It's not the refs, it's the rules: Part 1

Listening to talkback radio, commentators and fans in general, everyone has a gripe about our game.

Well, actually, there are many, but I just want to look at one issue here: the standard of refereeing. Even chairman Peter V’landys said on the first day of his tenure that the game’s biggest issue was the refereeing.

But for me it’s not the refs; rather it’s many of the rules themselves that make it so difficult for a referee to make confident and consistent calls.

I’m sure I heard Bill Harrigan talk about this many years ago, but I haven’t heard anyone say it since. And if people aren’t saying this, then they will never fix the refereeing.

People say we just need to accept bad calls as part of the game, and to a degree that is fair. But we have to consider that one of great things about our game is that the ball is not constantly changing possession like in soccer, AFL or basketball, where losing the ball means little, as you will get it back potentially in a moment or so. Our game is a battle for field position and a battle to open up defensive structures by numbers, power and the motion of players and the ball.

(Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

What you do with the ball when you have it can determine the course of the game if you play smart enough. This is why when you win back possession through a great hit, 40/20 or repeat set, for example, the crowd are off their seats. These are huge plays in the game. You just have to look at rugby league highlights and compare them to other games – in league there are so many things outside of the scoring of points that get people excited, often to do with winning possession, field position or getting another set of six.

And we love it when we win a penalty or have a call go our way because we know how important this is in the context of the game. In other sports it’s not a big issue, because the ball is continually changing hands. In league it can change the course of a game, especially close ones.

Conversely, when you lose field position or possession you are deflated and have to battle back into it. When this happens on the back of a poor refereeing decision – especially if that same referee made a similar call earlier in the game or in another match but it went in completely the opposite way – then the torches and pitchforks come out!

We all cry for consistency, but it’s almost impossible to be consistent on some calls. This is where we should consider whether the rules should be looked at and changed to take the onus away from the referee having to guess a decision.

I come from the view that a team needs to execute well before they deserve a decision to go their way. When I watch my team I judge their decisions and execution before I look at other factors when analysing why a call didn’t go their way. I don’t think low-percentage plays should be rewarded if they rely on a little luck or referee guesswork.

Plays should be executed well enough to take doubt away from the referee. In general, if there’s doubt, the benefit should go to the defence in most cases. This will help take out perceived bias from the game.

So let’s look at how we can change a couple of rules or put some sort of structure in place to assist the referees and give the fans a fairer and more consistent ruling. These are rules referees are liable to call differently from game to game. Some of these will be adjudications on general play and some will be on the way we look at a try that carries doubt.

Much of this discussion came on the back of the 2019 grand final and that infamous six-again call, so in this article I’m going to look at that call and what could have been done or what rule changes could be made so that the referees won’t be put into that position in the first place.

The way we look at kicks in the game in general needs to be reviewed, as many tough decisions have to be made off the back of a kick.

I’ll start by saying that in regards to the grand final call, the decision should never have been overturned once it was made, so I don’t want to look at that one call in particular or the overturning of the decision. That’s not what the discussion is about.

(Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

1. Anything off a bomb or chip kick to corners et cetera
How do we stop things like that infamous six-again call in the grand final from happening? The main referee was behind James Tedesco and nowhere near being well placed to make a decisive call on that contested bomb. Uou could see his hesitation as he waived six again without conviction. Most of us agree it was not six again, and if it was, it was 50-50 at best.

Also, the bomb that led to the Raiders’ only try was ruled six again, which apparently was also the wrong call. Like the other, it was marginal, and I wasn’t sure after replaying it a few times. But this happens week in and week out. Some lead to tries directly and others lead to six again, and so many times the referees have no idea what happened – neither do the spectators, even after several replays!

To me and many fans I know a bomb is the last play of a team who has run out of tackles and ideas and so are hoping to win the ball back by luck or opposition mistake. It can become boring watching teams just trying to win field position to put an attacking kick in. So if a bomb is not executed perfectly and there is doubt about what happened, then the referee or television match official should just go with the defence.

Do the attackers deserve a result from a low-percentage play if they aren’t good enough to score by other methods and aren’t good enough to execute to the point of near perfection? Think Steve Gearin or other great tries scored off bombs with no doubt whatsoever – they will be rewarded and lauded accordingly.

So if there is any doubt or indecision to be made off a bomb, whether it’s in the general run of play or in scoring a try, then the referee or TMO needs to make a decision in favour of the defence as a minimum. If a video referee watches it two times and can’t tell if there was a finger on the ball or an offside play, then move on!

Here’s where I’d really change the rule, though, and let’s get adventurous here: I would suggest there should be no knock-on or offside or repeat set off a bomb no matter what in relation to the defensive team. Unless the attacking team scores cleanly or gets the ball back without any doubt, we call it bomb diffused and the defence starts with the ball.

This is extreme, but it will take away the million checks made by the video referees and will make for a quick decision to allow the game to get rolling again. The defence turns into attack, which is now attacking against a disorganised defence.

(Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

How does this relate to the six again calls in the grand final? As soon as that ball is contested and hits the ground and the Raiders edend up with it, the play would be over. Hand it over to the defence, where the ball ends up, and it doesn’t matter what tackle it is.

If the ball is contested and the Roosters end up with it, even off a knock-on, and run away, then it doesn’t need scrutiny, because it was a bomb and anything goes to the defence, bomb diffused, play on!

How simple would this be and how much time would it save in reviews while also adding to the excitement.

The negative to this is that you might get defensive fullbacks or wingers going up to just knock the ball on or out knowing they will get possession, which might take a little of the unexpected out of the game. This might need looking at a little closer. However, they might get some really good counterattacking strategies in place knowing they have the advantage.

One good thing about the bomb is the unpredictable nature of it. We would still have this, but more for the defence from a counterattack strategy rather than the attacking team without ideas.

Just remember that the bomb has not always been in the game. Rules have changed around it a few times, even as late as this year so that you can’t tackle an attacking player in the air anymore, so why can’t we completely review it?

But you would need to define a bomb as a kick executed within the opposition’s, say, 30-metre zone, which is contested or has players within ten metres of the landing zone. To be discussed!

(Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

2. Ball dropped from clearing kick
To add some strategic unpredictability back into the kicking game for the attacking team I’d look at the following: how many times do you see referees making inconsistent calls on a dropped clearing kick? It’s only occasional, but it’s worth looking at as it can open up some more uncertainty.

A team kicks from their own zone and the fullback or winger drops it. Did the ball go sideways, maybe forwards? But the referee calls knockback. How about we just say ‘dropped ball’ and allow the kicking team to get it again. This could make wingers and so on have to make a decision about whether they will play at a possible 40/20 attempt, for example.

If they let it go, they might allow a 40/20. If they try to catch it, they might drop it. Either way it will add some uncertainty to the game, which we have taken away by adjusting the bomb rule, and it will also stop a referee from guessing, as they are too far away sometimes anyway and TV angles don’t always show the truth.

3. Six to go if a last tackle kick touches the opposition players leg (did he play at it or didn’t he?)
How many times do we see this come into play – when it’s not clear what happened and the referee either gives six again or doesn’t? Often it seems like a guess.

I wouldn’t have it as a rule. If a kicker is not good enough to thread the needle, whether the ball is played at or not, why should they get six again? I can understand it being a rule when we had contested play-the-balls where the marker could try to win the ball at the ruck, but I don’t see that it needs to be in the rule book anymore. If it’s a poorly executed kick or easily halted, then bad luck, you don’t deserve six again, and the referee doesn’t have to guess.

Now, if the ball is deliberately kicked out or dead by a defensive player as it’s passing, that’s a little easier and more obvious to judge and the advantage should go to the attacking team.

These are just three rules I’ve look at, as influenced by the grand final controversy. There are many more of these 50-50 calls to discuss where we are looking for consistency.

What are the other inconsistent rules that should be looked at? What are the changes you would make, and what are the potential negatives to making these changes?

This isn’t a place to say that we should stop changing the rules, that we have too many changes or that we can’t do this or that. This is a place to be adventurous. Based on current factors and the evolution of the professional game, how would it look if we could start again and rewrite the rule book?