Luke Phillips

[HoldenV8]

There have been some, shall we say 'interesting' observations about the NRL's refereeing ranks lately from former NRL ref and former Canberra/NQ/Manly/Easts goal kicking fullback and current Penrith coaching staff member Luke Phillips on social media.

He posted this on Facebook on Saturday:
"The bunker has now made obstruction black and white. No point having ex footballers in there now. The refs have a refs boss who has no idea on obstruction. And can only understand black and white. Players only need to take a dive now to get a penalty. Sad day for footy and its fans.

[Luke] Pattern and [Ben] Galea are now just button pushers."

Explains a lot doesn't it.

He posted this yesterday:
"Funny how the last 2 obstruction calls in the Knights and Storm games have been cleared as ok. (Which they should of) Exactly the same as the ones taken off from Cowboys and Brisbane games.

1. Either interpretation has been changed over night (which isn't uncommon from experience)

2. No Bernard Sutton as head review official in the Knights Storm games is the other.

Can't wait to see which one holds up."

Seriously, no wonder players, coaches and fans get confused and there is no consistency in rulings if they are constantly changing rule interpretations. And from the sounds of what he wrote, its not uncommon for it to change mid-round which is simply mind boggling and could be grossly unfair to the teams who have yet to play. It could easily mean that something that teams were getting away with say on Friday night are suddenly being penalised on the Saturday or Sunday or Monday.

Can someone say....
No
Real
Leadership

Anyone?

 

[Technical Coach]

Luke is just stating the obvious, the same complaints we have had with Referee "interpretations" since Rugby League started.(and you will continue to have the same issues with or without the bunker)

You want consistency yet at the same time you want a more fluid interpretation based off "people who know their ("footy/past players") who supposedly make better interpretations and be able to read the minds of attackers and defenders better than black and white have no idea types"

You will get mistakes with black and white rules and footy type interpretations you can't win.

I lean towards black and white that gets fine tuned every year as it is more "likely" or at the very least has "potential" to offer slightly more consistency than always using the human element of reading each scenario as an individual case and judging accordingly.

The game of Rugby League was designed to fail in the rules department at a faster pace when the "a good game has low penalty counts" was all the rage.

Too many coaches in each era had too much to say with agendas to help themselves, then you get the fence sitters in the commentary box who keep talking about consistency but who can't even get consistency in their own views and what should be done.

People/Fans are complainers by nature, name one year when it has been any different.

 

[Bradza]

^
TC, if I could agree any stronger I would. It would be interesting to go back through time and view the coach/player/media/public reactions as each interpretation of obstruction/decoy plays had its time. Pretty safe to say that there was whinging regardless of the approach taken.

I also lean towards the black and white approach simply due to the fact that the attacking decoy player has no 'right' to be in amongst the defensive line so if his team is going to try and be 'tricky' he'd better make damn sure he doesn't interfere. If that means the odd defender gets away with a dive then so be it. A blanket subjective approach opens the door to chaos.

 

[Pablo]

I thought turbos try was going to be taken away because of T Reds contact with the defence. But luckily the vidiot got the call right and saw that the Knights player took a dive. Could easily have been called no try if a different bloke was in the chair yesterday

 

[Top End Eagle]

I disagree somewhat with TC. Obstruction needs some element of interpretation - you need to interpret a bad read, a dive or if the player was ever going to be able to effectively stop a play.

But as far as getting everything else black and white he's right. As close as possible.

But the issue is the refs are all soft touches and intimidated by the celebrity of the players they are refereeing.

Matais sin binning yesterday was a farce. There have been a thousand infringements like that this year already. It was a response to some positive press around the Norman sin binning. Sims milked it and I don't have an issue with players getting ten in the bin in that situation it's just that Matai literally couldn't move from under him and wasn't hanging on in any way.

It's like a classroom situation. If you lay down the rules and say this is how it works from the word go then it's hard at first but after a while students understand what's expected and the teachers job is a lot easier. It's easy to go in there and be a friend first teacher second at the start but the toll it takes on constantly correcting behaviours and chasing completed work actually outweighs the effort it would take upfront to get discipline sorted.

And another thing. It all starts at the play the ball. Make players put their foot on the ball and you slow the play the ball down organically. Players can't afford to jump up and dump the ball they need to make sure they get a more complicated process right. This will see defences not need to hold and wrestle so much because the play will already be slowed.

But again it's just a case of the refs wanting to be liked more than doing their job correctly.

 

[Haliaeetus]

they had the rule right at the beginning of last year, but then all the coaches chucked a spac because they couldn't use all their set plays that had dummies running all sorts of lines to confuse the defence, so they rolled the rule back.

F&*^ the dummy runners I reckon.

to me, if you're in front of the bloke with the ball you're off side. if you run through the line, put yourself offside, and in the way of the defenders, whether those individual defenders could have stopped a try or not you're impeding the outside defender's capacity to slide

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Wasn't Luke Phillips training to be a ref at one point?

 

[Fibro Eagle]

Wasn't Luke Phillips training to be a ref at one point?

Phiilips was a first grade referee at one point but had a falling out with certain senior members
below is a link to one incident with Phillips
So his social media post don't surprise i thought he was one of the better referee's but he apparently didn't fit in to there way of thinking and doing
http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/for...ss-bill-harrigan/story-e6frf3ou-1226381746457

 

[Technical Coach]

I disagree somewhat with TC. Obstruction needs some element of interpretation - you need to interpret a bad read, a dive or if the player was ever going to be able to effectively stop a play.

But as far as getting everything else black and white he's right. As close as possible.

But the issue is the refs are all soft touches and intimidated by the celebrity of the players they are refereeing.

Matais sin binning yesterday was a farce. There have been a thousand infringements like that this year already. It was a response to some positive press around the Norman sin binning. Sims milked it and I don't have an issue with players getting ten in the bin in that situation it's just that Matai literally couldn't move from under him and wasn't hanging on in any way.

It's like a classroom situation. If you lay down the rules and say this is how it works from the word go then it's hard at first but after a while students understand what's expected and the teachers job is a lot easier. It's easy to go in there and be a friend first teacher second at the start but the toll it takes on constantly correcting behaviours and chasing completed work actually outweighs the effort it would take upfront to get discipline sorted.

And another thing. It all starts at the play the ball. Make players put their foot on the ball and you slow the play the ball down organically. Players can't afford to jump up and dump the ball they need to make sure they get a more complicated process right. This will see defences not need to hold and wrestle so much because the play will already be slowed.

But again it's just a case of the refs wanting to be liked more than doing their job correctly.

I totally agree that some element of "interpretation" that is individual case specific logically makes sense in a game of Rugby League. The point i'm making is "if you try and have a mix of black and white and individual interpretations" that in itself doubles the risk of inconsistency and complexity.

Personally speaking i don't have a problem with "most" blocker plays they are beautiful to watch, i do agree with catching the ball on the outside which has to be policed strictly though.(the depth element seems to be overlooked these days in that area which is fine for simplification i guess)

It just seems no matter what improvements you make the cries of the negatives make it out as if we are always going backwards.

In the same way online reviews of products/services---- people with bad experiences tend to cry out louder and make more of an effort to let everyone know the issues they have encountered compared to the good experiences.

 

[Technical Coach]

they had the rule right at the beginning of last year, but then all the coaches chucked a spac because they couldn't use all their set plays that had dummies running all sorts of lines to confuse the defence, so they rolled the rule back.

F&*^ the dummy runners I reckon.

to me, if you're in front of the bloke with the ball you're off side. if you run through the line, put yourself offside, and in the way of the defenders, whether those individual defenders could have stopped a try or not you're impeding the outside defender's capacity to slide

If you don't run through the line you won't carry the speed to look like a genuine decoy target, the decoy will stop before or slow down just before the line and be more easily read.

 

[yokahontas]

they had the rule right at the beginning of last year, but then all the coaches chucked a spac because they couldn't use all their set plays that had dummies running all sorts of lines to confuse the defence, so they rolled the rule back.

F&*^ the dummy runners I reckon.

to me, if you're in front of the bloke with the ball you're off side. if you run through the line, put yourself offside, and in the way of the defenders, whether those individual defenders could have stopped a try or not you're impeding the outside defender's capacity to slide

This. Next time you watch a Bulldogs game, have a look at where almost ALL of their players not directly involved in an attacking movement are standing - offside, up in the defensive line. You don't have to touch a defender to be a) impeding his ability to slide effectively and b) blocking his vision of the unfolding play and the relative position of his own teammates (which obviously affects defensive decision-making, to stay in/go out/assist in making a tackle if needed).

There is the odd well-worked decoy play (like T-Red's good, hard run at and through the line yesterday), and then there is just plain cheating.

 

[The Who]

We had enough time to consider if video has killed the football star, and if two refs are better than one. I'd like a poll on whether fans would like to revert to 'the good old days' where one ref cocked up less than the expensive, intrusive mess we now have.
I think, for people who actually attend matches, the vote would be to revert to the old system. For the couch potatoes and the tech-loving younger generation I think they would vote to keep all the TV technology.

 

[Woodsie]

We are experts at complicating a simple game.

Forget right shoulder ,left shoulder, through the line or runs behind. There is only one fact that matters. In the opinion of the ref, was there an obstruction that impeded a defender from preventing a try.

To do otherwise leads to the criminally ridiculous situation where comentators and officials say "there was no obstruction, but that's the rule".

Can anything in sport be more stupid.

 

[Technical Coach]

We are experts at complicating a simple game.

Forget right shoulder ,left shoulder, through the line or runs behind. There is only one fact that matters. In the opinion of the ref, was there an obstruction that impeded a defender from preventing a try.

To do otherwise leads to the criminally ridiculous situation where comentators and officials say "there was no obstruction, but that's the rule".

Can anything in sport be more stupid.

The point is too often there is a 50/50 opinion on whether there was an obstruction or not which creates the inconsistency.

It is the same as connecting with the head in a tackle, if you apply an interpretation that is individual case specific for reasons such as "it is accidental", "he was falling down", "could not avoid hitting the player in the head with his hand" you open up the opportunity for players to "deliberately" connect with the head using the art of deception.

I agree with what you are saying but both sides of the debate have big negatives----it gets down to which side is going to give slightly better consistency.

 

[HoldenV8]

We had enough time to consider if video has killed the football star, and if two refs are better than one. I'd like a poll on whether fans would like to revert to 'the good old days' where one ref cocked up less than the expensive, intrusive mess we now have.
I think, for people who actually attend matches, the vote would be to revert to the old system. For the couch potatoes and the tech-loving younger generation I think they would vote to keep all the TV technology.

While I do agree, I have serious doubts about the current NRL referees ability to control a game on their own.

The worst part for me is that today's refs don't back their own judgement. 9/10 tries are sent to the bunker even if it was plainly obvious that a fair try has been scored. There is way too much reliance on the video these days.

I mean, there are some current refs who send it to the bunker even if a player has slid over with the ball and they get up still holding it. "Check the grounding".....good grief. Just call the damn thing.

Its why I liked referees like Bill Harrigan. Even after SL introduced the video ref to Australia in 1997, Bill still backed his own judgement more often than not, for better or worse like he'd been doing through his career.

 

[double hoops]

I have absolutely no issue with rules that are clear cut, black or white. The more we add grey to the interpretation and deviate away from black and white like the current day double movement requiring a subjective assessment of momentum compared to the black or white did the arm or ball touch the ground that exist 10 years ago the worse we are. Any obstruction under the current rules is a block play not executed correctly. So tough titties. And train more.

 

[Haliaeetus]

If you don't run through the line you won't carry the speed to look like a genuine decoy target, the decoy will stop before or slow down just before the line and be more easily read.

no doubt. the whole coach-initiated backlash against the clear, concise rule at the beginning of last year was crying because it would invalidate all their set plays.

well, no ****. the set plays are what cause this argument week in week out. they create confusion by
a) having attacking players interfering in the capacity of the defenders to slide effectively
b) create further confusion in the defenders, viewers and referee to try and determine whether it's obstruction based on this week's interpretation of the rule.

easy answer - get rid of em - no more confusion, no more opportunity for the coaches to have a cry at the refs because their set play designed to flirt with the legality of the obstruction rule didn't come off in their favour.

 

[Woodsie]

The point is too often there is a 50/50 opinion on whether there was an obstruction or not which creates the inconsistency.

It is the same as connecting with the head in a tackle, if you apply an interpretation that is individual case specific for reasons such as "it is accidental", "he was falling down", "could not avoid hitting the player in the head with his hand" you open up the opportunity for players to "deliberately" connect with the head using the art of deception.

I agree with what you are saying but both sides of the debate have big negatives----it gets down to which side is going to give slightly better consistency.

You and your mate watching the game together often have a difference of opinion. It has ever been thus, and we blow up, accept that and move on. I can't think of one sport in the world where this doesn't happen on a regular basis. You can't legislate rules to eliminate difference of opinion.

When there is no difference of opinion and a try is disallowed on a technicality, the game has lost the plot. Fans will blow up when they disagree with a decision made during the flow of a game, and get over it, what fans can't cop is a wrong decision made after 5 mins study in the bunker.

 

[Technical Coach]

You and your mate watching the game together often have a difference of opinion. It has ever been thus, and we blow up, accept that and move on. I can't think of one sport in the world where this doesn't happen on a regular basis. You can't legislate rules to eliminate difference of opinion.

When there is no difference of opinion and a try is disallowed on a technicality, the game has lost the plot. Fans will blow up when they disagree with a decision made during the flow of a game, and get over it, what fans can't cop is a wrong decision made after 5 mins study in the bunker.

You lost me at "you and your mate"(Why would someone like me have mates---you mean "me myself and i have a difference of opinion)

All sports have a matter of opinion but basically every penalty decision in Rugby League is a matter of opinion or handed out either to "just make a point" or "it's about time for a penalty", "hmm time to even up the penalty count" "oh he dropped the ball just safer to judge it went forward", "damn he read the dummy half run too well he must not have been square at marker" etc etc etc.

You could penalise every single 10m defensive line for being in front of the ref, or leaving early, every single defensive line defending the try line can be penalised also.

Most sports have black and white interpretations and either police it more strictly or keep the level of rules down to keep it simple but police the rules strictly.(well more strict relative to League)

Football basically has the offside rule which more often than not they get the right decision(yes mistakes happen) and fouls that yes have a lot of "opinion based decisions you could argue with.

NFL is pretty strict with rulings.

Cricket has the LBW rule that creates the most debate even with the aid of video analysis but every other rule is pretty straight forward other than nicks.

Most sports have rules that are pretty clear cut in the majority of them with the odd opinion based decisions that create debate----with League nearly every decision is up for debate, it is just the nature of the sport along with not policing rules in a more strict fashion for a longer period to set them in concrete.

League is in a mess due to way too many influences to keep rulings "overly open to interpretation for varying situations" , "Lets bring physics in about forward momentum of a pass and use this formula for every ball that looks forward to allow it" etc.

We complained in the past when rules were ruled on from a "Footy Brain" perspective(and had plenty of mistakes), people and fans wanted change now we complain when they are trying to put some black and white perspective on rules.

Fans and commentators were cheering about the bunker for a short while now up in arms a few weeks later, you can't f&*K(*G win.

It's a work in progress let's try and see the positives and move forward not this never ending complaint after complaint cycle that just leads to knee-jerk reactions and changes every second week.

 

[nightster]

I think, for people who actually attend matches, the vote would be to revert to the old system. For the couch potatoes and the tech-loving younger generation I think they would vote to keep all the TV technology.

.... Hey ! I resemble that remark!