Former referees boss Michael Stone has described the farcical events after Sunday's Cowboys-Tigers game as the biggest "smother job" by league officials in over 30 years.
Stone, a grand final and State of Origin referee, couldn't remember a bigger fiasco since a little-known loophole in the rules cost St George a game in the early 1990s.
"I can't believe what I saw on Sunday and how the NRL then tried to cover its tracks," Stone said of the controversial finish in Townsville.
"It's a smother job, plain and simple - they are making up the rules as they go.
"It reminds me of a Dragons-Sharks game in around 1990 when (Dragons coach) Brian Smith asked officials if the ball was rolling near the deadball line and his fullback had a foot out of play and touched it, would it be a 20-metre tap. As the rules stood then - they were changed very quickly after the game - he was right, but when it happened on the field, the ref ordered a line dropout instead of a 20m tap - and of course the Sharks scored and the Dragons lost.
"Smith got his captain to lodge an official complaint on the field and all hell broke loose. The league went into damage control, made up a bunch of excuses and we are seeing the same here.
"When the referee blew the whistle on Sunday, the game was over - that's why he blew the whistle. The Cowboys jumped up and down and the referee didn't have a clue what to do so he went to the Bunker.
"Poor (Bunker referee) Ashley Klein had no idea and took the soft option of giving the Cowboys the penalty for a blatant dive… no common sense.
"For the NRL to say the game wasn't over and the Cowboys could launch a captain's challenge is pure fantasy. And they do admit they got the challenge wrong, it should not have been a penalty - it's a complete farce - sadly we have learnt little in over 30 years.
"I really couldn't believe what I was watching. I felt for the Tigers - they were dudded."
This is the truth. One truism is that it’s not the crime it’s the cover up that will get you. If Annesley or the referees boss has attempted to cover up that the bunker was directing the infield referee this will completely blow up.
Mick Stone nailed it - except the part about feeling sorry for Klein.
This issue is not going away. The NRL are in hole and the hole is getting bigger.
As much as I want the two points I think overturning would be a monumental precedent which could quickly become farce.
The six-again call in the grand final would be reason to overturn. There was a 7 tackle set in a cowboys' final IIRC. Where would it end? Matches where a missed knock-on from the kick-off could see a result overturned.
Last weekend was blatant but it's still opening pandora's box.
As much as I want the two points I think overturning would be a monumental precedent which could quickly become farce.
The six-again call in the grand final would be reason to overturn. There was a 7 tackle set in a cowboys' final IIRC. Where would it end? Matches where a missed knock-on from the kick-off could see a result overturned.
Last weekend was blatant but it's still opening pandora's box.
It depends. If the game had ended then there are grounds for having the result overturned. Former ref Mick Stone has come out today and said the game was over and the NRL are now just trying to cover their backsides (I’m paraphrasing).
If this turns out to be the correct view then Wests Tigers should have the result overturned and receive the 2 points. This doesn’t set a precedent for officiating errors that happen during a game.
As much as I want the two points I think overturning would be a monumental precedent which could quickly become farce.
The six-again call in the grand final would be reason to overturn. There was a 7 tackle set in a cowboys' final IIRC. Where would it end? Matches where a missed knock-on from the kick-off could see a result overturned.
Last weekend was blatant but it's still opening pandora's box.
Agreed
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
@mike difference is if the game had ended then the call was invalid. Look at the match clock had it clicked over and the audio was the bunker prompting the ref to challenge, no stoppage so probably no challenge.
I think Lee may have a good case. In 2006 the AFL overturned a decision due to not hearing the final whistle so it has happened before in other sports
The difference between the 2019 GF is the game was still going and I was one call.
Or like earlier in the year when Luciano try was not sent for review again this was during a game.
Jackson Hastings admits his Wests Tigers teammates are still stinging from their last-gasp loss to North Queensland, but doesn't want the NRL to scale back on video technology.
The Cowboys were able to challenge an escort ruling on the last play of Sunday's game, with Valentine Holmes kicking them to a 27-26 victory with a penalty goal.
The NRL has argued that the Cowboys had a right to challenge the last play but that the decision of bunker referee Ashley Klein to award an escort penalty wasn't sufficient.
There have been calls for the bunker to only be used on try or no-try decisions and there have even been suggestions that the captain's challenge should be scrapped.
Hastings, who spent the last four years of his career in the Super League where video technology is not used in every game, said that he felt a video referee was beneficial in ensuring that the right calls were being made more often than not.
"I think the technology has been great," he told AAP.
"I heard a bit of what (NRL head of football) Graham Annelsey said but the correct call outweighs the incorrect call.
"We certainly need technology and I feel like it's good for the game. Maybe they could have a look at when it can and can't be used.
"I am just a player and don't want to get into any debates. As a kid you're taught to play to the whistle and everything else is out of my control."
The Tigers have flagged a possible legal challenge to overturn the Cowboys' victory and have voiced their displeasure with the officiating.
Hastings said he and his Tigers teammates have turned their focus to Saturday's game away to Brisbane, even if they were still in disbelief.
"It stings not having the two points and all the stuff in and around it (like the club challenging the result), it's nothing to do with us players," he said.
"We are human beings and it does hurt and it will hurt for a while.
"I've given up trying to think about the rules and everything that went wrong.
"It was hard to cop because of how hard we'd worked for Jimmy Tamou's 300th game.
"I'm hurting for him and our fans who have stuck solid by us but we're looking forward to a tough test against Brisbane."
Australian Associated Press
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
How can you take this sport seriously, its so obvious now how corrupt this game is, its like listening to putin at this point.
Interesting listening to Cameron Smith’s take on proceedings in relation to Sunday’s debacle.He cited all the wrongs including the lack of decision on the kick-off which would have trumped all ensuing play where the match would have been settled there and then.
His outcome is to get rid of the captain’s challenge altogether.He maintains it is being rorted and perverted in light of its original intention as half the time it’s being used as a time waster amongst other things.Coaches and players alike are taking the piss.I couldn’t agree more,and I wonder if any of the hallowed administrators would be game enough to elucidate on bunker incursions re the captain’s challenge and set us all straight.I’m utterly confused.The bunker as it stands is an arbitrary and self contradictory beast across the board.Listening to Graham Annesley’s Monday round up,he spoke like an earnest but crafty politician,but for my way of thinking only further muddied the waters.
I
Interesting listening to Cameron Smith’s take on proceedings in relation to Sunday’s debacle.He cited all the wrongs including the lack of decision on the kick-off which would have trumped all ensuing play where the match would have been settled there and then.
His outcome is to get rid of the captain’s challenge altogether.He maintains it is being rorted and perverted in light of its original intention as half the time it’s being used as a time waster amongst other things.Coaches and players alike are taking the piss.I couldn’t agree more,and I wonder if any of the hallowed administrators would be game enough to elucidate on bunker incursions re the captain’s challenge and set us all straight.I’m utterly confused.The bunker as it stands is an arbitrary and self contradictory beast across the board.Listening to Graham Annesley’s Monday round up,he spoke like an earnest but crafty politician,but for my way of thinking only further muddied the waters.
I
I agree.
I was thinking a lot about it during the week, and I think the crux of the issue is the captain's challenge, not specifically the bunker. The CC pulls the bunker into decisions it would not normally allowed to be involved, and whilst I originally was open to the idea of a challenge, I agree it's being manipulated and often wasted.
Annesley said on his press conference the CC was introduced to reduce the number of mistakes made by refs, and provide a fair mechanism to overturn those errors. The metrics are something like 50% of CCs are successful, which they equate to meaning half of all challenged mistakes are corrected, which should be good.
But I think that analysis lacks depth, and I think Smith is on the mark. Those metrics also mean that 50% of challenges fail, so half the time we waste several minutes going over footage that only proves that the players were in fact wrong, we stop the game dead in it's tracks to facilitate this, and a significant number of the challenges are not just fruitless, they are pointless.
Of the half that are referred and found to be reasonable challenges, this doesn't necessarily mean 50% of calls are wrong, because some percentage of all successful challenges are in fact points of opinion / interpretation rather than clear error. And this is the crux of the issue. I would argue that the % of 50/50 calls (of all challenges)is actually quite high, because by definition, most challenges are non-obvious (i.e. if the ref cannot make an in-game determination, then it's likely that the issue is complex). Therefore a significant number of challenges are not simply "righting a wrong" they are asking the bunker to introduce an interpretation that wasn't otherwise necessary.
So not only is it a time-waster, it unnecessarily brings the bunker into more decisions, many of those decisions are 50/50 calls, and therefore by definition something like half of all fans disagree with the bunker's final call. It is much easier to digest and accept a 50/50 call made in the heat of a match by an on-field ref, they way it's been done for 100 years, compared to this highly technical slow-mo technology-aided breakdown that still does not result in decisive and accepted outcomes.
I'm definitely not saying to remove the bunker - keep it for background checks of tries (I think that works well when the ref makes a call, that is then checked) and keep it for auto-referrals of in-goal contests (I am happy for them to over-rule goal-line drop-outs, which are already a break in play). I would probably be ok for the bunker intervening in high shots, because we still need to try and protect players from concussion and foul play, but I would avoid using the bunker in any other scenario. Bunker should be present but never noticed.
The Wests Tigers have hired one of Australia’s leading silks, who was part of Jack de Belin’s legal team when he challenged the NRL’s no-fault stand-down rule, in a bid to overturn the result of their controversial game against the Cowboys.
Yaseen Shariff, SC, a prominent member of Sydney’s legal fraternity, has been engaged by the Tigers as they await a report from the NRL on the concluding stages of last Sunday’s game in Townsville.
The move is seen as the most significant yet from the Tigers to have the two competition points stripped from the finals-bound Cowboys after Valentine Holmes kicked an after-the-siren penalty goal to win the game.
NRL head of football Graham Annesley acknowledged the decision from bunker official Ashley Klein to penalise Asu Kepaoa for obstructing Kyle Feldt after a short kick-off was wrong, but defended the right for the Cowboys to use a captain’s challenge on the play.
Tigers chairman Lee Hagipantelis, the Brydens Lawyers principal, suggested the prospect of legal action after the game.
The club has now hired Shariff, who was appointed a special counsel in 2020, to act for them. The appointment is independent of Hagipantelis and his company.
Shariff, who also provides legal advice to federal government departments, has recently represented the Seven Network in its legal battle against former presenter Simon Reeve. He was part of de Belin’s appeal team, which featured Arthur Moses and Timothy Kane, when the St George Illawarra forward launched a Federal Court appeal against the validity of the NRL’s no-fault stand-down policy.
De Belin spent more than two years on the sidelines as he faced sexual assault charges before returning to the NRL. He faced two court trials, but neither jury was able to reach a majority verdict. The Director of Public Prosecutions then dropped the charges altogether.
On Friday afternoon, the Tigers were still waiting for the NRL to send a report which included audio and transcripts of communication between players, referee Chris Butler and video review officials from the final minutes against the Cowboys.
The Tigers lodged a formal complaint with the NRL on Monday. The ARL Commission has asked for a full report on the incident.
‘I’ve been speaking every day with Graham [Annesley] and they’re committed to responding to our formal complaint.’
Justin Pascoe
“I’ve been speaking every day with Graham [Annesley] and they’re committed to responding to our formal complaint,” Tigers chief executive Justin Pascoe said. “It’s important to us to make sure we receive the necessary material, as requested in our complaint, before we proceed to the next step.”
Klein was stood down from all refereeing and bunker duties this weekend. Butler will officiate the Knights-Bulldogs game in Newcastle on Sunday.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
The Wests Tigers have hired one of Australia’s leading silks, who was part of Jack de Belin’s legal team when he challenged the NRL’s no-fault stand-down rule, in a bid to overturn the result of their controversial game against the Cowboys.
Yaseen Shariff, SC, a prominent member of Sydney’s legal fraternity, has been engaged by the Tigers as they await a report from the NRL on the concluding stages of last Sunday’s game in Townsville.
The move is seen as the most significant yet from the Tigers to have the two competition points stripped from the finals-bound Cowboys after Valentine Holmes kicked an after-the-siren penalty goal to win the game.
NRL head of football Graham Annesley acknowledged the decision from bunker official Ashley Klein to penalise Asu Kepaoa for obstructing Kyle Feldt after a short kick-off was wrong, but defended the right for the Cowboys to use a captain’s challenge on the play.
Tigers chairman Lee Hagipantelis, the Brydens Lawyers principal, suggested the prospect of legal action after the game.
The club has now hired Shariff, who was appointed a special counsel in 2020, to act for them. The appointment is independent of Hagipantelis and his company.
Shariff, who also provides legal advice to federal government departments, has recently represented the Seven Network in its legal battle against former presenter Simon Reeve. He was part of de Belin’s appeal team, which featured Arthur Moses and Timothy Kane, when the St George Illawarra forward launched a Federal Court appeal against the validity of the NRL’s no-fault stand-down policy.
De Belin spent more than two years on the sidelines as he faced sexual assault charges before returning to the NRL. He faced two court trials, but neither jury was able to reach a majority verdict. The Director of Public Prosecutions then dropped the charges altogether.
On Friday afternoon, the Tigers were still waiting for the NRL to send a report which included audio and transcripts of communication between players, referee Chris Butler and video review officials from the final minutes against the Cowboys.
The Tigers lodged a formal complaint with the NRL on Monday. The ARL Commission has asked for a full report on the incident.
‘I’ve been speaking every day with Graham [Annesley] and they’re committed to responding to our formal complaint.’
Justin Pascoe
“I’ve been speaking every day with Graham [Annesley] and they’re committed to responding to our formal complaint,” Tigers chief executive Justin Pascoe said. “It’s important to us to make sure we receive the necessary material, as requested in our complaint, before we proceed to the next step.”
Klein was stood down from all refereeing and bunker duties this weekend. Butler will officiate the Knights-Bulldogs game in Newcastle on Sunday.
Glad to see the WTs are maintaining the rage.Really important that we make a statement here and set a precedent.
Also very curious to see how forthcoming the NRL will be in releasing the full audio from the bunker in accordance with our requests.
Smells rotten. Odds on that Klein tipped off the onfield referee. Will be a big problem for the NRL given that was after the “short whistle” so game was over
Interesting listening to Cameron Smith’s take on proceedings in relation to Sunday’s debacle.He cited all the wrongs including the lack of decision on the kick-off which would have trumped all ensuing play where the match would have been settled there and then.
His outcome is to get rid of the captain’s challenge altogether.He maintains it is being rorted and perverted in light of its original intention as half the time it’s being used as a time waster amongst other things.Coaches and players alike are taking the piss.I couldn’t agree more,and I wonder if any of the hallowed administrators would be game enough to elucidate on bunker incursions re the captain’s challenge and set us all straight.I’m utterly confused.The bunker as it stands is an arbitrary and self contradictory beast across the board.Listening to Graham Annesley’s Monday round up,he spoke like an earnest but crafty politician,but for my way of thinking only further muddied the waters.
I
I agree.
I was thinking a lot about it during the week, and I think the crux of the issue is the captain's challenge, not specifically the bunker. The CC pulls the bunker into decisions it would not normally allowed to be involved, and whilst I originally was open to the idea of a challenge, I agree it's being manipulated and often wasted.
Annesley said on his press conference the CC was introduced to reduce the number of mistakes made by refs, and provide a fair mechanism to overturn those errors. The metrics are something like 50% of CCs are successful, which they equate to meaning half of all challenged mistakes are corrected, which should be good.
But I think that analysis lacks depth, and I think Smith is on the mark. Those metrics also mean that 50% of challenges fail, so half the time we waste several minutes going over footage that only proves that the players were in fact wrong, we stop the game dead in it's tracks to facilitate this, and a significant number of the challenges are not just fruitless, they are pointless.
Of the half that are referred and found to be reasonable challenges, this doesn't necessarily mean 50% of calls are wrong, because some percentage of all successful challenges are in fact points of opinion / interpretation rather than clear error. And this is the crux of the issue. I would argue that the % of 50/50 calls (of all challenges)is actually quite high, because by definition, most challenges are non-obvious (i.e. if the ref cannot make an in-game determination, then it's likely that the issue is complex). Therefore a significant number of challenges are not simply "righting a wrong" they are asking the bunker to introduce an interpretation that wasn't otherwise necessary.
So not only is it a time-waster, it unnecessarily brings the bunker into more decisions, many of those decisions are 50/50 calls, and therefore by definition something like half of all fans disagree with the bunker's final call. It is much easier to digest and accept a 50/50 call made in the heat of a match by an on-field ref, they way it's been done for 100 years, compared to this highly technical slow-mo technology-aided breakdown that still does not result in decisive and accepted outcomes.
I'm definitely not saying to remove the bunker - keep it for background checks of tries (I think that works well when the ref makes a call, that is then checked) and keep it for auto-referrals of in-goal contests (I am happy for them to over-rule goal-line drop-outs, which are already a break in play). I would probably be ok for the bunker intervening in high shots, because we still need to try and protect players from concussion and foul play, but I would avoid using the bunker in any other scenario. Bunker should be present but never noticed.
Great post. I really don’t understand the role of the bunker. I was under the impression that it was their to avoid the “ howler” but it now gets involved willy nilly in incidents it should stay out of. The bunker should just focus on high shots, grounding of the ball and touchlines, things that the refs are likely to miss.
