JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Refs don't know R's from their elbows

"No try": An unsighted Shayne Hayne ruled against the Storm's Sisa Waqa who grounded the ball against the Rabbitohs on Friday.

"No try": An unsighted Shayne Hayne ruled against the Storm's Sisa Waqa who grounded the ball against the Rabbitohs on Friday. Photo: Getty Images

Referees in the NRL have a problem with reading and arithmetic. Not only can't they count, they don't know the rules.

Cronulla were gifted a try on the seventh tackle in a semi-final against North Queensland on Saturday night, while South Sydney benefited from a no-try decision against Melbourne that was a clear breach of the rules.

This year's edition of the NRL's Rugby League Laws of the Game, International Level with Notes on the Laws of the NRL Telstra Premiership makes this clear.

A footnote on page 12 under the subheading ''Referee unsighted'', reads: ''The referee should not disallow a try because he was not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.''

Referee Shayne Hayne was unsighted when he made a ruling against the Storm's Sisa Waqa who grounded the ball in the Rabbitohs' in-goal in Friday's semi-final.

Hayne's no-try signal to the video referees gave the men in the box no room to move because the video evidence was inconclusive.

The rules clearly obligate Hayne to signal a try immediately, or indicate to the video referees ''we have a try'' and allow them to make further judgment, which, in the Waqa case, would have resulted in a try.

It was a cruel ruling at a time the Storm needed to get back into the game, but made more inexcusable because it happened only a month earlier.

Manly's Steve Matai was denied a try in almost identical circumstances in a round 23 match. This was the game after which Sea Eagles coach Geoff Toovey went ballistic and was fined by the NRL.

A month has passed and the mistake has been duplicated.

Who was the beneficiary of the ruling in the Sea Eagles match? Souths. And who was one of the referees on the field ignorant of the rule? Shayne Hayne.

To be fair, it was his co-referee, Henry Perenara, who made the ruling but - in the double negative language in which the rules are written - we can't be sure Hayne didn't play a role.

Souths won the penalties 10-5, prompting Sea Eagles fans to send the hat around to cover Toovey's fines in the next four matches.

Melbourne fans point out they may have to do the same, although coach Craig Bellamy's dignified manner at the post-match press conference on Friday night suggests this won't be necessary.

Souths have played the Storm five times over the past two seasons, with Hayne refereeing four of these games.

Round two last year, penalties Souths 7-3; finals last year, Souths 9-8; round six this year, Souths 10-5; finals this year, Souths 8-7.

A penalty count can be deceiving, as we saw on Friday night when a run of them for one team builds an insurmountable lead.

Hayne has refereed Souths 12 times over the past two years. Souths won the penalty count nine times for a total of 78-59.

Accusations of referee bias in rugby league are not new, nor are seven-tackle tries, although we have to go back to 1978 to find the last occasion. (Significantly, it was the year of rugby league's most controversial officiating).

What is new is social media and the speed with which fans react, one pointing out that Souths have won the penalty count the past four times Hayne refereed them … a total of 36 penalties for and 23 against. The last eight times Hayne has refereed Souths, the Rabbitohs won the penalty count seven times (59-38).

Putting aside the Waqa/Matai no tries, why does such a ''referee unsighted'' note exist in the NRL rules at all, given we have video referees? If it is not to be used in the Matai or Waqa decisions, when is it to be used? Is it a vestigial benefit of the doubt rule, subsequently forgotten or ignored?

The old rule makers, who developed laws on the basis of probability, had the same game sense as today's players who recognise evidence is now the key and block the view of TV cameras if they think the opposition has scored a try.

But we will continue to see a player hold the ball close to his chest, dive to ground in the in-goal for a try, with the ball now completely hidden under his body, while a NRL referee rules ''no try'' because he can't actually see the ball hit the ground.

More tries will be lost, games probably won, coaches fined and referees allowed to flout a rule while no one at NRL headquarters does anything.

71 comments so far

  • Yep, no doubt about it. The NRL will go to any lengths to hand Souths their first title in four decades.

    The players surely won't have earned it.

    I mean, how could they. The likes of Inglis, Sam & Tom Burgess, Luke & George Burgess. Useless, all of them. And as for the two little guys, Reynolds & Isaac Luke, don't get me started Mr Masters! They're lucky not to be playing for the North Sydney bears.

    Not to mention that Souths don't have any local boys in the team, they've bought them all like the Roosters, and Manly in the good old days.

    Yep, it's all a fix up, you and JT are right on the money.

    And I should know. I have irrefutable evidence there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, AND that George Dubbya orchestrated 9/11. Yeah, no doubt about it.

    I've had it with the NRL, I'm going to put my money where I know I've got a fair chance, like Victorian soccer or something like that.

    Date and time
    September 16, 2013, 12:50AM
    • Hahahaha no local boys? Merritt, Walker, Sutton, Reynolds, Clark all 'local boys'. Souths have more juniors than any of the other top 4 teams currently contesting the title. Check your facts before you run your mouth off. Get yourself a tin foil hat while you're at it!

      You're kidding right?
      Date and time
      September 16, 2013, 9:59AM
    • It good to hear from a Souths fan who can face the the truth.

      Date and time
      September 16, 2013, 10:57AM
    • Your Kidding Right doesn't do sarcasm obviously!!!!

      Date and time
      September 16, 2013, 11:56AM
    • Fixing the result of a professional sport should be dealt with severely. Referees that are deliberately influencing the result of a game should be locked up. This matter needs to be investigated thoroughly and the results need to be made public asap. I now have no confidence in any NRL result and all betting should cease and money refunded.

      Date and time
      September 16, 2013, 1:21PM
    • Roy, there was a 7th tackle try in the 1995 grand final between Manly and Canterbury, which was scored by Canterbury (who won the game 17-4 and were the only team to keep Manly tryless all season).

      Jamie Lyon was interviewed onfield following the Souths game. When asked about the Matai try Lyon said 'That's footy!'

      Thurston and the Cowboys might like to take a leaf out of the book of one of the mentally toughest teams in the comp.

      Bottom Line
      Date and time
      September 16, 2013, 3:31PM
  • Yeah well said Roy. Bellamy and Smith could've and should've blown up at that press conference on Friday night after those two no try decisions, but they held their nerve. Good on them. And good to see some true sportsmanship.

    Date and time
    September 16, 2013, 3:29AM
    • i think it has a lot to do with the fact it was not an elimination game. Storm can come back next week for another chance so there's no advantage in whinging now. They are playing the off-field game they know so well. the Storm are the last team with any credibility in complaints, given their history of convicted cheating. If it was an elimination, I think the complaints would have come thick and fast from Bellamy.

      Date and time
      September 16, 2013, 11:10AM
  • I agree with the refs.

    Roy, I didnt see any proof of a try in the 2 examples you cite. I acknowledge they might have scored but thats not good enuff for me. No try!

    Date and time
    September 16, 2013, 4:47AM
    • you may well be right. that's not what masters is arguing. the ref himself was not in position to see and to make a clear ruling himself so he is not allowed (as in that's what the rules read) to call it no try. because he could not see it he is not allowed to rule no try.

      interested observer
      Date and time
      September 16, 2013, 11:50AM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

Related Coverage

Follow Us on Facebook

Featured advertisers