A belated Grand Final review - which means it's about SIXTH TACKLE GATE~!
(Or: A Defense of Referees)
Let's start the defense by stating it was a bad decision. Duh. There is no way the players could be guaranteed to hear a verbal reversal of a hand signal. It would have been better to play the original decision, right or wrong.
But let's also admit that the officials were going to cop it anyway.
An example: the week before you had many fans blowing up because the Raiders scored after a Souths player knocked on trying to get the ball out from the in-goal area.
But earlier he grounded the ball!
Except the rules are actually very clear that you have to intentionally ground the ball in-goal. If you think about it, this makes sense - otherwise every ball rolling along the ground would force a line dropout.
And if you're trying to run back into the field of play, it seems unlikely you intentionally grounded the ball seconds earlier.
So you have people getting upset that the referees made an obviously correct call. This happens often.
But you can't just blame the fans; they take their cues from the pundits.
Another example: in the first week of the finals, the Raiders played the Storm, and I turned on at halftime. It had, according to online reports, been a riveting game.
But less than one minute into the half Phil Gould was complaining that the game had not been allowed to reach great heights. This was because these particular referees like their whistles.
There was no evidence that the referees had actually been incorrect in blowing penalties, they just hadn't meet Gould's demands that games be officiated in accordance with his Dennis Denuto style vibe rather than the actual rules of the game. And that was enough for arguably the most high profile commentator in the sport to shit all over one of the most intense games of the year, for a live audience of hundreds of thousands.
When I listen to Gould commentate, I actually wonder whether he enjoys rugby league. I also wonder if he thinks instead he is paid to commentate on officiating, not the footy.
Later in the match a touch judge made a decision that a Melbourne Storm player was out. In real time, I thought it was out too. On the slow motion replay, he just stayed in. The touch judge received death threats.
So the first part of the defense is that I think the way rugby league is currently viewed guarantees the referees will fail. So they did.
The second part of the defense is, to paraphrase the words of the brilliant modern philosopher, Mr. Vince McMahon:
The referees didn't screw the Canberra Raiders. I truly believe the Canberra Raiders screwed the Canberra Raiders.The unacknowledged truth is that with most games "decided" by one bad refereeing decision, the players make dozens of bad decisions that determine the outcome more than the officials.
Canberra dominated for 30 minutes after halftime, and scored just two points.
They failed to score with an extra player advantage for ten minutes, due to a (marginal) sin-bin.
They ruined a try when their centre tried to get-tackled-and-flick-pass instead of a simple catch-and-pass.
Immediately after the decision, they defended poorly and allowed the Roosters to score.
And so, I contend that not only did the referees just make a poor decision due their unsafe work environment rife with threats, bullying, confusing directives, unfair performance targets, and low morale, but that the Raiders didn't deserve it anyway.
On a semi-related note, after the game Darren Lockyer - who is paid to watch and talk about footy - asked Brett Morris what it was like to play back-to-back grand finals?
I mentioned this a few days later to my wife - who would at this stage possibly pay to watch and talk less about footy - and despite not caring at all, she said without hesitation, Morris wasn't at the Roosters for last years Grand Final.
This is Darren Lockyer's highly paid, full-time job. My wife is better prepared for his role through osmosis. Think about that next time some old pro goes off about the referees.
No comments:
Post a Comment