A game for the working class, run by lawyers and video refs
June 5th 2009 05:30
In the heart of AFL territory and with a sold out crowd, the moments leading up to the first game of the origin series undoubtedly wet the appetites for any rugby league fan. Fans that have had to deal with endless scandal both on and off the field throughout this season and the seasons previous. Truly state of origin has grown to be one moment in the modern game where nothing else matters but the ultimate showcase of how great the game of rugby league can be.
The most prevalent point of the matter is the fact that they needed seven or eight views of the footage to make a decision, by which point the fans, the players and even the commentators where showing their impatience. Being myself a passionate supporter of Queensland, even I was screaming at the television for the try to be awarded by the time the fifth or sixth replay was re-shown. But as it seems now in recent times, the rule of relentless interpretation won out as the try was disallowed.
Digressing however, I suppose the issue of modern interpretation overkill by the referee’s; rearing its ugly head at origin should not have been such a surprise. Because really, we should be immune to it by now.
In the span of a few months we have had decisions involving the Bulldogs’ late try being disallowed due to obstruction. South Sydney being denied their last nine seconds of play in the dying moments of golden point against Parramatta. And Matt Orford being penalised for challenging for the ball against Preston Campbell to ensure a Titan victory against the Sea-Eagles.
Now I was at the Titans-Manly game and was having a ball laughing at the guttered Sea-Eagle’s fans when Orford was penalised, that was until I got home and saw the replay and agreed that yes, Manly were robbed. In regards to the Bulldogs-Dragon’s incident, I think both teams and their fans were left guttered by the video ref’s interpretation.
Rugby League is not black and white. Nor should it be. It favours fast pace, big hits and high emotion and to allow those elements to roam freely you need a large degree of discretion. To have the referee’s trying to interpret decisions either on the field or in the video ref box based on the black and white law of the rule box is detrimental to the above aforementioned elements of league.
A prevalent example of that is the incident in the Souths-Parramatta game. If the referee had used discretion and his ‘common-sense’ he would have allowed the bunnies one last play like they deserved. That’s what the fans would have wanted. I dare say the vast majority of Eels fans would have wanted it that way as well, despite the high probability of a Souths win. But again the referee applied the black and white approach.
But once again the fans walked away feeling robbed. Not only robbed of a win, but robbed of the climactic conclusion that these games deserved! Now, the game has always had controversy and the referee’s have always been culprits of bad decision making, but the mounting blunders in recent times are not just bad interpretations or mistakes; they are pulling at the life strings of the game itself.
Would Greg Hartley, despite all the accusations of bias and favuoritism, rule in the same way? Surely not. At least he would have the common sense to realise that the game is a spectacle and that it was not the bunnies, but the game itself that deserved the final nine seconds.
Have the modern referee’s got it wrong? Yes! Are the games administrators to blame? Most definitely!
It seems to defy common logic to have a bunch of lawyers controlling a game like rugby league. Gone are the days where the game was run by Kevin Humphries, a former player for the Balmain Tigers, and in later years by Ken Arthurson and John Quayle who had also played first grade. These men presided over the glory years of our game. But the introduction of suits as CEO’s is a last remaining inheritance from Super League.
Can someone who has not played the game run the game? Do they have a feel of the game? Can they ever understand the true spirit of the game? If they have never fought or bleed for their club, their state, or their country, could they ever have a sincere passion for it? To some of these points you could argue ‘yes’.
But rugby league is not about rule books. It’s not about the black and white. And some aspects of the game cannot be written down on a piece of paper. Or printed in a rule book. They are instinctive. They are unwritten. They are a feeling. Some of which you cannot explain, but you still know. That’s rugby league.
It is these aspects of the game that binds long time and passionate fans together, although with players, former players and students of the game. If you see an incident on the field, you instantly know the correct ruling. But not because you read it in a rule book.
Why do the referee’s feel as though they need to reinvent the wheel? Or maybe it is just because they do not understand. And who is there to keep them in check? David Gallop? Surely not! He’s too busy organising forums for players on how to ‘respect women’. The Four Corners interview of a Newcastle Knights player proved whether or not they were working…
As fans and players, former players and coaches cry outrage, does the NRL listen? To an extent yes. But is that the issue? Is it a case of whether or not they are listening? I don’t believe so. I believe they should not even need to listen. They should already know…
| 25 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
