By Phil Lutton
Ivan Cleary and Wayne Bennett locked horns in an extraordinary post-script to South Sydney’s finals victory over Penrith, with the Panthers coach all but accusing Bennett of manipulating match officials with public comments and the Rabbitohs coach firing back by suggesting it was Cleary who had been “mouthing off”.
The Rabbitohs put themselves into another preliminary final with a gritty 16-10 upset victory in Townsville on Saturday night but the post-game press conferences proved just as dramatic as the action that unfolded on the field.
It revolved around a story in the Sydney Morning Herald in which Cleary went public to defend his side’s tactics after he discovered Bennett had privately questioned referees over what he alleged to be illegal block-plays to shield Panthers halfback Nathan Cleary from kick pressure.
In reply, Bennett said Penrith employed the tactic at training and in games and urged the NRL to take note. He also hit out at the leaked story after he approached officials for clarification following his side’s loss to Penrith in round 23, a match in which Cleary launched a series of towering bombs that confounded South Sydney’s wingers.
On Saturday, Cleary said he didn’t want to take the matter public in the first place but felt he had no choice given Bennett’s questions to NRL officials. He said coaches should be banned from commenting about match officials before games and had no doubt it had an impact during his side’s defeat.
“I was probably guilty of trying to put our case forward this week, only because I had to, I had to respond. It’s probably not the forum to talk about it but the NRL has to make a decision on whether they’re going to allow coaches to deliberately manipulate referees and try to influence them. Coaches do it because they can. We get fined afterwards but pre-game, it’s pretty much open slather,” Cleary said.
“Our boys were being spoken to about stuff on the run that we never get done for, so I’d suggest that type of thing has an influence. As I said, I was guilty of it myself because I had to respond. But I think the game could do itself a favour and come down on any coach who wants to deliberately influence a match official before a game.”
Cleary didn’t accuse Bennett by name but when asked whether he felt Bennett’s pre-match comments were acceptable, he replied: “Has he been sanctioned for it? No.
“If you allow it to happen, it will happen. It’s up to the NRL. If they don’t care, that’s fine. I probably shouldn’t have brought it up but I believe in it.
“The referees department spend way too much time going through complaints from coaches every week. Yeah, I occasionally do it, probably one out of 10. How is the referees’ department supposed to get better when they are constantly having to deal with clubs complaining?
“It’s not just tonight, it goes on all year. It’s obviously heightened at finals time. It’s allowed to happen so I can’t knock anyone doing it. If you allow public manipulation and indirect influence, then I would say you are only human if you are a referee.”
Rookie Blake Taaffe played well for the Rabbitohs on Saturday night.Credit: Getty
Bennett was having none of it, saying it was Cleary who dragged the matter into the public domain and suggested his initial query after the round 23 clash was leaked to the Panthers because Cleary used to be a consultant to the NRL referee department.
“I didn’t start the conversation publicly. I said nothing publicly. This happened three weeks ago. I sent some information to the referees for clarification. I wasn’t going public with anything until Penrith came out with the public statements and I just responded to those. I wasn’t going to sit back and not stand up for my team and my players,” Bennett said.
He said he agreed coaches should be banned from making public comments that could influence referees but defended the right for coaches and clubs to seek rule clarifications from the NRL.
“I couldn’t agree with him more on that [public comments] but that’s why I didn’t say anything. I didn’t say anything for three weeks. We played them three weeks ago, he was the one that came out and started mouthing off.
“Just get that in perspective. So if he’s critical, he’s critical of himself. But South Sydney had no say whatsoever until he came out and talked it all up.
“There’s no public manipulation. I saw an incident in the game that I didn’t like. Surely it’s my right to ask the referees what their interpretation of that is ... that’s what I did, that’s the process. If that’s manipulating the game, you’re all kidding yourselves.
“That’s manipulating nobody. And if the referees can’t handle that - and I’m sure they can - I’m sure I’m not the only coach to question a decision. That’s what they are there for but keep it in house. I didn’t put it on the front page, I never said a word. Three weeks ago I did it. Three weeks.
“We should have that right [to speak to the NRL about rules]. You can’t take that away from us. The public comment? Yeah, I’m a fan of [ending] that. But I didn’t start this one.”
When Bennett again insisted he didn’t start this particular fire, he was asked who did?
“Ivan did,” he said. “He worked for them, he worked for the referees before he went back into coaching. I’ve got to assume he’s got some mates there still. That’s not my department. I’m just telling you the background of it.”
For Bennett, the view was much better from the winning side of the desk and he couldn’t help but find enjoyment in the drama of it all.
“It was good theatre, wasn’t it?” he said. “Got everybody pumped up a bit.”
Sports news, results and expert commentary. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.