'The rules are ridiculous, with unbearable outcomes': NRL inconsistencies not all the referees' fault

every time a player or coach criticizes the ref, the Head of Football should say that that team had 4 forward passes, 5 knock on’s, etc if they are going to blame the ref, the ref’s association should be able to put it back onto the team listing all of their mistakes during the game & that if they didn’t miss so many tackles etc that allowed the opposition 2 tries, then maybe they would have won the game. If players & coaches don’t like hearing about their mistakes, they may then give the ref some respect

The rules are inconsistent when it comes to contact - eyes on the ball is not a defence in going for a high kick but not stopping a kick to win the game?? But the NRL have got Nine on their back to sharpen as the rights are up for grabs judging by this in the Herald owned by Nine https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/the-data-that-shows-six-agains-being-used-to-even-up-nrl-games-20210818-p58jru.html

I see. Nobody is moving, so we subtract the word "charge" from the description and what we have is "shoulder". As far as I'm aware, it isn't illegal to use a "shoulder" in the NRL if it isn't attached to an aggressive rushing movement with force. Words have meaning Elvis, you can't ignore them because they don't suit your argument. I know the tackle left Bird all shook up, but don't be cruel to Cleary. I just can't help believing that the tackle was legitimate.

Sigh, a shoulder charge can be executed standing still. Most of them are. Flegler have nothing to do with it.

Wow, you started off with an insult, calling me the bottom docile, not the most pleasant way to start a conversation, at least try and show some respect. Let me also state that I support the Storm (as I think you support the Roosters). We don't lose regularly, so its not like we are saying the refs have cost us games when we complain about them. With all respect intended, lets look at your first statement: "Peers and managers with experience in the field, and detailed knowledge of the instructions, is insufficient and must be augmented by selective review from biased groups with a knowledge that is significantly below mediocre." So by managers and peers, I assume this would include Grahem Annesly, who seems to have changed the very definition of the shoulder charge? I wont go into details, Tim Gore posted a corker on it just today. Annesly made an excuse for the incorrect call, which wasn't accurate. The same can be said for the 6 again in 2019 (always a favourite). If Annesly puts his hand up and says "yeah, we screwed up? we'll fix that", but instead he is making excuses that are wrong, and shifting the attention to the mistakes of the players as scapegoats, which prevent ramifications, suggesting we are willing to accept these errors rather than address them. You make a fair point in the following statement: "So you’re exonerating the players who committed the offence and whose LITERAL impact caused the injury…" I can wear that as my error. I am definitely not exonerating players, my original intention had been more to draw a comparison to someone like Brodie Croft and Darius Boyd, two players who have been publicly shamed these past few months, as a result of form. Should the public scrutiny of them also cease, and be left to the coaching staff, clubs, etc? They know more about the game than all of us, so in reality, we shouldn't be criticizing anything, based on your opinion that is. The point you made around players making the illegal hit isn't relevant to form slumps. A player could be at the top of their game, and hit an opponent illegally (JWH). We are talking about performance level, the two don't equate. That being said, is it the coaches job to pull a player when the hit an opponent illegally? I thought it was the ref who was supposed to do that. Given the magic round crackdown and the positive response it received, I'd argue that people would understand it entirely. If a ref sin bins a player for a high tackle, aside from the old boys arguing the game has gone soft, its rare to see any complaints. One last thing, on accepting mediocrity it means we are accepting inconsistency. You are accepting that mistakes are allowed, and that we just need to accept them, as someone else will deal with them. For mine, that's a horrible system. Mistakes can happen, however when we are seeing multiple mistakes in a game, we are entitled to publicly question.

I don't agree. "Charge" is not figurative. The word means inter alia "to rush aggressively". There was no rushing, he was stood still. It really annoys me that Flegler can knock out Yeo in a terrible tackle that sidelines him for weeks and doesn't get sent off. Nobody says a word about the ref failing to protect players in an incident when a player genuinely gets hurt with an injury that could contribute to his career ending. Here we are banging on about an incident where it wasn't even remotely dangerous. I don't get the indignation at all.

And I disagree with this type of justification, but it actually provides context. The referees should take mediocrity as a compliment when it’s supported by some bottom decile thinking like this. The concept isn’t saying referees are beyond review, far from it. Rather it challenges the assumption of your ilk that the review by their peers and managers with experience in the field, and detailed knowledge of the instructions, is insufficient and must be augmented by selective review from biased groups with a knowledge that is significantly below mediocre. It also has nothing to do with excusing mediocrity. Rather they are arguing that the threshold for people such as yourself is harsh relative to the players and coaches. I draw your attention to what you drew our attention to: “If a player isn’t performing, there are calls to cut them. Same with coaches. The difference is a ref under performing has an impact to not only cost a team a game, but also result in a serious injury to a player” How is it that the ref is different because his actions could lead to injury? So you’re exonerating the players who committed the offence and whose LITERAL impact caused the injury… And the coaches don’t have any influence despite putting the player out there, are responsible for man management, kept them there and trained them? Even then you outline that any influence of the referee on the situation is impossible to forecast as he can only marginally moderate the environment to adjust the behaviour of the players (thought that would be the primary responsibility of the person playing) and the general aggression and emotion of the team (thought that was the coaches purview). If they had have pulled the trigger early on an no aggression crept into he game to use as a rationale and thus been “bashed” for over reacting.

What good would it do? The decision/s are made and if it's bad enough they do get stood down. The ref makes 400 decisions every game and you want him to face the media because of 1 or 2 calls? We don't make it to players front the media if they have had a shocker, if fact, look at Flannagan when he was dropped, Barrett got smashed for allowing that to happen. My point is, it doesn't change anything. If you are as adult as you say, you can acknowledge/vent as much as you want but understand they they make mistakes as well.

You can’t have it both ways Tim; the referee saw Cleary’s shoulder ‘charge’ and decided not to call the penalty.

Same shi thing in union

All those footy commentary shows will make themselves irrelevant (which they honestly are) if they’ll stop criticising

It's the last thing we need is a guy like Annesley being an apologist for the referees. He's being doing this for years to cover up his own weaknesses . It's about time their was a cleanout . It can't be the players fault week in week out and while he continues with this stance nothing will change .

Um what you have described IS a shoulder charge. The 'charge' part is purely figurative, you don't have to be running to make one, most of them are from a stationary position. The reason it is NOT a very low risk tackle is that when you completely stop someone's momentum in an instant like that their head snaps forward and a lot of times straight into the shoulder. Cleary's tackle was a textbook example of what they were trying to ban. Either get out of the way or make an arms tackle.

That is called nuance, and has no place here or in the NRL.

The refs don't help themselves though. Apart from Annersley who comes out and makes some announcement on a hand full of decisions every now and then, we hear diddly squat from the refs themselves. They are this group of all mighty officials who never have to front the media, never have to explain their decisions and never openly get questioned on anything. There is no other group of people in the NRL that do not have to stand up to the white heat of the media/fans for their performance. WHY ? I think that the bulk of fans are adult enough to understand that refs can make mistakes. Sometimes there are absolute howlers that they should be held accountable for. Most of the time (I suspect) they are absolutely correct having seen something that the cameras / fans have not. Sometimes its down to interpretations of the rule, this week's latest crack down or simply some obscure rule that your average fan (or commentator) is simply not aware of. So why do we never ever hear from the ref himself ? I am not after blood, I can accept an apology, I know that I can make mistakes too and I most certainly would if ever I held the whistle. All I am really asking for is a little understanding and if I understood why the ref made certain decisions, I could probably accept them more and my respect for the officials would almost certainly rise. As it is, they insist on hiding behind their iron curtain, making their pronouncements on the field in full knowledge that they will never have to answer to the fans themselves. If Daniel Andrews did the same in his dealings with Covid there would be wide spread anger and riots in the streets. His job is no less emotive, no less stressful and is no easier in making difficult decisions but he fronts the media every single day. Why not refs ? Referees are their own worst enemy and they cry foul because fans are critical of them. They need to grow up, act responsibly, face up to criticism and take ownership of their decisions and their mistakes and show the public why they are better than that criticism. Until then, Suck it princess.

I get as fustrated with the refs as the next person but the ridiculousness is with the commentators. thier opiniion seems to be based on who they have thier money on with the betting agencies. and the print Journos just want clicks on thier articles so they blow everything out of context or make stuff up.

I always disagree with the articles saying we shouldn't bash refs (and its an annual thing, remember the articles from post the '6 again' of 2019....) , because its excusing mediocrity. No one is safe from review like this, so why should the refs be any different? If a player isn't performing, there are calls to cut them. Same with coaches. The difference is a ref under performing has an impact to not only cost a team a game, but also result in a serious injury to a player. I draw your attention to Jahrome Hughes on Thursday night. The Raiders had started to carry on like thugs as they got amped up. 2 high shots within a few minutes by Hodgson, multiple shoulder charges, and yet we saw nothing. The team was able to build on aggression, and the outcome was a stupid, careless hit by CNH that has left Hughes out for at least 1 week, and who knows how many to follow, just before the finals. If Sutton does his job, and sits Hodgson down after the 2nd hit like he should off, perhaps the Raiders back off and realize they need to calm it down. We'll never know, but its a chance to have avoided that dog act that see's two players sitting down now. So I will continue to bash the refs thanks, they need to do a better job, and should be held accountable for that.

Of course he could, you just ask him, but I reckon he's going to be too busy fixing the Bulldogs, coming up with more inane comments to fill in the vacancy left by Sterlo, his podcast and his time spent fixing everything else that's wrong with the game. Such a shame he can't do miracles. The Roar's very own pope could make him a saint. Or maybe he can with the Doggies. He couldn't with the Dragons & Warriors.

Yes, someone knocking the ball back towards a following player would have been a knock on. Maybe the rule should be amended to read a knock on has to be knocked in the direction of the back fence.

Agreed Paul. I dislike the NRL rule Book challenging the Tax Act for lack of clarity.