About time someone in the media said this.

[Snake]

I don't think its a case of organised corruption within the NRL, more a case of favouritism towards certain teams on the day combined with ref ineptness.

How many times do we see/hear a home crowd complaining loudly, trying to get a penalty for their team & the refs eventually giving one 1 or 2 tackles later?

Likewise, one of the top teams on a roll & being allowed to step off the mark to play the ball or play it messily & not be pulled up for it?

The inconsistency in applying the profesional foul/10 in the bin rule when defending teams deliberately foul to slow down the play the ball is another - some refs warn after 2 penalties that the next one is in the bin, other refs send off at the first one, while others just continue to penalise with no further action - is this another area that's up to the ref's discretion?

I'm not directing this at you but just making a general observation about perceived favouritism -

I've noticed a lot of people don't understand the rules around the policing of the ruck. They know the general rules but not the 'interpretation' that is left to the referees discretion. That is, they see every ruck as comparable; in their eyes, If one ruck is fast and one is slow, there is inconsistency.

The interpretation of the ruck is based on many factors, but basically, if a player runs into the defence and skittles defenders before find their front, they will be allowed to get up and play the ball quicker. If the defenders are left on the ground and in the way and the attacking player happens to step over the markers, the referee will let it pass; the logic being, they'd only have to blow a penalty against the defenders not clearing the ruck anyway. This is just one example, but essentially, the team that is performing strongly will get leeway in the ruck because that's what the ruck interpretation is designed to do; reward dominance.

Thus, good sides like the Roosters, Melbourne, Penrith and co. look to be the beneficiaries of bias, when it's just a case of playing better footy. If you win the contact in the ruck, you'll get the rub of the green.

Of course, they get it wrong from time to time and yes, the bunker make some howlers...get rid of the bunker...but that's an argument for another day.

 

[Brookie Bob]

I'm not directing this at you but just making a general observation about perceived favouritism -

I've noticed a lot of people don't understand the rules around the policing of the ruck. They know the general rules but not the 'interpretation' that is left to the referees discretion. That is, they see every ruck as comparable; in their eyes, If one ruck is fast and one is slow, there is inconsistency.

The interpretation of the ruck is based on many factors, but basically, if a player runs into the defence and skittles defenders before find their front, they will be allowed to get up and play the ball quicker. If the defenders are left on the ground and in the way and the attacking player happens to step over the markers, the referee will let it pass; the logic being, they'd only have to blow a penalty against the defenders not clearing the ruck anyway. This is just one example, but essentially, the team that is performing strongly will get leeway in the ruck because that's what the ruck interpretation is designed to do; reward dominance.

Thus, good sides like the Roosters, Melbourne, Penrith and co. look to be the beneficiaries of bias, when it's just a case of playing better footy. If you win the contact in the ruck, you'll get the rub of the green.

Of course, they get it wrong from time to time and yes, the bunker make some howlers...get rid of the bunker...but that's an argument for another day.

Therefore the very interpretation of 'dominance' by one team over another is subjective to some degree and open to interpretation. And that interpretation is applied unequally amongst some teams versus another - in-spite of the performances of said teams on a given day.

In other words, the Panthers are the referees 'little darlings' at the moment. Conscious bias can be called corruption, and I don't think that is what is happening here.

There is a lot of leeway for unconscious (negative or positive) bias in our game though. Get a timer out and time how long it takes Jake T to get off a tackled player. From my observations, he takes no longer than 99.5% of all RL forwards of similar size. But I can't count the number of times I've heard a referee screech, "get off 'em, Jake!!" in the course of a game, when other players are ignored. And Jake's tackles are usually dominant, effective tackles - which according to the above ruck theories, should be rewarded.

I have little doubt that the so-called 'successful' teams (i.e. Roosters, Melbourne, Penrith & co) are 'selling' their 'dominance' in attack and defence better to the referees. If even Trent Barrett can come out and say that from now one he may start to think about coaching his players to 'stay down' to gain favorable decisions, shows that coaches don't think that a 'fair go' is universally applied by referees to all teams at the moment - and it's not linked to on-field dominance or lack of it. Let's just call it ............'unconscious bias'. How to eradicate it? Good question. Maybe start a 'Manly Lives Matter' movement, and print some t-shirts. Who knows.

Maybe Des should send the players to NIDA to get better on-field decisions for us.

 

[Snake]

Therefore the very interpretation of 'dominance' by one team over another is subjective to some degree and open to interpretation. And that interpretation is applied unequally amongst some teams versus another - in-spite of the performances of said teams on a given day.

In other words, the Panthers are the referees 'little darlings' at the moment. Conscious bias can be called corruption, and I don't think that is what is happening here.

There is a lot of leeway for unconscious (negative or positive) bias in our game though. Get a timer out and time how long it takes Jake T to get off a tackled player. From my observations, he takes no longer than 99.5% of all RL forwards of similar size. But I can't count the number of times I've heard a referee screech, "get off 'em, Jake!!" in the course of a game, when other players are ignored. And Jake's tackles are usually dominant, effective tackles - which according to the above ruck theories, should be rewarded.

I have little doubt that the so-called 'successful' teams (i.e. Roosters, Melbourne, Penrith & co) are 'selling' their 'dominance' in attack and defence better to the referees. If even Trent Barrett can come out and say that from now one he may start to think about coaching his players to 'stay down' to gain favorable decisions, shows that coaches don't think that a 'fair go' is universally applied by referees to all teams at the moment - and it's not linked to on-field dominance or lack of it. Let's just call it ............'unconscious bias'. How to eradicate it? Good question. Maybe start a 'Manly Lives Matter' movement, and print some t-shirts. Who knows.

Maybe Des should send the players to NIDA to get better on-field decisions for us.

Penrith have dominated the last couple of years but they missed the finals when Cleary first went back there...if they’re NRL darlings, did the refs just forget that was the case in 2019?

No.

Penrith are perceived NRL darlings because they are playing smart, up tempo footy and winning the ruck...therefore, they get the rub of the green around the ruck...not because of unconscious and/or conscious bias, but because the rules (or ruck interpretation) are designed to reward the team playing the best football on the day.

When I watched the game on Friday night, it was clear the Chooks were running harder, getting off their line in defence and winning majority of the contact...so of course, they were given liberties around the ruck...not because they’re darlings, but because they earned it.

 

[manly al]

Unfortunately Manly can 't cite the factor of favouritism or bias in any of their outings this season , outplayed in the ruck area , largely, outplayed all round , Had a mountain of possession on the Rooster 's line for a good portion of the mid 2 nd half , couldn 't execute probably , couldn 't organize properly especially utilizing Turbo . More a case of looking inside for improvement or most likely better team selections then outside excuses .

 

[Brookie Bob]

"This is just one example, but essentially, the team that is performing strongly will get leeway in the ruck because that's what the ruck interpretation is designed to do; reward dominance."

Let's see if I've got this right, based on the above statement.

The referee is then making on the run subjective judgements on one team 'winning the ruck' versus the other team 'losing the ruck'. And rewarding the team that he/she thinks is 'winning the ruck', whilst penalizing the the team in the context of the game that he/she thinks are 'losing the ruck'.

Pretty much would influence the outcome of most games, I would think.

If one team plays like a dead snail and the other like a pack of greyhounds, well, I get it.

How 'dominant' do you have to be to get 'the rub of the green'? Fifty per cent? One hundred per cent? One per cent? The very nature of the statement 'rub of the green' strongly implies favoritism of one team over another within the context of a game. So if the ref thinks you're dominating the ruck you get better decisions? 'Leeway'......'rub of the green'...........'given liberties'.....

If a continuous series of on the run, subjective assessments which dole out the 'rub of the green' in terms of the ruck are stacked in favour of certain teams versus others, perhaps closer scrutiny is required. Maybe 'the law is an ass' in terms of the current rules of the NRL relative to ruck interpretation. Because it is so subjective. It's not a clear-cut, 'this team is playing better that that team' thing. Time to re-do these grey area 'ruck interpretation rules', which can easily decide a game.

Leave the 'dominance' rules to 40-20's, or other things.

We've got enough problems with forward passes, stripped balls, inside-shoulder vs outside shoulder decoy plays, 'is it high contact or not', 'contact in the air', 'contact with the kicker', 'shepherding off the ball', 'is he or is he not concussed'.............all apparently subjective areas as well. I'm sure there are more.

The last thing we need is an area where a ref can start giving one team 'leeway' or the 'rub of the green' versus another.

 

[Brookie Bob]

There's no way systematic cheating and fixing of results could take place at NRL HQ and filter its way down to the refereeing ranks. The number of people involved and the variables would mean that sooner or later it would get out and the game would be brought to its knees...it would require a large number of people to be in cahoots and all it would take is one whistle-blower and the game would be destroyed. No way would they risk that. The money involved would see people in jail.

Like cricket in Pakistan (in the past, of course)

 

[Tragic Eagle]

No team should get the rub of the green because of dominance. The rules are the rules and the moment you leave it to the interpretation of the referees the rules become plasticine in the hands of the persons administering them. I can't believe that its being openly discussed that teams that are dominant are given more latitude with the application of the rules. It logically follows doesn't it that teams that are dominated are not going to get such latitude and are more likely then to be penalized and subject of six again calls. It is not okay in any circumstance. I always thought that the rules are to ensure that everybody is playing on a level playing field. Oops I forgot these words fell out of favor some time ago. Remove discretion altogether otherwise there is no consistency. Oops I forgot consistency has also considered to be overrated.

 

[47MVEagle]

I'm not directing this at you but just making a general observation about perceived favouritism -

I've noticed a lot of people don't understand the rules around the policing of the ruck. They know the general rules but not the 'interpretation' that is left to the referees discretion. That is, they see every ruck as comparable; in their eyes, If one ruck is fast and one is slow, there is inconsistency.

The interpretation of the ruck is based on many factors, but basically, if a player runs into the defence and skittles defenders before find their front, they will be allowed to get up and play the ball quicker. If the defenders are left on the ground and in the way and the attacking player happens to step over the markers, the referee will let it pass; the logic being, they'd only have to blow a penalty against the defenders not clearing the ruck anyway. This is just one example, but essentially, the team that is performing strongly will get leeway in the ruck because that's what the ruck interpretation is designed to do; reward dominance.

Thus, good sides like the Roosters, Melbourne, Penrith and co. look to be the beneficiaries of bias, when it's just a case of playing better footy. If you win the contact in the ruck, you'll get the rub of the green.

Of course, they get it wrong from time to time and yes, the bunker make some howlers...get rid of the bunker...but that's an argument for another day.

Thanks for your effort in explaining this - I had a basic understanding of it but now feel more informed.

That said, in your example of the player skittling defenders & getting up quickly to play the ball, sure I understand that however, that player stepping over the defender who is attempting to get up to mark the attacker should not be allowed, because it immediately disadvantages the defending team by taking out the A marker, who has to freeze on the ground for fear of being penalised.

In saying that, I've seen some refs allow this while others stop play & insist the attacking player goes back to play the mark so again, its an area of inconsistency that needs to be addressed IMO.

 

[47MVEagle]

Remember when not playing the ball North-South was immediately penalised?

Now they let it go in the quest for faster football, so a team playing the ball quickly benefits twice - no penalty for incorrect PTB & the advantage of being allowed to play it quickly, which puts the defending team on the back foot exponentially as each ensuing tackle occurs, usually resulting in a 6 again call which further compounds the disadvantage to the defending team.

No wonder a game can be won within the first 20 minutes these days, its basically musical chairs, the first team to 'sit down' leaves the other team standing & left out.

 

[Snake]

that player stepping over the defender who is attempting to get up to mark the attacker should not be allowed, because it immediately disadvantages the defending team by taking out the A marker, who has to freeze on the ground for fear of being penalised.

Coaches train their players in 'body position' during a tackle with the aim of 'peeling' off from on top of the tackled player first so you can get to marker whilst the opposition is busy getting themselves up to play the ball. I've seen coaches directly show players a method of placing a hand on the tackled player to push off whilst standing at marker. Thus, slowing down the ruck further and allowing the markers to set for the next play.

So, if you are a defender that has somehow finished on the wrong end of contact, generally, you will be on the ground whilst the attacking player is ready to play the ball. This is again where the interpretation rewards the attacking player who has managed to leave defenders in their wake. Therefore, the best way to avoid being disadvantaged by a player stepping over you whilst you're on the ground, is to win the contact and peel off from on top of the attacker, rather than end up underneath them.

It's essentially just another example of the player who wins contact, gets rub of the green. In theory, the occasions where they tell a player to return to the mark, will be instances where the attacker didn't win the contact, but attempts to take advantage anyway, i.e, simultaneous rising of both attacker and markers but attacker steps off the mark to gain advantage.

 

[Snake]

No team should get the rub of the green because of dominance. The rules are the rules and the moment you leave it to the interpretation of the referees the rules become plasticine in the hands of the persons administering them. I can't believe that its being openly discussed that teams that are dominant are given more latitude with the application of the rules. It logically follows doesn't it that teams that are dominated are not going to get such latitude and are more likely then to be penalized and subject of six again calls. It is not okay in any circumstance. I always thought that the rules are to ensure that everybody is playing on a level playing field. Oops I forgot these words fell out of favor some time ago. Remove discretion altogether otherwise there is no consistency. Oops I forgot consistency has also considered to be overrated.

The entire fabric of the game is based on ruck dominance; this is not some unwritten law we are talking about, it's written into the current rule book. The 'rub of the green' is just an old idiom we use to describe the part of the rule book that says that the player who wins contact at the ruck, gets to play the ball quicker than the guy who gets burried by three defenders who finish on top and peel off.

That's the game we are playing...that's how you win. You dominate the ruck. It's been happening since 1908. The ruck is the 'game' we are playing. Two teams. They run into each other and if you run harder and win contact, you get rewarded. That's the game?! It's not a new science and an additional aspect that's been tacked onto things recently. Why do you think it's hard for halves and backs to attack when there is no platform? You win the ruck and it speeds up and you have more time and space to throw the ball around in an attempt to put the ball over the opposition's white line.

 

[Brookie Bob]

After the panthers domination last week, it was obvious that calls seemed to fall their way-as did the amount of time players could spend slowing down the ruck.
below is an excerpt from Paul Crawley's column today:

DRAGONS FARCE EXPOSES BATTLING CLUBS’ ANGER

No wonder battling NRL clubs don’t think they get a fair go.

A week after Gold Coast coach Justin Holbrook took aim at the NRL for the Titans not getting an even crack when it comes to the 50/50 calls, it was well and truly exposed at Kogarah again on Friday night.

And St George Illawarra has every right to be filthy.

Privately, the Dragons have been told over the weekend that they were on the wrong side of several crucial calls during their 20-16 loss to the premiers.

And the first half sin binning of Jaydn Su’A wasn’t the only contentious call that went against them.

The Dragons were also told Zac Lomax should not have been sin binned when he took a player off the ball because it was not a genuine try scoring situation.

While if Ben Hunt would have stayed down after late contact he could have also milked a sin binning.

Throw in the fact the Panthers got three set restarts but the Dragons just one, when it was clear to all watching the game the Panthers were getting away with blue murder at the ruck.

But let’s go back to the Su’a sin binning because that is the call that was ultimately match-defining.

The hit on Panthers playmaker Sean O’Sullivan was not late. It was not even high.

And it should not have been a penalty, let alone a sin bin.

Yet because O’Sullivan stayed down Su’A was marched.

It was a disgraceful call.
here is the link to the rest of it:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-tackle-round-2-teams-fume-over-referee-inconsistencies-jaydn-sua-sin-bin/news-story/7e36b9b17f7452ffcdaa807754bb1ec0

The article above is not disputing the advantages of speed (or 'dominance') in attack or defense, or even the premise of 'ruck dominance'.

What it is raising - and what I was echoing - is that the subjective nature of refereeing (I would say particularly in light of new rules designed to make the game faster) may lead to repeated referee calls favoring one side over another - no-doubt leading to the score blow-outs we've seen in the last two years. Holbrook and the Hook - and Paul Crawley - all agree. Maybe not the best canaries in the mine on this issue, but I'll listen.

Do the referees consciously do this - as referenced above? ("No wonder battling NRL clubs don't think they get a fair go"). We would absolutely hope not - that would be corruption. Time to go and find another sport to talk about.

But if you're a referee, and you've refereed a team before, you will have an unconscious bias - not against that team, but against particular players, based upon your previous interactions with them.
They have to overcome that. Not easy. ("Cement truck", anyone? There's gotta be an investigation....).

And - unconscious bias is a reality that we all have, on everything, all the time. It's part of what makes us human.Everyone on this forum has it, that's one reason why we are here. Even if you're writing a PhD, it will be scrutinized for 'unconscious bias' - and if it's perceived to have enough, it's back to the drawing board for you.

Only way to police all of this is to look at every ruck and every ruck infringement from every match for adherence to the rules of the game, and benchmark that against the referees concerned. Apart from a mountain of work, there's a lot of variables: the teams concerned, the fans in the stands, the type of game (NRL rounds vs SOO), obviously the referee. You would think that the rules (of the ruck) are both clear and standardized, but obviously they are open to interpretation.

@47MVEagle nailed it in one word - 'inconsistency'. That's the word that makes the fans on here and elsewhere get frustrated with the competition. It's always been there, every team has benefited from it at one time or another. Perhaps the rules are so 'subjective' that 'discretionary powers' are called for. Just as well we have a Captain's challenge now.

Can it all be done better? I'd like to think so.

 

[Snake]

The article above is not disputing the advantages of speed (or 'dominance') in attack or defense, or even the premise of 'ruck dominance'.

What it is raising - and what I was echoing - is that the subjective nature of refereeing (I would say particularly in light of new rules designed to make the game faster) may lead to repeated referee calls favoring one side over another - no-doubt leading to the score blow-outs we've seen in the last two years. Holbrook and the Hook - and Paul Crawley - all agree. Maybe not the best canaries in the mine on this issue, but I'll listen.

Do the referees consciously do this - as referenced above? ("No wonder battling NRL clubs don't think they get a fair go"). We would absolutely hope not - that would be corruption. Time to go and find another sport to talk about.

But if you're a referee, and you've refereed a team before, you will have an unconscious bias - not against that team, but against particular players, based upon your previous interactions with them.
They have to overcome that. Not easy. ("Cement truck", anyone? There's gotta be an investigation....).

And - unconscious bias is a reality that we all have, on everything, all the time. It's part of what makes us human.Everyone on this forum has it, that's one reason why we are here. Even if you're writing a PhD, it will be scrutinized for 'unconscious bias' - and if it's perceived to have enough, it's back to the drawing board for you.

Only way to police all of this is to look at every ruck and every ruck infringement from every match for adherence to the rules of the game, and benchmark that against the referees concerned. Apart from a mountain of work, there's a lot of variables: the teams concerned, the fans in the stands, the type of game (NRL rounds vs SOO), obviously the referee. You would think that the rules (of the ruck) are both clear and standardized, but obviously they are open to interpretation.

@47MVEagle nailed it in one word - 'inconsistency'. That's the word that makes the fans on here and elsewhere get frustrated with the competition. It's always been there, every team has benefited from it at one time or another. Perhaps the rules are so 'subjective' that 'discretionary powers' are called for. Just as well we have a Captain's challenge now.

Can it all be done better? I'd like to think so.

No trying to start a provocative back and forth, as you raise a relevant issue...

For me personally, I think referee blaming is 'learned behaviour' from the Telegraph and other media outlets who thrive on controversy to sell papers and subscriptions. When I was a boy, all the paper talked about was the result on the weekend and the great performances of players on the field. Now, it's all about off-field misdemeanours (take the non-event story about James Roberts on a poker machine for example) and referee mistakes. Why? Because they need a 'story' nowadays. The on-field theatre just won't cut it for some anymore. There has to be a crisis in the ranks.

Also, coaches blame the referees for a number of reasons...simple anger, protecting their players, appeasing fans, and attempting to shift blame.

The referees and bunker are human and will make mistakes. If a team is dudded by a bad call, that's footy and we move on. Across the course of a season, you'll get some calls that go your way and some that don't. It's all part of the game. But again, that's just my opinion. It's certainly a discussion worth having.

 

[Brookie Bob]

No trying to start a provocative back and forth, as you raise a relevant issue...

For me personally, I think referee blaming is 'learned behaviour' from the Telegraph and other media outlets who thrive on controversy to sell papers and subscriptions. When I was a boy, all the paper talked about was the result on the weekend and the great performances of players on the field. Now, it's all about off-field misdemeanours (take the non-event story about James Roberts on a poker machine for example) and referee mistakes. Why? Because they need a 'story' nowadays. The on-field theatre just won't cut it for some anymore. There has to be a crisis in the ranks.

Also, coaches blame the referees for a number of reasons...simple anger, protecting their players, appeasing fans, and attempting to shift blame.

The referees and bunker are human and will make mistakes. If a team is dudded by a bad call, that's footy and we move on. Across the course of a season, you'll get some calls that go your way and some that don't. It's all part of the game. But again, that's just my opinion. It's certainly a discussion worth having.

No problem - you've been one of my favorite posters on here since you started in 2015.

I don't read the Terrorgraph, though, and I'm not one to participate in a pile-on that reinforces some herd behavior - especially from those sensationalism merchants.

My questions relate more to an increasing incidence (perception of mine rather than hard stats) of puzzling and very inconsistent refereeing decisions. They've always been there - I've been watching the team for over 50 years - but the inconsistency appears to be on the rise. Again, that's just from watching it on Kayo / Channel Nein. So my opinions are from what I see.

I agree that we didn't play well enough to beat the Panthers or the Chooks. Both of them played very well. We didn't match their intensity for the 80 minutes, and got what we got. I do also think that we went a little better than than the scoreline indicated. As I said to another Manly fan, "the Panthers played to their strengths, and didn't allow us to play to ours", which is what we did to the Storm in the 2008 GF.

Looking forward to a win this weekend, and some more good discussion.

 

[Brookie Bob]

'Unconscious bias' raises it's ugly head again (apparently it may exist):

‘Been saying it for years’: Kent throws support behind Payten’s bombshell claims

‘Been saying it for years’: Kent throws support behind Payten’s bombshell claims

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Brissie Kid]

Penrith are perceived NRL darlings because they are playing smart, up tempo footy and winning the ruck...therefore, they get the rub of the green around the ruck...not because of unconscious and/or conscious bias, but because the rules (or ruck interpretation) are designed to reward the team playing the best football on the day.

The thing is, while all in club land are getting jolly about winning and losing the ruck, all the fans and viewers are switching off 'cos they want to see a game of rugby league, not a game of ruck/wrestle ball.

 

[Brissie Kid]

'Unconscious bias' raises it's ugly head again (apparently it may exist):

‘Been saying it for years’: Kent throws support behind Payten’s bombshell claims

‘Been saying it for years’: Kent throws support behind Payten’s bombshell claims

www.foxsports.com.au

The thing is, the NRL can't seem to see what is really going on.

When there was very few kickers jumping in the air when they kicked the ball, and even fewer getting belted dangerously by tacklers, the NRL introduced a rule that it's a penalty if you tackle a kicker in the air.

So now, ALL OF THE KICKERS kickers jump in the air when kicking the ball, especially some clubs.

So, you gotta ask, has the NRL made kickers safer, or just encouraged them to jump in the air in the hope of milking a penalty, while actually risking the injury the rule was meant to prevent.

 

[DSM5]

If referees didn’t matter in the game, then why do their names get printed? Obviously, when you’re considering a punt, you look at whos’s refereeing that game. Point is, I worry when Atkins is referring a Manly game against Parramatta given his father played for the Slime.
Unconscious bias is a thing, and there are programs to counter. Don’t know if the NRL even consider.

 

[Brookie Bob]

‘They cheat better’: Phil Gould clashes with Paul Gallen over NRL ‘bias’ claims​

‘They cheat better’: Phil Gould clashes with Paul Gallen over NRL ‘bias’ claims

‘They cheat better’: Gus and Gallen clash over NRL ‘bias’

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[mickqld]

There can possibly be NO interpretation. The rules are black and white not grey. They are to be applied equally to all teams. This utter dribble about interpretation is the reason why so much perceived bias is out there. When the NRL decide to get tough and take control of ALL teams then we will have a fair game.