Ricky Stuart has unloaded on the NRL refereeing hierarchy after the Raiders’ defeat to Brisbane in Canberra on Sunday night.
Sticky was down on the sidelines when Hudson Young was called for an escort on Selwyn Cobbo following a short dropout late in the game, a decision that was confirmed by the Bunker, leaving the veteran coach visibly angered.
He initially refused to go into his feelings, telling Fox League sideline reporter James Hooper that he had already told him off-mic what he thought when asked if he thought the Young call was contentious.
“Contentious?” he answered.
“I told you outside what I thought and you agreed, and if I tell you again what I said out there, I’ll get fined so I’m better off not saying a word. It went for 80 minutes.
“It doesn’t matter what my view is. The same view as Hudson’s.
“Why do you reckon they do it? Why do you reckon little old ladies are sitting up off their chair going off their head? You’ve had a bad day when little old ladies are going off their head. I can’t do nothing. You have to cop it.
“It would have had to go to the Bunker, to go to a black and white rule. Every escort is going to be exactly the same as Hudson’s, but why does it go against us?
“As it did three or four weeks ago off a short kick off that brought a football team back into the game competing against us, I forget the actual game. It happens every game on these escorts. I don’t understand why it’s with us. Well I do understand, but that’s the part I can’t talk about.”
Stuart turned on the hierarchy of referees, speculating that Jared Maxwell, the Elite Officiating General Manager at the NRL, was being undermined by other people within the league.
“Jared Maxwell is a very good operator, he’s a very good boss of referees,” he said. “I reckon power’s been taken off Jared in a number of areas because they’re not improving.
“Jared was a very intelligent ref and he’s a good boss for the referees. I honestly believe there’s been a lot of power taken off him.
He arrived very late for the press conference – the convention is that the losing team goes first, but Kevin Walters appeared ahead of the Raiders coach – and railed against being forced to do press conferences after perceived poor refereeing performances.
“I get bored in here,” said Stuart.
“I’ve got the NRL media manager ringing us saying ‘why isn’t he in this press conference?’ – the reason I didn’t come in this press conference earlier – and that I have to keep you poor people waiting – is that I’m pissed off that people aren’t doing their jobs properly.”
The Barry
Roar Guru
It was definitely interesting and definitely different
Heyou
Roar Rookie
‘Twas. A but of a laugh. I seem to have an incomprehensible weird sense of humour. I get it :silly: but no one else seems to.
The Barry
Roar Guru
:laughing: well, if that’s your goal, missing accomplished :laughing:
Heyou
Roar Rookie
Excellent :thumbup: :thumbup: My work is done :laughing:
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I watched it many times but I didn't notice Young looking directly at Cobbo but I don't agree that he grabbed his left arm. Hardly any force behind his illegal touch. Still if that is the Escort rule as you posted I'll have to read up on it. I don't know about some great injustice, but the rules of Rugby League are always changing, and players do jump for the ball all the time. The bomb is the reason for most of the obstructions in the game. The bomb is a reward for failure, it should be banned.
Horses for Courses
Roar Rookie
He wasn’t contesting the ball, he was no where near it.
Horses for Courses
Roar Rookie
Stop talking about this incident, you obviously haven’t seen it or can’t remember anything about it. Cobbo bats it back, at no point does Young go for the ball and looks directly at Cobbo before grabbing his left arm. Players can and do jump for the ball all the time, stop pretending like this is some great injustice of someone competing to get to the ball and not the player.
matth
Roar Guru
Possibly, pushing Averillo to a wing. Fuller’s height could be an issue but I don’t remember it hampering Matty Bowen
Nat
Roar Guru
It was over by half time but the comeback was entertaining at least. Fuller is such a weapon, Bennett could do worse than him if he wants to play Hammer in the centres.
Fraser
Roar Rookie
I suggest you rewatch the incident, mate. The ball comes back of Cobbo and bounces into the hands of another Canberra player. Young never leaves the ground, and only feigns interest in where the ball is at the very last second after escorting Cobbo. If it had come off Hudson Young, it would have been a knock-on and accidental offside.
matth
Roar Guru
No, I was home nursing a busted knee. Not the most defensive game of all time.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
He didn’t put himself in the way of a kick chaser, he successfully knocked the ball back to a teammate before Cobbo could catch it. If that’s a penalty, then the rule should be changed so that any kick from a bomb or line-dropout can be challenged or make the rule that I suggested to Fraser. That is, they should not be allowed to jump for a ball and block a defender.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
1. Okay. 2. Yes, it was from a short drop-out. It looked like Hudson Young knocked the ball back to me. 3. If Hudson Young only had eyes for his opponent, how did he knock the ball back to a teammate? He wasn't offside from the drop-out or it would've been a penalty under the posts so he successfully outclassed Cobbo in the air. 4. My argument was that bombs cause multiple obstructions, and any attacker can get away with obstructing a defender taking the bomb, as you said, by only having eyes for the ball while they take the defender out of play. They should not be allowed to jump for a ball and block a defender. That's my rule change to stop this. 5. Kicks like Cleary's to his unmarked wingers are rewarded with a try. They are deserving of a try whereas kicks to a defender should go unchallenged or be penalised.
Fraser
Roar Rookie
1. Most commentators are encouraged to generate outrage, knowing that any controversy drives clicks and therefore more money for the people paying their salary. I take what they say with a grain of salt. The Canberra coach would complain if he won the lottery. 2. Hudson Young didn't knock the ball back - Cobbo did. Hudson Young's actions prevented Cobbo from the opportunity to catch the ball cleanly. 3. Hudson Young didn't have eyes for the ball - he only had eyes for his opponent. The touch judge and bunker rightly ruled that he was deliberately obstructing Cobbo in accordance with the NRL's escorts rule. 4. It wasn't from a bomb. It was from a short drop-out.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Wouldn't it be great to get a referees press conference after the game where they could blast coaches like Stuart for their inability to do their job properly to the entire NRL public on a weekly basis? I'd love to hear the Bunker official's take on this match; probably something like, "It's frankly embarrassing the lack of discipline and understanding of the game at the Raiders right now. Not understanding the rules and putting yourself in the way of a kick chaser at such a crucial moment, pandering to Rapana's petulance week in, week out - there's no doubt that the players are being let down by a coach who just isn't doing his job properly." It would be priceless
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
It should not be the coach's role to question whether refereeing decisions are correct or not. Hard enough to attract referees to the game without twits like Stuart having a go at them every week. Respect the decision and worry about what you can control.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Billy Slater’s take on it, that it was illegal for Hudson Young to put himself in a position where he could contest the ball, is ludicrous. Why shouldn't Hudson Young be allowed to contest the ball?
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
That doesn't disqualify him from questioning that penalty. I believe the referee made an error. There was no obstruction that I could see.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
1. The commentators and the Canberra coach agree with me that it was an incorrect call. 2. Hudson Young knocked the ball back to a teammate, preventing Cobbo from catching the ball and no rule was broken. The referee made an error. 3. He didn't obstruct an opponent. He beat Cobbo to the ball and he should not have been penalised. I've been a critic of the bomb for decades because there are always obstructions. Any team that can't score a try in the first five tackles doesn't deserve anything more than a field goal. That would be a fair reward for getting into a position to kick a field-goal. Tries should never have been changed from three points. This reduced the value of the penalty and encouraged teams to hold down because the attacking team would not kick for goal. The restart rule would not be needed if the defence was penalised for holding up play.
Nat
Roar Guru
My reply wasn’t quite as polished and disappeared. :laughing: