NRL calls on fans to voice their opinion

[cochise]

Just did it , wanted two coaches challenges which can be used at any stage during a game

I said the same when I completed it too!

For tries only?

I made sure to mention for try scoring opportunities only! lol

Would you still have the video ref available to the refs outside iff the challenges? Still 2 refs?

No and No

Trouble is that after 2 challenges there could be more errors from refs. Look at Stokes being plumb in front in the last over if the 4th test.

Then don't waste them on decisions the ref has correct!

How does a ref, with no help of the video ref, call a corner try where the players foot goes into touch about the same time he puts the ball down? You could lose 2 challenges on a guess from the ref.

Also if you lose those 2 challenges it is because you have guessed in your review as well! It is a 2 way street, if you don't know then don't challenge. Generally players have a fair idea if it is a try or not!

So if there's only 2 challenges and no other video ref then every try in the corner willl be a guess. No thanks.

No it won't, there is a touch judge right there!

So how can you look at the ball being grounded and the players feet, that are 7ft away, at the same time? Impossible.

How do they make those sort of lineball decisions in general play? How can we decide if a player catches a ball before or after his foot touches the dead ball or sideline? Why is it ok to miss someone stepping on the sideline or knocking on the play before a try but we have to look at it 1000 times if it is during the play a try is scored?

 

[rustycage]

Exactly right Cochise. Its a nonsense.

 

[jirskyr]

Greenburg’s actions over the last few years demonstrate how deeply impartial financial interests have embedded themselves in the game. (Maybe they were always there?) I don’t think they want to make the game more fair and balanced, I can’t recall one single action they have undertaken over the last few years towards that end.

I assume you mean biased - impartial means equal/fair?

Yes there have always been biased financial interests in Rugby League and there always will be. There are in every sport; I would argue it's the true core of what sport is about, to defeat your rivals and reign supreme.

Those forces within rugby league are nothing compared to EPL or NFL, where multi-billionaires write cheques like taking breath and the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is wider than the Grand Canyon.

I expect Greenberg would be trying to balance those biased forces as much as possible, and I expect in many respects he has limited power to actually do anything. For example, do you really go after Nick Politis if you think he's cooking the books? Because Politis certainly brings heavy finance to the NRL and if you curtail him maybe you hurt the rugby league overall. I expect the NRL probably has little to no proof about anything the Roosters are doing, and I also expect that they don't enjoy the code-wide speculation that Roosters are cheating scum.

Or maybe Greenberg truly is a crook. Personally I think he's just unpopular, has an unfortunately sour face, with a political manner that gets people offside. There's a lack of genuineness about him that does not resonate with League fans.

Like I said earlier, Ken Arthurson was a one-eyed Manly stalwart that ruled the NSWRL for a long period at his own discretion, then lead the ARL into a horrendous war with News Ltd (rightly or wrongly). He oversaw a number of rapidly failing expansions and could not negotiate anything like a competitive TV deal during his tenure. But Arko was also a League man through and through, and like him or loathe him, he appeared to be genuinely passionate about the success of rugby league. Greenberg lacks that common-folk appeal.

 

[gallagher]

Just did it , wanted two coaches challenges which can be used at any stage during a game

I said the same when I completed it too!

For tries only?

I made sure to mention for try scoring opportunities only! lol

Would you still have the video ref available to the refs outside iff the challenges? Still 2 refs?

No and No

Trouble is that after 2 challenges there could be more errors from refs. Look at Stokes being plumb in front in the last over if the 4th test.

Then don't waste them on decisions the ref has correct!

How does a ref, with no help of the video ref, call a corner try where the players foot goes into touch about the same time he puts the ball down? You could lose 2 challenges on a guess from the ref.

Also if you lose those 2 challenges it is because you have guessed in your review as well! It is a 2 way street, if you don't know then don't challenge. Generally players have a fair idea if it is a try or not!

So if there's only 2 challenges and no other video ref then every try in the corner willl be a guess. No thanks.

No it won't, there is a touch judge right there!

So how can you look at the ball being grounded and the players feet, that are 7ft away, at the same time? Impossible.

How do they make those sort of lineball decisions in general play? How can we decide if a player catches a ball before or after his foot touches the dead ball or sideline? Why is it ok to miss someone stepping on the sideline or knocking on the play before a try but we have to look at it 1000 times if it is during the play a try is scored?

There not even comparable to trying to adjudicate those corner tries. You can't do it with the naked eye.

 

[cochise]

Just did it , wanted two coaches challenges which can be used at any stage during a game

I said the same when I completed it too!

For tries only?

I made sure to mention for try scoring opportunities only! lol

Would you still have the video ref available to the refs outside iff the challenges? Still 2 refs?

No and No

Trouble is that after 2 challenges there could be more errors from refs. Look at Stokes being plumb in front in the last over if the 4th test.

Then don't waste them on decisions the ref has correct!

How does a ref, with no help of the video ref, call a corner try where the players foot goes into touch about the same time he puts the ball down? You could lose 2 challenges on a guess from the ref.

Also if you lose those 2 challenges it is because you have guessed in your review as well! It is a 2 way street, if you don't know then don't challenge. Generally players have a fair idea if it is a try or not!

So if there's only 2 challenges and no other video ref then every try in the corner willl be a guess. No thanks.

No it won't, there is a touch judge right there!

So how can you look at the ball being grounded and the players feet, that are 7ft away, at the same time? Impossible.

How do they make those sort of lineball decisions in general play? How can we decide if a player catches a ball before or after his foot touches the dead ball or sideline? Why is it ok to miss someone stepping on the sideline or knocking on the play before a try but we have to look at it 1000 times if it is during the play a try is scored?

There not even comparable to trying to adjudicate those corner tries. You can't do it with the naked eye.

Of course they are comparable, and even if a mistake is made there will be an option to challenge the ruling.

I do not blame the umpire for Aust losing the 4th test, I blame Paine for the ridiculous challenges he made earlier in the innings!

 

[gallagher]

Just did it , wanted two coaches challenges which can be used at any stage during a game

I said the same when I completed it too!

For tries only?

I made sure to mention for try scoring opportunities only! lol

Would you still have the video ref available to the refs outside iff the challenges? Still 2 refs?

No and No

Trouble is that after 2 challenges there could be more errors from refs. Look at Stokes being plumb in front in the last over if the 4th test.

Then don't waste them on decisions the ref has correct!

How does a ref, with no help of the video ref, call a corner try where the players foot goes into touch about the same time he puts the ball down? You could lose 2 challenges on a guess from the ref.

Also if you lose those 2 challenges it is because you have guessed in your review as well! It is a 2 way street, if you don't know then don't challenge. Generally players have a fair idea if it is a try or not!

So if there's only 2 challenges and no other video ref then every try in the corner willl be a guess. No thanks.

No it won't, there is a touch judge right there!

So how can you look at the ball being grounded and the players feet, that are 7ft away, at the same time? Impossible.

How do they make those sort of lineball decisions in general play? How can we decide if a player catches a ball before or after his foot touches the dead ball or sideline? Why is it ok to miss someone stepping on the sideline or knocking on the play before a try but we have to look at it 1000 times if it is during the play a try is scored?

There not even comparable to trying to adjudicate those corner tries. You can't do it with the naked eye.

Of course they are comparable, and even if a mistake is made there will be an option to challenge the ruling.

I do not blame the umpire for Aust losing the 4th test, I blame Paine for the ridiculous challenges he made earlier in the innings!

Umpire was wrong though. Both made horrendous decisions.

 

[cochise]

Just did it , wanted two coaches challenges which can be used at any stage during a game

I said the same when I completed it too!

For tries only?

I made sure to mention for try scoring opportunities only! lol

Would you still have the video ref available to the refs outside iff the challenges? Still 2 refs?

No and No

Trouble is that after 2 challenges there could be more errors from refs. Look at Stokes being plumb in front in the last over if the 4th test.

Then don't waste them on decisions the ref has correct!

How does a ref, with no help of the video ref, call a corner try where the players foot goes into touch about the same time he puts the ball down? You could lose 2 challenges on a guess from the ref.

Also if you lose those 2 challenges it is because you have guessed in your review as well! It is a 2 way street, if you don't know then don't challenge. Generally players have a fair idea if it is a try or not!

So if there's only 2 challenges and no other video ref then every try in the corner willl be a guess. No thanks.

No it won't, there is a touch judge right there!

So how can you look at the ball being grounded and the players feet, that are 7ft away, at the same time? Impossible.

How do they make those sort of lineball decisions in general play? How can we decide if a player catches a ball before or after his foot touches the dead ball or sideline? Why is it ok to miss someone stepping on the sideline or knocking on the play before a try but we have to look at it 1000 times if it is during the play a try is scored?

There not even comparable to trying to adjudicate those corner tries. You can't do it with the naked eye.

Of course they are comparable, and even if a mistake is made there will be an option to challenge the ruling.

I do not blame the umpire for Aust losing the 4th test, I blame Paine for the ridiculous challenges he made earlier in the innings!

Umpire was wrong though. Both made horrendous decisions.

The Umpire was wrong, but if Paine didn't waste his reviews then his bad call would have been overturned!

 

[jirskyr]

A lot of cynics in here.

If the NRL was legitimate about listening to fans input, they'd still lose out, because half the folks wouldn't believe them anyway.

Legitimate... Lol.

Everyone's called for 2 ref's to be scrapped for years.... Listening?

Everyone hey?

Slagging off the NRL has become the new cliche past-time after slagging off pollies, as if 99% of folks on here had any idea what it takes to run the world's top rugby league competition.

99 per cent would have a reasonable idea that common sense and fairness is a good start.

What a cliche.

It assumes that the NRL are dopes and are intentionally unfair. I would be astounded if either of those are true. In fact I reckon if you were to meet the NRL head honchos you'd be surprised and impressed about how knowledgeable they are, how earnest most of them are.

Greenberg might be on the nose but think back to blokes like Arko and Humphries and their dodgy dealings, self-interest and, in the latter case, borderline fraud.

But sports administration is a difficult job and rugby league's issues are deep-rooted in the fabric of the game itself - clubs looking after their own, cronyism, strength of club-aligned power-brokers, ever-increasing demands of the player group, competition from other codes, desperation to win, overspending, ongoing reliance on poker machine revenues etc.

You're obviously a clever guy. If you can't see that fairness isn't top of mind with Greenberg and those that surround him, then there's nothing more I can say. And common sense would tell them that the game is on the nose now with so many fans. So fix the damn game! Take a few steps back and get it back to the greatest game of all. If they don't, it'll turn into the greatest sham of all before they know it. After the last grand final and the lack of accountability for the disgraceful way it ended, that slippery slope is becoming very slippery indeed.

On the contrary, I think fairness is absolutely top of mind for Greenberg and the NRL. If they wanted to abandon any attempt at fairness, they'd scrap the salary cap and Roosters and Broncos would duke it out for the premiership every year.

I also don't think there is any way to "go back" - sports always evolve, they don't de-evolve or return to the product they were. Sports live in the current climate.

For example, I am certain that a whole lot of folks think very fondly on the "golden age" of NSW rugby league in late 80s and early 90s. And undoubtedly it was a good product. However, if you are to do a bit of research about this period, you will also see:

* clubs are in financial dire straits
* match attendances are ordinary towards appalling most seasons
* there is a weak salary cap that clubs are caught cheating
* there is ongoing dominance by a small number of sides stacked with rep players (Bulldogs, Raiders, Broncos)
* TV deals are very low value and NSWRL are continually low-balled by Kerry Packer and Channel 9
* On cusp of Super League raid by News Ltd
* players are disgruntled by lack of pay and salary services like insurance and leave allowances; RLPA has next to no power
* many players have to hold down jobs to actually pay the bills
* there is no social media and the newspapers / magazines control rugby league news
* training and health capacity for players is dreadfully amateur
* there is next to no global reach for the game and most expansion attempts are dismal failures
* Kiwis are a distant 3rd in international league and emerging nations like Tonga and PNG are almost non-existant
* referees are constantly making mistakes and the only comfort is that they "are only human", because video ref technology does not yet exist

I don't know how anyone can possibly think refs are worse or more controversial now than they previously were. As I noted, I think previous refs often got a pass because the technology did not exist to aid them on-field (though instant replays could show the bad decisions) and the general lack of sports science/data and lack of full-time player professionalism meant that many mistakes were not capitalised upon by players. In a more rough-and-tumble style of play of yesteryear, perhaps referee mistakes were less crucial and players were less clinical about pressing their advantage (or, perhaps not).

Nevertheless, is Ben Cummins' mistake in 2019 any less controversial than Bill Harrigan penalising Bruce McGuire 1989, the innuendo around Darcy Lawler in 1963, the Storm penalty try of 1999 or Manly's favoured run in 1978 under Greg Hartley? Short memories all around if anyone thinks so.

Personally, I think the refs bosses have backed themselves into a corner with an over-presentation of technology. Not necessarily over-reliance on technology, but just that too much information is presented to the viewer and mistakes are analysed in excruciating detail. There is then the toxic echo-chamber of social media, where rather than appear once or twice in the newspaper then be relegated to pub talk, the "controversies" bounce around inside the thousand wannabe commentators, all scrapping for their piece of cause célèbre to generate clicks and ad revenues.

There is obviously a sweet spot where you want off-field intervention in egregious mistakes, but still let human refs make judgement calls (at least until we invent flawless robot referees). But I can understand the challenge for refs, because we also can't stick our heads in the sand and think we can simply abolish the video ref, or pretend that we don't live in a hugely tech-savvy and tech-reliant society.

And believe you me, the minute they restrict the bunker's powers or eliminate the bunker altogether, I guarantee there is a new controversy that the now-absent bunker would have eliminated.

 

[madunit]

Greenburg’s actions over the last few years demonstrate how deeply impartial financial interests have embedded themselves in the game. (Maybe they were always there?) I don’t think they want to make the game more fair and balanced, I can’t recall one single action they have undertaken over the last few years towards that end.

I assume you mean biased - impartial means equal/fair?

Yes there have always been biased financial interests in Rugby League and there always will be. There are in every sport; I would argue it's the true core of what sport is about, to defeat your rivals and reign supreme.

Those forces within rugby league are nothing compared to EPL or NFL, where multi-billionaires write cheques like taking breath and the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is wider than the Grand Canyon.

I expect Greenberg would be trying to balance those biased forces as much as possible, and I expect in many respects he has limited power to actually do anything. For example, do you really go after Nick Politis if you think he's cooking the books? Because Politis certainly brings heavy finance to the NRL and if you curtail him maybe you hurt the rugby league overall. I expect the NRL probably has little to no proof about anything the Roosters are doing, and I also expect that they don't enjoy the code-wide speculation that Roosters are cheating scum.

Or maybe Greenberg truly is a crook. Personally I think he's just unpopular, has an unfortunately sour face, with a political manner that gets people offside. There's a lack of genuineness about him that does not resonate with League fans.

Like I said earlier, Ken Arthurson was a one-eyed Manly stalwart that ruled the NSWRL for a long period at his own discretion, then lead the ARL into a horrendous war with News Ltd (rightly or wrongly). He oversaw a number of rapidly failing expansions and could not negotiate anything like a competitive TV deal during his tenure. But Arko was also a League man through and through, and like him or loathe him, he appeared to be genuinely passionate about the success of rugby league. Greenberg lacks that common-folk appeal.

Biased financial interests.

Got evidence to support this? Genuinely intrigued.

 

[jirskyr]

Biased financial interests.
Got evidence to support this? Genuinely intrigued

I don't know if I follow.

Every personal club owner, club patron or bored millionaire involved in rugby league is a biased financial interest, plus all the outsiders that want to make a buck from the code. Nick Politis, Thoroughbreds, John Singleton, Rusty Crowe, Rupert Murdoch, Marwan Koukash (formerly), Isaac Moses, Sam Ayoub, Rebecca Frizelle etc.

 

[JD Tiger]

@jirskyr Thanks Jirsky, yes biased was the word. I know claiming they are biased is a big call, and already others are asking for proof (lol always gotta prove your opinion) but here is why I don't see any reason of non bias fitting.

The diamond ring, the testimonial dinner, the testimonial game, even then going on a social outing to a big basketball game with the Storm CEO. All these were one offs, in favour of a single team. (Well the testimonial game was for Thurston and Cowboys too to be fair.) But how can one do all these things, with the first three going on the cap if it's another team, and be none other than the boss of NRL, and claim to be non biased? The going on a social outing with a mate who just happens to be the Storm CEO is just stupid. Like a police commissioner consorting with known felons. Stupid.

I don't see how he can get away with it. Even if he is genuinely totally innocent, it looks so damning how can they not see it and stop doing it to save appearances?? Na, they just keep doing it. It must be deliberate, no one could be that naive and stupid and run a billion dollar sport.

 

[cochise]

The going on a social outing with a mate who just happens to be the Storm CEO is just stupid. Like a police commissioner consorting with known felons. Stupid.

The rest of your point make sense but this one does not!

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It is probably much easier to collate and check box results (e.g. x% agree with this statement, y% disagree,)

Not probably easier, absolutely is easier. It's typical survey design, score of 1-5 "strongly agree" through "strongly disagree".

Otherwise you'd need some data entry monkey to extract quantifiable data. For example, free-text fields are near useless unless some human sifts through words (parsing) and assigns some value.

Source: I work professionally in medical data capture.

I figured as much, I only said probably as I wasn't certain. I don't know exactly how it's achieved, it was just an educated guess.

The survey is a WOFTAM on the whole for mine, there wasn't anything there that was really drilling down at what may be right or wrong with the game. The only thing the NRL will really get out of it is a generalised feeling from the supporter base at where they feel the game is going. As long as memberships and TV ratings don't drop, they'll probably do two-fifths of bugger all to change that.

 

[OzLuke]

I forgot to put in my survey to ensure clubs and players honour the contracts that they sign......

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

@jirskyr Thanks Jirsky, yes biased was the word. I know claiming they are biased is a big call, and already others are asking for proof (lol always gotta prove your opinion) but here is why I don't see any reason of non bias fitting.

The diamond ring, the testimonial dinner, the testimonial game, even then going on a social outing to a big basketball game with the Storm CEO. All these were one offs, in favour of a single team. (Well the testimonial game was for Thurston and Cowboys too to be fair.) But how can one do all these things, with the first three going on the cap if it's another team, and be none other than the boss of NRL, and claim to be non biased? The going on a social outing with a mate who just happens to be the Storm CEO is just stupid. Like a police commissioner consorting with known felons. Stupid.

I don't see how he can get away with it. Even if he is genuinely totally innocent, it looks so damning how can they not see it and stop doing it to save appearances?? Na, they just keep doing it. It must be deliberate, no one could be that naive and stupid and run a billion dollar sport.

I think this is where the perceived inequities come from. The ham fisted way that the NRL deals with similar situations is pretty appalling as well. Once offs you could write off as an unintentional lapse in judgement. This repeatedly happens though. If it all is indeed unintentional, then you have a pretty incompetent CEO whom himself said that "fairness" trumps consistency.

 

[jirskyr]

I don’t see how he can get away with it. Even if he is genuinely totally innocent, it looks so damning how can they not see it and stop doing it to save appearances??

I agree that some of the judgements have been poor and Greenberg does not seem to be able to read the room.

I would also argue that there is a difference between popularity and being able to administer the game. The NRL accounts are fairly healthy and despite fan-lead warnings of a downturn, NRL had record revenues in 2018 (2019 yet to be released). And whilst the NRL 2019 GF TV audience was the worst on record, AFL's GF audience was the worst in 26 years, which supports the overall negative trend of TV viewership. Average crowds 2019 were down on 2018, but ahead of 2017.

The testimonial for JT and CS was an error in judgement - they vastly underestimated the appearance of favouritism and the way it stirred interest amongst other clubs. In and of itself the testimonial is fine, but if you allow a perk to one club, the other 15 clubs are going to come with open hands, and to underestimate this is poor management.

Similarly, the ring to Cam Smith's wife is unprecedented, but so is 400 games of FG, so the whole thing has no comparison. But again, it just looks bad, and underestimating this is the mistake.

One thing I will say is not to underestimate the power of the elite-level players. Sometimes schmoozing these top players is the way to get things done, for example their influence within the RLPA and getting the CBA across the line, or the ongoing success of SOO and the attempt to build international rep football. Top players do get preferential treatment and it would be ignorant to think otherwise. It would also be ignorant to think that some elite players aren't highly self-interested.

I listened a recording of the Tom Brock lecture this week (look it up if you don't know what it is), this year concerning the RLPA. It's amazing how little funding or support the RLPA has had for most of its existence, because historically players have been so self-interested as to overlook the importance of banding together for the benefit of the entire players group. And a strong component of the RLPA are the elite players, some of whom have high influence over proceedings.

Anyway, with a new ARLC Commissioner, you can bet that Todd Greenberg's position will be reviewed with fresh eyes. But, ultimately, the CEO position will probably be measured in KPIs that don't necessarily align with fan desires or preferences.

You always have to wonder about the challenges of getting effective NRL leadership. If you rise up from within the game, you will absolutely have strong links to where you came from and thus possible perception of favouritism. E.g. Greenberg coming from the Bulldogs. If you played the game professionally, you might have very strong links to key stakeholders and be criticised for alleged cronyism. On the other hand, if you aren't a league head, e.g. like Dave Smith, you can also be dismissed out-of-hand simply for not appearing to be the right fit. For example, it makes no difference at all to business if Dave Smith doesn't recognise Ben Barba or Peter Beattie forgets the Sharks team name, and yet that's the kind of stuff fans and media harp on about.

 

[rustycage]

Similarly, the ring to Cam Smith’s wife is unprecedented, but so is 400 games of FG, so the whole thing has no comparison. But again, it just looks bad, and underestimating this is the mistake.

What looks absolutely terrible is the fact that Greenberg was celebrating 400 games played, two years of which he had knowingly signed two contracts and tried his very best to cheat the system and rob the league of it's integrity. Id say it's probably not worth celebrating personally, but the guys at the top see things differently. You can defend him all you like, but his decisions in circumstances such as this are just plain bad. I don't know how anyone could ever consider rewarding him the way he has been.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Similarly, the ring to Cam Smith’s wife is unprecedented, but so is 400 games of FG, so the whole thing has no comparison. But again, it just looks bad, and underestimating this is the mistake.


What looks absolutely terrible is the fact that Greenberg was celebrating 400 games played, two years of which he had knowingly signed two contracts and tried his very best to cheat the system and rob the league of it's integrity. Id say it's probably not worth celebrating personally, but the guys at the top see things differently. You can defend him all you like, but his decisions in circumstances such as this are just plain bad. I don't know how anyone could ever consider rewarding him the way he has been.

Look I don't mind the NRL celebrating him making 400 games. Regardless of whether he signed contracts designed to cheat the cap, he would have played them elsewhere if it wasn't at Melbourne. What I can't cop are testimonials while he's still playing the game and buying his wife jewelry. I'd say she's benefit fairly well off the back of the game with her husbands earnings and status as one of the best in the game (this is where the dodgy two contracts situation comes to the fore for mine,) so buying her a $15K ring was an extremely poor judgement to make.