It has been a week since the grand final and I have an opportunity to reflect on the game this season and how it has largely changed for the better.
Firstly, the six-again rule has truly invigorated the game and provided a unique way to provide a direct advantage to the non-offending team in a way that does not impede its momentum.
With that compliment to the rules committee, I am less convinced that allowing teams to choose to scrum from the middle of the field is the correct choice for an exciting game that lacks redundancy, especially during a time when coaching strategy encourages all set pieces – including the play-the-ball – to start from the centre of the field.
I would prefer that the scrum take place at the nearer of the ten-metre or 20-metre mark from touch or at the place of the infringement should it occur between the two 20-metre marks from touch as to avoid predictability and repetitive play.
However, after speaking with super coach and writer Roy Masters, I have noticed how there have been some very subtle but meaningful changes in how the referee and touch judges make on-field decisions and communicate with the Bunker.
Though Masters looked at this from a more quantitative perspective, which readers may want to look out for, I also discussed my qualitative interpretation of the same events. Both approaches were complementary to one another.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Historically, the referee has had more determination over the result of a call in terms of the decision and verbiage used whereas the current verbiage and methodology used to get the call right has been uniquely different this season.
Referees are still required to give definitive words as to their decision (even when uncertain) when contacting the Bunker but now, they make a decision knowing that they are okay with the Bunker overturning what they had said.
I am in no way disagreeing that this method is bringing fewer mistakes than previously but it is not without a major fault.
Most viewers do not realise that the referee and on-field team is okay with making a conservative call that can and many times likely will be overturned by the Bunker and this leads many to assume that the quality of refereeing is poor with the frequency of Bunker corrections.
As such, this is a form of blank, humour-free self-deprecation.
Referees, based on their own knowledge and input from the touch judges, are okay with the Bunker overturning their call and this does provide a solid system for getting the call right. However, this is not what the majority of people experience.
They see a referee that couldn’t get the call right and relied on the Bunker, which thankfully got it right.
That is to say that this provides a prima facie case where the referee looks incompetent by constantly having calls overturned, which contributes to a lack of trust by viewers in terms of a referee’s competency.
Unlike rugby union where referees like Nigel Owens are talked up and respected, this is not the case in rugby league. As Masters brought up, this is even more of a feat “in a sport with a myriad of complicated rules.” Having played the game at a basic level, I agree and added how the rules are just the tip of the iceberg hiding all of the endless interpretations beneath the surface. Still, in both codes, getting the right answer is only half the goal.
We need to have a non-hostile, non-confrontational culture towards referees as it damages the game as their roles are to be both neutral and competent.
The current system does not provide this.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Barring an arduous, prolonged and expensive undertaking of viewer education, it would be better to do the following as it provides the same method of data/fact entry as the above but rephrases it in a way that bolsters confidence in the capabilities, competency and neutrality of the referee and touch judges.
Rather, use the same system as above but allow referees to say: “I saw a try (X) but there is reason to believe there may have been separation from the ball (Y) and am therefore deferring to the Bunker to confirm or overrule.” In a case where there is no good angle for the Bunker to provide a ruling, a response explaining so would confirm the on-field ruling. Such a small change in wording may appear pedantic but words are important, especially when both specificity and clarity for all is required.
An alternative where the team that received the short end of the call could challenge as in the NFL is not acceptable since it requires that they have a challenge left in which to do so and it makes getting the correct call more of a gamble and less about getting it right.
The goal is for referees to have and demonstrate their competency to the benefit of both players and the audience alike but there is not shame in requesting confirmation where needed especially since as much as many want to believe that artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are infallible, this is far from the truth as demonstrated in ESPN’s 30 for 30 short, Subject to Review.
For those that have not seen the episode, I highly recommend it as it clearly and succinctly talks about the numerous grey areas that largely go unnoticed even in a sport as seemingly clear-cut when umpiring as tennis. When there is a margin of error, as with all machine learning and all studies, saying that the ball has landed in or out is a fact in real life but that is not how the Hawk Eye sees it. There are times when the ball can be both.
Rugby league has more shades of grey and this is not limited to what conditions constitute obstruction in what context.
Crowd education is important as is trust and respect for the adjudicators of the game and a small tweak in language to the Bunker can promote both a better educated fan-base and positive relations as seen in other codes. For those that were concerned about corporate partnerships and monetisation, it’s reasonable that the Bunker will at least be called on as much in try-scoring scenarios.
As such, a method in which referees have access to the Bunker but can address it in a way that provides for demonstration of their competency and fosters confidence in their experience while allowing technology to be addressed appropriately is a better outcome both on and off the field.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Ensuring & enforcing that all the 13 players get back the 10 metres in defence is very difficult in real time football. If off field adjudicators see the referee misses an obvious call, they can jump in with a 6 again rule without bringing a stoppage & endless replays of the incident. I understand the point you are making & I would strongly oppose that this discretion be solely left to be adjudicated off field, but I can see the logic into what they are trying to achieve with this process.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
What has that comment got to do with getting more try scoring decisions correct?
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
JA, I thought this article was about incorrect decisions from match officials, what does it have to do with the Gearin try?
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The bomb is not the only option but it is the most frequently used. After being unable to score a try in 5 tackles a minor reward is all they deserve but we reward mediocrity by allowing the bomb. Teams play 5 safety runs and take no chances because they have the bomb that rewards those that can’t score a real try. I didn't suggest batting the ball dead but just punching or tapping the ball so it isn't a clean catch and the ball is then handed over. It is just making it easier to diffuse a bomb.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I know it has changed value but I just like the number three as the correct value for a try. Tries 3 points, Conversions 2 points and field goals 1 point. Arko and Quayle increased the try value because they thought people wanted to see more tries but penalties should not have been devalued because teams get away with breaking the rules knowing the opponents aren't going to kick.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
The changing of points is very consistent with other football codes but each has its own subtleties that dictate the breakdown of values. Lest we forget how originally, a try only awarded you an attempt to score a goal and, even when a try was given a point value, it was less than a goal. This isn't just in RL but American gridiron, Canadian gridiron, and RU etc.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
Well, there's a reason you're a Roar Guru and that knowledge is probably part of the reason you'd not have perceived someone's calls being overturned that way. More importantly, enjoy Origin!
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Tries were changed from 3 to 4 in 1983 because they thought people wanted to see more tries. All it did was devalue the penalty so that teams would go for the crowd pleasing try and not kick for goal. Devaluing the penalty just encourages good defences to give away penalties knowing they won't convert the penalty and will try for a try. I could handle the field goal being changed to one point but the try should not have been changed.
Nick
Roar Guru
The bomb is not the only option available to the team. There are numerous kicks or running options available. I think you just have some irrational hatred for the bomb rather than anything else. The idea of batting the ball dead for a 30m restart is horrific. rugby league is still a combination of possession and territory. Next you will start saying that a team should be allowed to run the ball out of bounds and have that count as a tackle.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
Interesting comments Tiger. 1. First name basis is viewed as a way of de-escalating confrontational situations. It may be right or wrong depending on culture and context. 2. I can't comment on all refs but a standard training taught has one setting the line at 10m and moving up with the line on 'go.' Re six again, as a viewer, I'd like to be able to see the reason the call was made beyond the arm wave for 'six again' but these guys are moving so quickly and I do appreciate the need to balance focus on getting the call right with communicating the information properly (hence the article). Re penalty inside 20m, I think that would be interesting to hear from players and coaches about. Momentum for six again and a chance at a 4+2 try inside of 20 is extremely valuable and arguably more so than a 2pt penalty goal.. I think they'll leave it as is for that reason alone but only the coaches and players would have the real insight.
Paul
Roar Guru
It's interesting but I've never thought a refs decision being overturned, made them look unqualified or not knowing what they were doing. Ditto with the people I watch the game with.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
Yes, they are fully qualified but if the logic in language is to allow for their calls to be overturned, it makes them look unqualified to viewers. If you want all of the power to go to the on field referee, the go with the rugby union model where the bunker only serves the purpose of providing the best camera angles for the on-field referee to review for all to see.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
I would agree Tim, that the four tackle rule was not brought in to stop the Saints. Secretary Bill Fallowfield of the RFL looked to the American gridiron as a way to stop what was known as the “creeping barrage,” which is essentially the same as the infinite number of potential phases in today’s rugby union. From my research, I believe there is good cause to understand four tackles as being a close approximation or miscalculation since it only provides three play the balls (and not four like American gridiron). It is interesting to note that American football did have three downs until a fourth down was brought in in 1912. Three down football is still the standard for Canada’s CFL. In a similar instance, based on my research, it is also reasonable to believe that the origin of three downs may have been based on a similar miscalculation when looking to baseball’s three strikes. It is possible but there is always the chance we are missing something through time and culture since punting for territory before the final down was more commonplace in those days and this would mean that it was not a miscalculation in origin but rather the game changed around the rules (as usually happens in football codes). History is a funny thing since we can’t ever truly put ourselves in the world view of those we are trying to understand. http://www.tombrock.com.au/scholars/2017-18-spencer-kassimir
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
Fair shake, though that wasn't the focus of the article. I'd caution thought that this perspective puts an over emphasis on the value of kicking for goal. Teams tend to prefer to maintain moment and a greater opportunity at 4+2. Likewise, talking about the 1966 introduction of the four-tackle rule is a bit out of context when considering but not limited to the nature of a contested scrum and a short 5-yard retreat/ruck rule which had increased from 3-yards in the previous year. No, we can kick a field goal or a punt on any down in all of the outdoor gridiron codes whether NFL, NCAA, High School, CFL etc. The only reason I wrote outdoor was an * to arena games that don't allow punting at all.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
Thank you Spruce Goose. I grew up in the US having watched rugby league, rugby union, Aussie rules, and even Gaelic football since first coming across them on late-night cable television as a young teenager (will refrain from saying how long ago that was). Long before coming to Aus, I also played union at uni but have also since done quite a bit of work and formal research into rugby league. As you know RL opportunities are extremely slim in the US (and just became slimmer in North America with SL deciding not to allow Toronto back). I highly recommend Tony Collins’ podcast (Rugby Reloaded ep. 53 if not mistaken) where, in one show, he listed all of the things RU has borrowed/learned from/stolen (matter of interpretation) from RL for perspective. (Self-plug: I talk RL in North America in episode 27 and return in episode 60 to discuss the NSWRL/AFL attempted merger of 1914 and 1933.) http://www.soundcloud.com/user-523674328 . https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/rugby-reloaded/id1358627156 . The short of it is, yes, the RU review model you describe below is an effective model but whether or not RL will ever take it for cultural reasons is another story. PS I do post my work and research for those that are interested on Twitter and Instagram @BallsOutPhd
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
Yes, giving on-field referees the ability to watch the film while directing the bunker what to play would be a strong option as it provides the decision making to stay with the referee while allowing the audience to simultaneously view the footage. This is essentially what rugby union does. Regarding interpretations, these do and will always exist in every sport. The different between a strip in a multiple-tackler ruck vs lost ball at times will come down to perception since one can never truly know another's intent.
Spencer Kassimir
Roar Pro
Hi Nat, Absolutely wrote this from a neutral point of view though, to be fair, it's not without years of research. (Do check out http://www.tombrock.com.au/ if you're interested in "deep track" research into rugby league). I think the challenge system in open play is quite good but where it is scoring play, think the referee should just make the call or should be reworded when speaking toward the bunker to provide confidence in competency whilst making the correct call. Spruce Moose (below) gives a great example of rugby union's model, which, as mentioned, is a fantastic way to put full control in the on-field referee and limiting the role of the bunker to simply zooming in and providing the tools for the aforementioned referee to make the final decision. Regarding stats, https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/ has everything you could imagine.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
If they don't score a 6, 7 or 8 point touchdown they can kick a 3 point field goal. If we don't score a 4 or 6 point try we can kick a 1 point field goal, although it was 2 points but changed to 1 point to discourage them. Arko and Quayle wanted to see more tries so they made them 4 points to discourage field goals and penalty goals. Penalties were devalued so teams don't kick for goal but go for tries via the bomb. After being unable to score a try in 5 tackles a minor reward is all they deserve but we reward mediocrity by allowing the bomb. Teams play 5 safety runs and take no chances because they have the bomb that rewards those that can't score a real try.
Nick
Roar Guru
Unquestionably true. Meanwhile in the NRL, the thugs in the commentary box whinge that the players can't bring assault rifles on the park
Noosa Duck
Roar Rookie
Moose, fundamentally you are saying what I was saying above, but to be honest I forgot that that is what they do in Rugby, the man in the middle is the man who makes the decisions. Whatsmore, if we gave the sole responsibility back to the NRL refs they may get their confidence back which I think has been badly eroded by use the bunker as it is now set up in the NRL.