So in this case, why was there a change during the course of play? The reason is that the ref is not allowed to change his call. Suli was not out. Black and white, plain and simple. Video evidence showed it, clear as day. The ref wasn't able to change the call. So why was he able to in the Roosters V Raiders? Thats the problem. It wasn't the mistakes, it was the change of the call. Regarding those 3 examples, I'd argue the following: -Cronk tackled Papali without the ball in a try scoring position. Sin bin any day of the week? I don't see why this would be a point of contention? The only people who had an issue at the time were Andrew "the game isn't played in slow motion" Johns and Gus "no,no,no,no,no" Gould. - Tedesco touched the ball during the mid air contest. Personally I thought it was blatently obvious really myself, considering it was the tanned hand of an aussie, not the white hand of an englishman? -This one I could argue either way on this one. Coud have been a penalty, I think it was a fair contest myself, but its a 50/50. Personally I think its suspect that Annesely is addressing these "errors" at this stage of the game. Why? It seems to me its a bit of a ploy to indicate the errors in the game impacted both teams, and the timing seems very suspect considering V'landys has just come out and publically said the refs suck.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Mate you are all over the place with this article. You seem to feel the need to somehow justify the Roosters win. The Roosters win the game imo no matter what . Deserved premiers . Wonderful team. Legitimate winners. Etc etc etc. But the Ref can't change his blooming mind once he has ruled six to go because he has now changed the course of the game. He directly affects what Wighton does with the ball. He can't change it . It's wrong on all levels. If it's a wrong decision , live with it mate , cause they happen all the time. Changing it is so much worse. And the Roosters still win.