Few were expecting anything other than a routine victory for the Rabbitohs on Thursday, but the surprise win to Canterbury wasn’t the biggest talking point out of the game.
Instead, social media erupted over South Sydney’s in-form second-rower Jaydn Su’A being sin-binned for a mammoth hit on Lachlan Lewis which sent him out of the game for an HIA.
While plenty of fans couldn’t understand why Su’A needed to be put in the bin, given it wasn’t a shoulder charge and the first contact may not have actually been high, referee Ashley Klein and bunker official Henry Perenara got it spot on.
Some will complain the sin-binning of Su’A isn’t consistent, but it is. The way the game is refereed may not be agreeable to everyone in the rugby league community, but if an act of intentional or reckless foul play forces an opposition player off the ground injured, or with an HIA, then the offending player will find himself having a ten-minute breather.
The bottom line is that it’s up to the defender alone to avoid contact with the head of an attacking player. If the attacking player slips, that isn’t his fault, but in an era where the dangers of concussion and head knocks are far more well known, the NRL’s policy on this sort of play and using the sin bin as a deterrent is spot on.
When the South Sydney second rower’s shoulder contacted the head of Lewis, he was always going to be put in the bin, and the reaction of some fans was almost comical.
Of course, the decision to not use the bunker on a Jaxson Paulo try just minutes later was a major blunder, and the reaction in next weekend’s refereeing and bunker appointments will be fascinating.
And while the officiating may be the biggest individual talking point to come out of the game, as well as the potential suspension of Su’A into next week, coach Wayne Bennett has far bigger issues to deal with in the coming days, even if the wider media won’t necessarily focus on it.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Like why his team found form but then lost it just as quickly over the next fortnight. After just scraping past the Tigers last week, they barely moved past the start line against Canterbury.
It’s not as if the Bulldogs didn’t make life difficult for them as they finally strung together a complete (or close enough too) performance, but South Sydney were horrific in defence during the first half, and not much better in the second.
Their attack was clunky once again, bouncing between the lightning speed they can play when Cody Walker and Damien Cook get time and space on the back of their forwards, to downright bottom-of-the-table stuff.
The Rabbitohs simply haven’t been consistent enough, and last night’s effort in losing to the bottom-of-the-table Bulldogs showed it in all its painful agony.
For the Bulldogs, just their third win of the season puts them temporarily ahead of the Broncos and into 15th place on the table, and while the club have been brave for the most part in grinding through games to stay competitive with their defence, they found yawning holes in Bennett’s side to kick-off the second last week of the season.
In a tick to the future of the struggling blue and whites, Jayden Okunbor was immense in just his second game back from suspension, while Raymond Faitala-Mariner and Chris Smith both played roles. That was to go with the leadership of Aiden Tolman, who just continues to do the job required of him in the middle third.
Certainly, heading into the fixture, it would have taken a brave man to pick the Bulldogs. Their start and following defence did the job for them though and gives incoming coach Trent Barrett something to work on. What was even more pleasing was their attack doing the business without Kieran Foran on the park.
Long-term faith in players like Lachlan Lewis will be what takes the club forward, and he showed his class with a try assist and much-improved kicking game, where he helped the Bulldogs to control territory and possession for large chunks of the game, allowing their forward pack to wear the Bunnies down.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
But, in saying all that, it wasn’t a performance without its issues. Their defence opened up a few times before halftime like the Red Sea, and in those brief moments, it looked as if South Sydney were the team they have been written up to be in the past month.
Alas, the men from Redfern couldn’t maintain the rage and lost a game which, ultimately, they should have won by the length of the straight. Errors, silly plays and generally poorly thought out attack has more or less defined the Rabbitohs’ season when the pressure has been on, and it showed again on Thursday.
It just goes to show that one good weekend doesn’t make a winter, and certainly shouldn’t play an enormous role in changing the expectations of a side, as wins over Manly and Parramatta did for the cardinal and myrtle.
Sure, the loss of Latrell Mitchell hurts and will continue to hurt, but the sin bin last night didn’t impact them, and if you’re going to be in the discussion for any sort of run through the finals, beating teams like the Bulldogs is a must no matter what strength you’re playing at.
The Rabbitohs can still point to the continued good form of a player like Campbell Graham as a bright spot, but there will be few others coming out of a Round 19 loss to the Bulldogs where the stats ended incredibly even in every way bar the score.
Leaking 26 points to any team isn’t good enough, but to do it against a team who averaged just 14.2 points per game before last night is unacceptable.
On a night where player protection and penalties for foul play rose to the fore once again though, it was all the Bulldogs as they sunk South Sydney’s faint top-four hopes.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
I agree, getting the correct decision has to be the main priority. Plus it should decrease the amount of times we check things needlessly causing unnecessary delays. Refs will feel more comfortable having video assistance if they do miss something. As long as it is consistent, not even Phil Gould would anything to whinge about.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Haha....I only had to write it three times :silly: What are your thoughts...?
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Yeeeeeh, we finally got there!
The Barry
Roar Guru
Because that wasn’t the point I was making at the time...I think it’s been pretty obvious in comments I’ve made since then that I’ve revised that position Again, in my last reply to you I wrote: “So I’d be happy a player runs 50 metres scores under the posts. The ref awards the try but while the kicker is getting set the bunker has a quick look to see if there was any problem ie a howler The ref goes to the bunker when he’s not sure or he needs to double check something but the bunker is there as a safety net to prevent the howlers that are missed. It doesn’t need to be a big production every time and it doesn’t interrupt the flow of the game” So to clarify, on reflection yes, I think the video ref should be able to over rule the onfield decision if it’s immediately obvious that the referee has made a glaring error...
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
On the 18/9/20 @ 10:24 I asked you specifically "Are you advocating the bunker should have the ability to overrule an awarded try?" You replied "I’m not advocating that at all…although it is worth some thought". Baz, you have had some time to give it some thought. Currently if a try is awarded without bunker review, the bunker does not have the authority to intervene & over rule. Would you like this changed?
The Barry
Roar Guru
It’s not my only concern and I’m not only talking about the sideline as evidenced by the comments below: “When the “ref’s decision cant be overturned” rule was written 100+ years ago, there wasn’t a review process in place, let alone super slo mo etc. if that rule stays fine, but just doing it because it was done like that 100 years ago is daft“ “This idea that awarding a try without going to the video as Gus Gould et al currently propound is some sort of tick mark for the ref is ridiculous” “I don’t have a problem with a quick check after a try to clear the howler that a ref may have missed. There’s a natural break in play anyway and with points on offer they are critical decisions” So I’d be happy a player runs 50 metres scores under the posts. The ref awards the try but while the kicker is getting set the bunker has a quick look to see if there was any problem ie a howler The ref goes to the bunker when he’s not sure or he needs to double check something but the bunker is there as a safety net to prevent the howlers that are missed. It doesn’t need to be a big production every time and it doesn’t interrupt the flow of the game
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
I don't believe I have read anyone saying the initial contact was to the head. Force full contact was made to the head by the defender during the tackle. The rule is there to deter defenders brushing the ball carrier's shoulder & sliding up onto the head. The league is trying to get defenders to tackle lower when they go in that hard & lose control of the shoulder & forearm.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Barry, you are aware that there are other types of incidents that result in a try not being awarded aren't you? So as I said previously re your statement "if the ball carrier crosses the sideline in the act of scoring the protocol should be that it gets checked", it is way too simplistic & doesn't cover things like the ball not be grounded or knock ons etc? I'm curious as to why sideline issue accuracy is your only concern, most fans want a process to reduce all types errors.
Jules
Guest
With all due respect that is a silly comment. Lets bring in U7s stuff then, no contact above the chest. The science is showed in the photograph before impact where SUa had definitley bent his back and was targeting the chest area.
Jules
Guest
Totally with you Stephen. People need to stop focusing on the still shot of the whiplash and look at the shot of Sua targeting the ball/chest area before impact and before Lewis tried to pull out of the attacking run.
Jules
Guest
Interesting. So how bout if in a grand final and there is one minute to go, and a team is up by one point, should a half run straight at a burly forward and slip last minute so to be collected high and take an easy two point penalty in front of the sticks. Id be coaching that for sure.
Jules
Guest
So why was Tim Lafai not sinbinned for his high shot to the head of Sua in the second half?
Jules
Guest
Im so confused at everyone saying his point of contact was the head. It was not - it was the shoulder and the whiplash then jolted his head forward.
Jules
Guest
There is a clear picture of Su'a clearly in target for the ball/chest of the player before impact. Anyone saying that he intentionally made a decision to go high or put on a dirty shot - has not seen that photograph. Unfortunately the player saw Su'a coming and in trying to turn to give up his back for impact, he lost traction in his footing and is why he was collected high. Yes a penalty should have been awarded because as everyone knows contact to the head is an automatic penalty. That is where it should have ended. None of Lewis team mates came in, because they all saw it as a normal hit also. Su'a is a solid hitter, however the contact was more ferocious, because Lewis had lost his footing also. This in effect created a huge whiplash effect and is why his head then as a lot of people believe, hit Su'a's shoulder, however I will say - there is not clear evidence in that slowed down or snapshot of .1 of a second that the shoulder actually connected. Like when a try is slowed down and it is hard to see if there is separation between finger tip and ball. Lewis was groggy from his head hitting the ground. People need to realise that it is a contact sport where players are running at full speed into eachother. It is a lot easier to say he could have bent his back a little lower or targeted under the ball. But during the game at that speed, things will go wrong as there are a lot of variables. Su'a was also hit high to the head in the second half, and no penalty was awarded or sin binning, albeit the MRC did give out a suspension for the high shot. So anyone saying contact to the head is a sin binning is incorrect. Su'a is a forward he isnt always going to leg tackle. He is there to put the playmakers under pressure and disrupt their structural play. It is ridiculous to say he should not tackle that way and needs to start tackling lower. There is no rule to say he cannot target the chest and ball area. Simple fact is, it is a tough game and it will go wrong sometimes. Intentional head hunting this incident was not!
The Barry
Roar Guru
But that’s the whole point of having the bunker, to get closer to 100%...otherwise let’s just live with the 96-99% anyway Using Thursday night as an example, the ref awards try, bunker could have looked at it before Reynolds lined up his kick and told Klein it was no try. He could have reversed the decision and thrown the ball to the Bulldogs for a 20 metre tap We hear all the time “the bunker is there to stop the howler”. Well that was a howler that would have been over ruled with one look by the bunker. That should be the bunker’s focus, not looking at whether the player had a pinky on the ball 12 times from 10 different angles, where a call either way is complete opinion and reasonable either way
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don’t know how many more different ways I can write it...if the ball carrier crosses the sideline in the act of scoring the protocol should be that it gets checked If it’s a clear cut try the video will clear it in one look before the goal kicker is even ready to take his shot at goal. If not we avoid an absolute howler like we got on Thursday night Worrying about major mainstream criticism is the NRL’s biggest problem. This idea that awarding a try without going to the video as Gus Gould et al currently propound is some sort of tick mark for the ref is ridiculous I don’t have a problem with a quick check after a try to clear the howler that a ref may have missed. There’s a natural break in play anyway and with points on offer they are critical decisions What I dislike about the technology is things stopping the game and reviewing a strip / loose carry call that gets looked at 10-12 times to determine a genuine 50/50 It’s these calls where we’re interrupting the flow and momentum of the game for no good reason that need to be looked at
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Last Thursday night was a lot more marginally, but if a player grounds the ball clearly 3 metres inside the sideline but sideways motion takes him over the sideline, do you want that sent up to the bunker? And if you want that checked for a sideline breach, surely you have to check that there has been secure grounding of the ball & no defensive interference or previous knock-ons in the build up to that try. Write your legislation for a try scoring review process & see how close you will be able to get 99.9% success rate without drawing major mainstream critiscism.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Baz, you have failed to take Thursday night’s incident out of the equation & make a generalised call. Please keep in mind that plenty of tries are awarded resulting from mistakes other than a player stepping on the side-line. The reason we do not check 100% of scenarios a 100% of the time is due to that the fact that about 96-99% of the time when the referee makes a designated call regarding a try without bunker assistance he gets it right. So as sports fans, if we cannot tolerate 96-99% correctness, we must look for an alternative process to increase that percentage of correctness. Some can be simple, some can be complicated, some can expensive, all of them will be disputed by numerous parties. I am open to change & an increased percentage of correctness on all issues, but I am not sure I am open to that at any cost.
The Barry
Roar Guru
They’re good questions If a player made a clean break and scored under the posts and the ref allowed it, but replays showed he’d lost it, I could probably live with it... but why not look at it That’s not what happened the other night. Paulo’s legs crossed the touch line as he grounded the ball. It’s unreasonable to expect touchies or refs to get that right, in real time, 100% of the time But it’s not unreasonable to expect that as a standard when a players legs cross the sideline as he grounds the ball that it’s reviewed to make sure. It really was a quick, look once at the front replay. Done. I don’t think we’ve got the use of the video ref right, but there’s no reason not to look at those ones. We all knew it was no try before Reynolds kicked for goal, why shouldn’t it be an auto review and why can’t the bunker give the ref the heads up that it was a mistake? I disagree with holding the game up to micro analyse 50/50s, but tries are obviously game changers and there’s a natural break to review There has to be a limit on how far they go back. It’s not 100% but in the play that lead up to the try seems ok. That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to review the whole play since the last tackle, Otherwise do you go back two plays, three plays, there’d be no footy... In real time, I called out “did he go out?” I wish I’d posted it here in the blog but I thought it was wishful thinking because I’m biased and he did ground the ball a long way inside the touch line and there was no one tackling him
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Baz, I am a doggies fan & I must say in real time I thought it was a fair try. I spoke to friends at work the next day & they all agreed that they were shocked when seeing the replay showing it was a no-try. As where the commentators. We have all seen small knock-ons from dummy half & other incidents missed in real time that have only become apparent upon viewing the replay after the try has already been awarded. Take out Thursday night’s incident out of the equation & make a generalised call. Do you want all tries reviewed back to the previous tackle before being awarded, give the bunker the right to overrule if the try is awarded or live with the current process. Obviously, the referee could still send the try up to the bunker to be reviewed in any case. Just reviewing sideline breaches isn’t the solution to the entire quandary. Small incidents are going to be missed in real time, can we live with that or update the review process.