Why referees are in a no-win situation with high-tackle crackdown

If English author Jane Austen had observed Belinda Sharpe refereeing a high-pressure match on Saturday night, she may well have declared that there are two “truths universally acknowledged” concerning the pride and prejudice of a woman officiating her first game of the season.

If there are any small-minded souls remaining who think a woman shouldn’t referee an NRL game, Sharpe answered them in the best way possible with her effective controlling of a difficult match between Penrith and Manly in a round that produced 18 sin bins, the highest in NRL history.

Sharpe, like her fellow whistleblowers, is a victim of two rugby league truths: Firstly, a referee is required to start out perfect and then get better every day; secondly, rugby league is a code of over over-reaction.

Combine these two truths and you have a sport pushing referees to chase perfection in their rulings with regard to whatever is deemed the latest blight on the game.

In a fiercely contested match between the premiers, desperate to climb up from what is now a bottom-of-the-ladder position, and Manly, who had lost three consecutive games, Sharpe blew 16 penalties, reported eight players to the match-review committee and sin-binned three.

Yet she commanded the respect of the players throughout, despite having four decisions overturned on a captain’s challenge.

Manly’s Siosiua Taukeiaho is sent to the sin bin by Belinda Sharpe.Credit: Getty Images

NRL referees are bombarded with an encyclopedic supply of information in the days leading up to a game, ranging from the need to check the strapping over players’ arm guards to tackles around the head and neck.

This detail is then emailed to NRL coaches, who strip it down to key points so as not to overload their players with information. However, referees must soak it all up and then use it to adjudicate against 26 players, making decisions in milliseconds.

Consider a missive sent out to NRL coaches ahead of round eight. It warned against a minor breach of “switching halves” – that is, the practice of the man about to feed a scrum, placing the ball quickly on the ground, then racing to take a place as first receiver in the backline, while another player detaches from the scrum, picks up the ball and feeds it into the scrum. Insofar as teams are not permitted to have more than seven backs at a scrum, this is a breach.

Another warning related to non-warnings – that is, referees are not obligated to issue a caution ahead of sin-binning a player. Then followed a list of sins such as “escorts”, “flops”, “rolled ball”, “stripping”, and marker depth.

These are not called crackdowns but “focus” areas, as in the line to clubs from NRL referees coach, David Fairleigh ahead of round seven: “You can expect the referee to have a higher focus on this area.” Then followed injunctions against “contact on the kicker”, “laying in the ruck”, “flops” and “checking of gear”.

But note that in these two missives, there is no warning of action against high tackles, despite round 8 producing a historic high 18 sin bins, 15 for contact with the head. That warning came after round 4 when NRL chief executive Andrew Abdo conceded officials had missed four high tackles where they should have sent players to the sin bin. NRL headquarters subsequently sent a memo to clubs warning of an increased incidence of “shoulder to the head” contact.

In the Penrith v Manly match, Sharpe penalised a Sea Eagles player for this offence but his captain challenged it and the bunker agreed. While some will say Sharpe got it wrong, the NRL will argue that video referee Ashley Klein got it right when he over-ruled her. Furthermore, headquarters will contend the recent action against high tackles is not so much an over-reaction, as it was with the plethora of penalties in magic round 2021, but a “correction” to the incidents in round four.

Given the detail referees must absorb every week and the bunker checks that are carried out on their decisions, it must be said the “system” appears to work. Furthermore, the introduction of the captain’s challenge has taken the heat out of player-referee exchanges. If an aggrieved player is motivated to get in a referee’s face over a perceived wrong decision, the referee can ask: “Do you wish to challenge?” That usually calms things down.

Harking back to Austen’s Pride And Prejudice, rugby league has come a long way since another Mr Darcy (referee Darcy Lawler) allegedly robbed Wests in the 1963 Sydney grand final and years later another referee told the Magpies: “I’ll get you bastards under the posts.”

The latter comment referenced the awarding of a scrum penalty, which was then worth two points but it is now a “differential”, preventing a kick at goal.

What other sport would have to change the rules to stop cheating?

Anyone wanting to criticise the performance of Sharpe and her whistle-blowing colleagues this weekend should consider that historical context.

Michael Chammas and Andrew “Joey” Johns dissect the upcoming NRL round, plus the latest footy news, results and analysis. Sign up for the Sin Bin newsletter.