If I was as unreliable at my job as the NRL’s referees, I’d be in the Centrelink queue.
The huge crackdown on contact with the head that we saw during Magic Round seems to have disintegrated and now referees are seemingly making up punishments as they go.
An automatic send-off earlier this year can now vary between a send-off, a sin bin, on report, just a penalty and, in some instances, absolutely nothing.
Two identical passes can be called forward or fine. A knock-on in one game is deemed back in another. Depending on the referee, a legal decoy run for players has now turned into a magic trick of ‘let me make myself disappear’.
And it’s not just the calls on the field that are all over the place. That glorious mystery known as the Bunker seems to just flip a coin to decide whether to award a try or not.
(Photo: Joe Frost)
Incorrect calls can have a massive impact on the season. It can determine where teams finish on the ladder, be the difference between a team making the eight or not, or even whether a player is eligible to play.
In the last two rounds alone, we have witnessed some real head-scratchers.
Last weekend between Brisbane and Penrith, Thomas Flegler hit Isaah Yeo flush on the chin with a swinging arm, knocking the latter out cold. A penalty was given to the Panthers and Flegler was put on report and sin binned. Yeo didn’t return for the rest of the match and missed the clash against the Storm this past weekend.
Commentator Braith Anasta agreed with the sin binning, saying that “it wasn’t intentional”.
In the post-match interview however, Ivan Cleary said what the rest of us were thinking:
“It’s an illegal act, that’s why he got sent to the sin bin. I don’t know what you have to do to get sent off,” the Panthers coach said.
“If it was Magic Round, he would have been sent off.”
Then we had the Manly vs Wests Tigers match from the same round, where Josh Aloiai performed a cannonball tackle to the knee of Tigers prop Alex Seyfarth.
The referee admitted that the contact “was unnecessary and dangerous”, but only gave a penalty. No time off for Aloiai. Meanwhile Seyfarth limped from the field and will now miss several weeks after tearing his medial collateral ligament.
Manly captain Daly Cherry-Evans came out defending his teammate.
“I don’t think he intentionally wanted someone to hurt their knee,” he said.
It seems many referees think the same as Anasta and DCE – that intent defines the punishment. It shouldn’t matter if it was intentional or not. That has no impact on the fact that it happened, it was illegal, and should receive the same punishment week in, week out.
When the Bunker first came into the game, I was excited. I thought finally, with a play being reviewed from so many angles, we wouldn’t have any more wrong calls.
(Insert forehead slap.)
Many decisions that have come out of the Bunker this season have made my brain explode. When something is sent upstairs, the replay is apparently watched a million times – in normal speed and ‘super slow mo’ of course – just to validate their time sheet.
And then half the time the ruling doesn’t match what we have just been made to watch over and over again.
We had two tries last weekend with almost identical finger-to-ball ratio – but of course one was given and the other denied.
Kyle Feldt ‘scored’ another try on Friday night that was awarded on the spot. But after it was given, reviewed, given again and then checked once more for good luck, it was eventually denied due to separation.
There is so much talk about separation during Bunker rulings, I feel like I’m in divorce court.
Then on Monday night, Jason Saab scored a try with what looked like the same downward pressure as Feldt’s. Based on the no-try call from Friday night I thought it would not be given, but after it was looked at from all sides, it was awarded.
The game can’t keep going like this. We need to know that basic rulings are going to be the same in every game. That the consistency of calls will flow.
I’m sure while you are reading this, you are having flashbacks about a bad call that your team has been given this season. It may have affected the outcome of that game, as well as where your side now sit on the ladder.
I just hope we are not having this conversation again in October because a wrong call decides the grand final.
WWO Melbourne
Guest
That’s been so since they joined the competition. They just had to do well almost every year , to increase interest & participation in Victoria. Bellamy brought in the increased amount of ‘wrestling’ in tackles . He introduced the ‘chicken wing’ tackle & pretty sure it was Melbourne that first started with the ‘cannon ball’ tackles. Melbourne have had very good players & you can’t take away from their great consistency in effort in each game . Or each year. Still, no doubt that they get away with more holding down & flop on tackles than other teams. Those things have certainly added to their defensive efforts.
Maxtruck
Roar Rookie
Yep, humans, different interpretations, different personality profiles, different levels of experience, different backgrounds, hard to get perfect end result consistency from a variable base line. Do you want DRS for footy? Or are you more willing to accept that players tackle high, hit late, trip, pass forward, stand off side, reef the ball, lay in tackles, swear at the ref, milk penalties, and it goes on. Way I see it coaches and players control the game not the Refs
MarkD
Guest
Damn it , now you gone and done it, rant coming up League is heading down the AFL road where some laws are occasional applied albeit with little to no consistency while others are simply ignored and of course the law of the month crackdowns One of the great things about league used to be the black and white rules, easily understood and easily reffed with little gray area or room for interpretation. Everybody knew the rules and when a ref called a penalty while you mighy not have agreed with the call, everyone knew what it was for. So often I now find myself asking what was that penalty or 6 again call was for or worse then that is that im constantly wondering why some rules are called when others are clearly overlooked on some made up bs , like the infringement wasn't impacting the play . Apparently being offside inside the 10 from a kick is fine so long as they don't impact on the play yet being offside for going early on the defensive line even if it was on the opposite side of the field and having no impact on the play well that is a penalty. This inconsistency is hard enough to stomach but when some refs ping your side for being offside and then call out offside opposition players by name to let them know not to infringe well,seems less like refereeing and more like
cheating,fixingmanaging , yes managing wink wink , nudge nudge. The bunker ref has to go replaced with an NFL style review system . The onfield ref should be the only person making the rulings, gets rid of the different interpretation of a rule by ref and bunker , the appearance of the ref being directed by the bunker and the somewhat random application of the overrule by the bunker. Arghhhhh stop firetruckin with the game!!!kk
Roar Pro
Thank you Nat. I have also alerted family members to the search.
Nat
Roar Guru
Don't sell youself short KK, some of your references are both learned and cultured. Voltaire is just another example. It carries respect. :thumbup: The search will continue. I know that's not verbatim but I would have thought the theme could be found. Once I discovered it wasn't automatically attributed to Socrates I have searched more than a few times. I'll either uncover brilliance or a drunken tweet.
Greg
Roar Pro
but it is a tennis ball not a bowling ball. Your notion of putting it on a table does not consider flexibility and elasticity of the ball nor the force acting upon it. It isn't rocket science, its pretty darn simple mechanics.
Joey
Guest
Not rocket science, but please educate yourself by going to the cupboard, grabbing a tennis ball or any similar size ball and plonk it down on the table in front of you. Please let me know again what you think about the outside edge of a ball hitting the ground.
Walter Black
Guest
To quote John McEnroe "You can not be serious!"
kk
Roar Pro
Sorry Nat, I tried several sources without success. Will keep it on watch. The mind races ...from Enlightenment philosophers to Warren Buffett or a RL coach with contract swinging. PS. I am neither learned or cultured but have had a deep admiration for Voltaire since my early twenties.
Wayne Turner
Guest
Add the stupid 6 again rule. And you have refs,who influence games too much with their unaccountable inconsistencies. You end up with badly ran touch football games. NRL = Not Rugby League.
Nat
Roar Guru
Ha1 Unfortunately and repeatedly no. Maybe you can help me, you seem like a learned and cultured gentleman. I heard a saying decades ago, it goes along the lines of "if I could be correct more often than I am wrong I would exceed my own expectations". For a long time I attributed it to Socrates but google doesn't seem to agree. Have you heard of something similar to that?
Big Daddy
Roar Rookie
Has empathy for the game and players. Good man and I think Mrs Badge still runs the line.
kk
Roar Pro
Nat,You are consistently correct.
kk
Roar Pro
His understanding is missed.
Greg
Roar Pro
The outside edge of a tennis ball usually does touch the ground. The ball has a certain amount of flexibility to it, which combined with the speed the ball is travelling at causes the ball to flatten considerably upon impact with the ground. You can see it happening during the super slow replays.
Nat
Roar Guru
Unfortunately consistency is impossible kk while we have different people doing the job. You and I could drive to the same shop but I guarantee we would drive differently, change gears, use the brakes and indicators at different times. Even as spectators we can both see the same play and have different interpretations, as evidenced by some astounding bunker decisions. I agree it would be good to see the screens the bunker is looking at to make their decisions.
Joey
Guest
Just a bit over the trick photography / special effects used to award some try groundings clearly fumbled over the line, or followed down from a height with fingertips only. Eg If the player had no control over stopping the ball from falling, then the player must have already lost control. Burgess’s try v Tigers in extra time - couldn’t have stopped the ball from hitting the ground, and has lost control. No try. Tigers win. To me, it’s as outrageous as tennis’s Hawkeye claiming that the outside edge of a tennis ball can also be touching the ground. Hawkeye works from above, showing a shadow of the whole ball, even though at ground level, only an area the size of ten cent piece hits the ground. It’s all special effects, but it’s not reality. Sporting’s equivalents to fake news.
Joey
Guest
I think the refs have been very consistent. Consistently bad, and consistently biased towards the Storm.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
You are absolutely correct but the powers that be in NRL house (and their proxies in the bunker) have shown time after time that they have no respect for consistency, precedent or the average fan
Adam
Roar Guru
Whatever happened to Mrs Badge?