A prolonged disenchantment with officiating dynamics has driven me to consider and explore some radical system changes.
If I ever thought that the NRL would take my suggestions to heart I’d have presented this at the start of Covid-19 lockdown so they could use it now, but as they don’t we’ll have to give it to them later armed with a hundred (or so) thoughtful Roarer tweaks and critiques.
Or I’ll just utilise the opportunity provided here to have a spray amongst some (hopefully) like-minded and constructive souls.
I’m challenging the broad officiating structures and nuances, not the rules (though there might be a word or two about interpretation). There are better minds than mine to suggest or dissect rules.
Time for a different approach.
Junk the bunker as it is
There are ways it can be utilised as discussed below as it is flawed.
Leave the decision on the field, embrace the enjoyment of the game and the moment rather than a pursuit of impossible perfection.
The bunker has made a truckload of howlers in its few years and is far from perfect.
Furthermore, it can’t judge on forward passes so what is the point of all this tech ‘to be perfect’ and omit an area causing great concern. In one of the rare times I agree with Joey or Gus, the game shouldn’t be officiated in slow motion.
Set up officiating teams
This could be done possibly even under a different chain of command with some distance from the NRL (replace Graham Annesley along the way, he doesn’t support his people with enough strength). These teams should consist of 6 people and each team officiates one game.
1. Two senior refs. One officiates the game while the other acts as ‘Team Leader” while doubling as ‘back-up’ in the event of injury to the main ref.
These two work as an equal pair and head the team whilst alternating and swapping their roles (for different games, not during the same game, i.e. one week one refs the game, the other leads, the next game they swap, or every two-to-three games as it is up to them.
The ‘team leader’ and can also sit in the bunker (in an altered state) to provide appropriate feedback and commentary live. He or she can field information from the touchies and in-goal judges (more on them later) and vet this for delivery to the on-field ref.
Apparently these poor refs already have people in their ears, coaching/judging. Better to have a supportive partner with some mutual understanding and knows you giving you just what you need at the moment.
The Team Leader can also provide immediate feedback and response to coaches and presser – which can help nip dramas in the bud (more on this near the end).
The Team Leader can be watching the game as it goes by from the ‘Bunker’ (redefined) monitors, providing (generally) accurate information immediately without prolonged delays.
Their roles? Field ref officiates the game, Team Leader manages the team, co-ordinates the flow of information to field ref, uses his/her vantage point to view the game and communicate what they see to support and assist the on-field team.
All this happening smoothly, with no discerning delay to the game or viewer and no chicken meal delays (not sorry for any loss of sponsorship, make it some other way). Ref makes decisions (with help from the team) on the spot.
Referee Ashley Klein blows a penalty. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
2. Two touchies, Officiate the line, on/off-side and some back-play and kicks for goal. One touchie can line up defence, one attack.
From their position they can set the line and the teams can also get their line from the touchie. The (touchies) can also provide some adjudication on passes – (forward) and some general stuff in back-play. And they need to be supported as well as having some specific training.
3. Two in-goal refs.
Support tryline decisions, field goals, goal kicks as well, also can see a lot of what is happening in back play from their viewpoint. Can be just as effective helping determine tries. Plus their review of back play can be invaluable.
These two should be from the top lower grade of metro refs on a career path.
In the event of an injury, if the ref can still function he/she can take the place of an in-goal judges and move up the line.
The touchie and in-goal refs can be connected by microphone – to the team leader to reduce chatter – but can be switched straight to on field ref if necessary (eg. To explain something and avoid Chinese whispers).
The touchie can get the ref’s attention the old way, raising a flag if needed.
Scenario 1
Attacking team on halfway and kick, all charging through. One touchie sees an attacker checked and calls it to the team leader who can either watch the progress and make a call, relaying to the ref at an appropriate time.
Ball is safely put out by defence, attackers screaming for interference, ref already has the ‘heads up’ from the team leader, informs the attackers that the incident was spotted and deemed not to have affected the outcome, or a penalty, penalty try whatever is issued on the spot.
Scenario 2
Obstruction by attacking team in their 25, but they break through and race away. Ordinarily the incident wouldn’t be reviewed unless they score, and if they don’t score they’ve made 80 meters after an infringement.
But with this officiating structure the touchies/in-goal can communicate with the Team Lead who can make a call down to on-field ref and adjudicate – again on the spot.
When tries are scored the ref checks with the touchie, in-goal and makes a decision. The Team Lead has that 10 second window to communicate any concerns, but 99 percent of the time it should just be decided by the on-field team (ref) on the spot and we get on with the game.
Officiating needs to be done at normal speed. Personally I’d even go as far as to instruct broadcasters that slow-mo reviews are unhelpful and will count against them in negotiations.
When the game is over – and this is a big change – the two coaches (before the presser) get a chance to have their vent to the Team Leader, who (even though they are heading the team) are distanced somewhat from the events on the field and thus complaints and issues become less personal.
The Team Leader can then address the issues providing some resolution straight away, reducing ongoing angst.
Plus, something I really like about this concept, the Team Leader after fielding complaints (noting the genuine ones and providing a pathway for response if needed) can politely and directly point out to the coach the errors that their team made and securing some agreement (which would be some 99 percent of the time) that the official’s questionable decision was not the major cause of the end result.
Referee Ben Cummins. (AAP Image/Brendon Thorne)
Coaches can then go to the presser, have their comments without this insane protectionist $10K fine and acknowledge that their concerns are/have been addressed and there were other factors involved in their loss. And we are not re-hashing over negativity.
We aren’t going to get perfection, so don’t hunt for it, there will always be a human element. A fair and even contest can be achieved whilst also giving the refs the type of support they need.
I’ve seen in cricket and league (probably because I watch these two the most) and somewhat in soccer, a deterioration in the quality of officials as they have machinery analysing their decisions and then other people making judgement calls on that data, often incorrectly. No wonder they are reluctant to make calls, who wants their every error, large or small, torn apart and put under a microscope.
Set up the system, update the clubs and use the system in trials so the can see it in action. Be strong with interpretations and don’t waver when the objections come through.
The amount of forward passes in the game is absurd and if people are happy with that, then let’s just throw more rules and standards out the window. In cricket, would you accept it if it was a small piece of sandpaper?
Or not technically sandpaper, just some coarse material dampened and dipped in sand?? Let the clubs know, that while the lines people will have extra training, if you don’t want your passes called forward then make sure the receiver is behind the passer upon release, expect some flat passes to be called forward and if it floats too far, leave the physics lesson at home.
Some people can do interesting things with ball movement, arcing a ball out from the hands that leaves the hands going back then curling forward.
Touchies have a micro second to decide and if it quacks and waddles, it’s a duck.
Ralph Malph
Roar Rookie
Some good pointers there DP Shaefer. The one big massive problem is.....The mugs sitting up high getting paid making the decisions will never use your ideas. Simply because they never thought it up.....and if they never thought it up.....then its a dumb idea. Me, I've been around for 100yrs mate, beleive me.....I know. Woody.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I missed it but the Parramatta half said, with a big smile on his face, there were a few calls that went against them in a post match interview.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Interesting from that game everybody recalls the forward pass, nothing said about the Eels third try, dropped and rolled forward over the tryline but still given by the bunker. even with all the tech they stuffed it but because the powers don't question the bunker it 'must be right'.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Maybe I haven't been watching out for forward passes but the only one that comes to mind was the Manly try being called back by a touch judge who couldn't see the direction of the pass as he was blocked by a Parramatta winger. He called it forward because he saw it floating forward milliseconds later. I don't hate Manly but it was good to see them lose due to the Cherry-Evans effect. He's a good player and a tough little terrier and he is a Queenslander like the xxxx man. The receiver being behind the passer upon release means a forward pass can't be penalised for the receiver being off-side.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The biggest flaw in two referees system was exposed in the grand final and it needed changing. I like the idea of an in-goal ref or maybe in-goal touch judges that can rule on tries without the need to go to the bunker.
Chris.P.Bacon
Guest
DPS, I'm for anything which can make the officiating less intrusive. Certainly removing the super slow frame-by-frame bunker shots would be a start. Minutes of wasted time and analysis which, in many cases, results in a subjective response as somehow the bunker sees 'something' - all being fully dependant upon the luck of camera placement! “NRL World SHOCKED! Bennett & Seibold’s love child discovered” - mate, I'll read it! :laughing:
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Thanks Chrispy. The association with NFL wasn't what i had in mind, though after Paul and Your responses i can see why that might come up. My aim would be for officiating to be less intrusive and provide more accurate information for the main ref. The touchies would be seen just as normal, but take more responsibility for decisions that need a side-to-side line, so instead of computer mapping the field as a grid for off-side/forward passing and letting tech decide, give the touchies more training and responsibility. They should be in a position to - say see a team offside, alert the 'bunker' ref who then can make a quick assessment on whether the 'infringement' affected the play in progress and choose to alert the main ref. All quietly and discreetly without fanfare or the viewer even realising. The in-goal ref would never be seen until a try is scored and all the ref needs do is check with them. I'm also against the bunker as it is - where we defer to technology and ultimately still get it wrong. Tech is fine, to help in the process of adjudicating, so the 'bunker' ref can still look at detail, but instead of a prolonged delay for dramatic advertising bucks, they can make a decision basically on the spot and if you are going to determine outcomes one close -up, frame by frame, zoom tech then Lord help me. Just play the game and let the people decide. And I join your flummoxed world, have no idea about the 6 again ruling, seems chaotic.. perhaps some Roar guru can enlighten us. AND FYI, my next article I'll call "NRL World SHOCKED! Bennett & Seibold's love child discovered" that should get a click or three... :silly: ...
Chris.P.Bacon
Guest
That's gotta be one pretty big cheque Nat! ;)
Chris.P.Bacon
Guest
Excellent article with a great deal of thought DPS I'm with Paul on this one, my first thought was that it looks a lot like the NFL where they also have officiating teams. This can be rather cumbersome and, with so many 'eyes' on different aspects of the on field action, tends to be over officiated IMO. This in turn results in many NFL fixtures being overly long and slow and is opposite to the faster game that NRL has become since the adoption of the new 'style' with the resumption of the league. Personally, I'd like to see some clarity with the '6 again' rule as there are a number of occasions where I'm absolutely flummoxed as to why another set was called - perhaps I'm just a little slow! ;) "The topic is a little dry and not click-baity" - perhaps you could have called your article - "Restructuring the officiating dynamic - Wayne Bennett is a fibber and Latrell Mitchell is not a fullback!" ;)
Soda
Roar Rookie
We all remember what happened last time they cracked down and enforced the rules... I wish they persisted with that crackdown it was just about to work and then the Nrl backed down. So disappointing.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Thanks Soda, appreciate your view but personally I'm not impressed with the bunker (or tech in general to 'reduce errors') because their howlers are just insane. AND it often still comes down to point of view and interpretation. I'd be fine with a bunker - making their assessment in real time - to help the ref in making his own decision. But not taking minutes advertising chicken with a howler. I'm with you on the forward passes, play too flat and risk getting it called. And officials should have a year long blitz supported by the NRL management. Right now it seems like the lollies go to the best bender/abusers of rules or those who'll keep infringing until the ref gets tired of penalising. Cheers
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Thanks Paul, I’m a less tech and more human type of guy and while I see your ‘vision’ of an unwanted host of refs, the only addition is two in goal judges to help rule on tries and provide some general support. So it wasn’t the image I wanted to give. The extra personnel reduce bunker involvement by providing immediate feedback, streamlining response and decisions. Neither is it a spokesman for refs, rather eliminate the irrational (IMO) fine for being human and blowing up.. It’s not about having spokesmen, it’s about dealing with issues on the spot and not letting things get out of hand and not about letting coaches or media stir up and have ‘mistakes’ festering or officials being hauled over the media whipping booth for the week. No commentary is possibly fine if they are supporting their people in the background, but Someone needs to respond with some solidarity and logic and let the audience know that official bagging is out of line. Not agreeing with all and it might need a chat and few ales (scotches) to really communicate the vision as I don’t think you’re seeing it how I do, but appreciate the valuable feedback to tweak my ideas. Cheers
Soda
Roar Rookie
Nice article DPS. :thumbup: when you say we should get rid of the bunker, what do you mean? Get rid of video ref in general? I don't know about that. The thing about the bunker is that the technology is in the telecast. Even if the officials decide not to use slow-mo, the broadcasters will and one type of howler will be replaced by another. the Joey's and Gus's of the world will change their tunes and get very nostalgic for "the good old days when the bunker was there". I don't know, I feel a little crazy sometimes but in my opinion the bunker, where you hear the video ref talk through the decision making process, is the best incarnation of the video ref to date. They aren't interrupting play if someone stays down. The decisions are much quicker and for the most part, much better than they were back in the day it was introduced. Forward passes are a painpoint with me though, I really wish the game had the guts to call them as forward. The problem is that the definition has been skewed. I think to Gus throwing passing a ball from a truck giving physics lesson on the footy show. I would be happier if a pass looked forward it was called forward, even if it "floated" forward. To me, that's the risk of playing too flat.
kk
Roar Pro
Hi Paul, As usual sobering thoughts and an invite to consider. I regard the Rugby League Bunker as one of the most important innovations since 1908. It is arguably Greenberg's only legacy, its most efficient use still in development. The Bunker should be used as a vehicle for justice to be served and decisions made in reasonable time . That in itself may become the subject of much debate. I am of the opinion that if it takes an extra fifteen seconds to get it right, so be it without regrets. Consideration should be given to revision of the rule book. eg 'Roll a Ball instead of Play the Ball. Four quarters of twenty five minutes each. Captains Challenge extended to one each per quarter.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi DP, when I read your piece, I had visions of a gridiron type officiating crew, which concerned me. I'm very much a "less is more" person and the thought of having in-goal judges, 2 touch judges each side and a crew chief, makes me wonder whether there's enough space in the refs change room for all these people. :happy: I think we should have exactly the same numbers of officials as we have now, ie one ref and two touch judges. I'm pretty happy with the way the officiating is going this season, with one exception - the bunker. I'm a fan of the concept of the bunker for things like a captains challenge and to identify foul play as it happens. I also think the technology is there for a reason but agree with you, it's being used as a safety blanket by some refs. I'd like the refs to make a call on ALL tries on the field, in exactly the same way they do for general play. I'd then like each captain to have 1 challenge per half, which they can use for tries or general play. If they use it and they're found correct, they keep it, if they're wrong, that's it for that half. I also think linking the bunker to advertising has to change, as you suggest. I find it criminal games to be announced as "ad free" yet as soon as the bunker has to make a call, we effectively see advertising for cooked chooks! It take way too long to a) make a decision but b) to announce it. Set a timeframe of 45 seconds from the time a challenge is made til the time the game restarts, That should be adequate to sort out the correct decision and announce it. I'm also not a fan of a crew chief, nor am I a fan of the Graeme Annersely throw-a-ref-under-a-bus method of media management. Refs need a boss but they do NOT need a spokesperson. The NRL should not be in a position where it has to justify decisions to reporters, through face to face interviews. If a decision is made then later found to be incorrect, the NRL should issue a press release and either the media liaison officer or Abdo can field questions. Annersely or whom ever sticks to one job, improving the quality of refereeing and written into his contract should be a clause where he says nothing to the media.
Nat
Roar Rookie
I can see merit for sure. It's probably not as clear in my mind's eye as yours but there is something in it. I want the refs to have authority and accountability but only a few of us who can accept refs are going to get things wrong. I also believe there is merit at full speed replays. We know what constitutes a knock on, stepping out or being off-side. The super-slomo assessing the micro knock on doesn't benefit the entertainment spectcale. The 10m thing, like most things tech, the description is worse than the application - so they can charge more for it. :stoked: Agree though that some applications of tech in sport is poorly executed/open to interpretation and manipulation. Ball tracking in cricket? I really question that sometimes. With the 10m, the idea is to keep it simple. Designing the system is reasonably simple to chart the space that aligns with the touch and respective 10m intervals, thus, eliminating field curves and natural earth variables. How the ref gets notified is more complicated but once the suitable method is chosen, the application can be developed. Of course, then it's just a matter of cyber security so the Russians don't hack the system to manipulate the outcome!!
Nat
Roar Rookie
Chq is in the mail kk. :happy: :thumbup:
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Thanks KK, I can dream..
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Hey Nat, thanks for the feedback. The topic is a little dry and not click-baity so I might not get a lot.. :laughing: but writing it helped clear the mind. I'm looking for ways to support the human element, accept imperfection and enjoy the game without so much time spent on micro analysis of possible errors and still (often) arriving at an incorrect outcome. I was hoping that by being able to vent their spleen at the officials in the moment might just settle a few issues before they become media fodder, yet you may be correct, it might make nil appeasement to some coaches. Your on-side solution is a challenging one, above my pay-grade, eagle-eye might be an option to explore down the track, tennis is about the only sport where I've encountered tech that seems sufficiently reliable. While I can see some hurdles to cross (GPS all boots) some coaches and stats people would love the data. :thumbup:
kk
Roar Pro
Congratulations, DPS on your scholarship and presentation. I applaud your quest for better governance. It is most rewarding that you drew a response from Nat,one of the Roar's most intelligent and alert analysts. His suggestion re 10M control is hereby nominated as the best suggestion of the season, if not the decade.