Points decision a knock out
by
Wednesday April 14, 2004

The National Rugby League's decision to penalise the Brisbane Broncos two competition points for an illegal interchange is not just overkill, it's an abomination.  The NRL today ignored all submissions made by the Broncos during a mammoth meeting last Thursday in upholding the threatened two-point penalty, and thus committed the NRL once more to an organisation where common sense is a dirty word.

The NRL have deducted points from clubs twice since the amalgamation of Super League and the ARL competitions in 1997. The first came in 2000 when the North Queensland Cowboys had two points deducted for having 14 men on the field.  The second came in 2002 when the Bulldogs had all 37 points deducted for their blatant and contrived breach of the salary cap rules governing the game.

In comparison to both those incidents, the Broncos incident is not in the same league.

As has been well documented, the incident occurred during the second half of Brisbane's 32-24 win over Wests Tigers at Campbelltown Stadium.  Prop Shane Webcke was concussed in a sickening careless high tackle from Tigers youngster Bryce Gibbs.

Referee Shane Hayne awarded a penalty to the Broncos and placed the incident on report, all the while keeping time off.  Under NRL rules, the Broncos were then entitled to interchange Webcke without impacting their 12 replacements for the match.

However, while Webcke was being escorted from the field, Hayne restarted play, leaving the Broncos with just 12 players up against 13, despite the fact the Tigers had committed foul play.

Corey Parker stood on the sideline waiting to come on while his stricken comrade was being escorted from the field with the assistance of two trainers - now more than 30 metres behind play. Incensed, Parker tried to enter the field.  The NRL's interchange official told him to wait.  Parker returned.

Seconds later Parker tried again.  Again, the NRL official told him to wait. Parker returned to the sideline.

With the Broncos attacking the line and the tackle count all but expired, Parker ran on.  Again, the interchange official spoke up. Parker claims to have pointed out where Webcke was in relation to play and that they are effectively a man short.

This is where it becomes a case of "he said, she said" - and yes, I am fully aware that the interchange official is male. The official claims he ordered Parker to return to the bench. Parker claims not to have heard.  Moments later he gathers a Darren Lockyer offload to score the match equalling try.

Those two facts are the reason behind the NRL's ludicrous penalty.

1. that Parker disobeyed an official
2. that Parker scored a decisive try

The Broncos' submission, in great detail, outlined exactly what Corey Parker's version of events was.  There was a wide angle video shot shown to allegedly back up Parker's version of events. 

The NRL interchange official, reinterviewed on Tuesday for a third time, continues to be the one with the differing opinion.

The NRL are trusting their own official over the word of Parker and, apparently, video evidence and the evidence of at least one other key witness.

Are they that paranoid about their officials being seen as infallible that they would rather punish a club than admit mistakes occur?  Are they not prepared to censure the NRL interchange official for not taking immediate action by contacting the touch judge - who by this stage was merely metres away from the interchange official - who could then alert referee Hayne to the 14-men on the field?  Surely Hayne would then have had the power to disallow the try, penalise the Broncos and perhaps even sin bin Parker for a professional foul?

Did none of this cross the mind of this interchange official?  Did he not want to disrupt play for what he deep down thought was a minor incident?  Or did the caller who phoned in a query about the incident to a popular (for some unknown reason) rugby league post-match talkback radio show make the interchange official realise just how incompetent he was, that his job may be on the line, and force him to come forward and make a false accusation against Parker and the Broncos?

Only he knows.  And ultimately the Broncos, their fans and their sponsors have to accept the word of that one man and hope that the two points doesn't come back to bite later in the season.

How will that interchange official feel if the Broncos miss out on the minor premiership by 2 points or less?  Or a top 4 spot and a home final?  Or, God forbid, the finals altogether?

Would he stake his reputation on it?  Would he compensate the Broncos for lost prize money and sponsorship dollars this may cause?  Does he have the power to give the Broncos the Telstra Premiership trophy if they end up missing out because he couldn't accept he made a mistake?

No.

Is it fair to blame all this on the interchange official?  Perhaps not.  Afterall, he may be telling the truth.  There's some other incidents and scandals going on in rugby league whose outcome depends on whether certain individuals are telling the truth too.  However, none of those have punished the accused, in most cases because the word of one is not sufficient evidence.

Why is the NRL above that?  How can they categorically accuse the Broncos of being the sole party of guilt when quite clearly this whole incident is a failure of process.  Any one - or a combination - of the following could be blamed:

• Shane Hayne blowing time on before Webcke left the field and was interchanged. Several other injury incidents have occurred since where the play was kept off until the injured player replaced - including the concussion of Ned Catic in Friday night's game against the Roosters.
  
• The interchange official for not making it clear to Parker that if he went on his club would be punished. The player should know the rules you say?  So should the officials.  He should have known the gravity of the situation should he not convince Parker to listen to him - if he even said anything at all.
  
• Corey Parker's dissent. If the NRL interchange official's word is to be believed, Parker should have been sin binned, then potentially fined and/or suspended for contrary conduct. He wasn't.  Brent Webb was sin binned for interfering with a Knights player after a break. Greg Bird was sent off for kneeing a Rabbitohs player. Numerous players have been suspended for foul play this year.  Roosters coach Ricky Stuart has been fined $10000 for swearing at referee Paul Simpkins.  Isn't abuse the most severe form of disrespect for officials?  Isn't that what they're accusing Parker and the Broncos of?  Why aren't the Roosters losing two competition points?

A simple change in process would avoid this incident ever happening.  If play is stopped for an injury, play does not resume until either the player has left the field and is replaced, or they elect to play on.  Simple.

Ultimately this decision comes down to the NRL's complete lack of common sense in these instances.  Many claim this is a matter of black and white - the Broncos had 14 on the field and should lose their two points - but there are more than a few shades of grey.

For one, there is precedent.  Yes, the Cowboys lost their points four years ago for having 14 men on the field. On that occasion, the infringement lasted for more than a minute and all 14 players were involved in play. The Cowboys went on to win.

However, in that same season, the Northern Eagles had 14 players on the field briefly in a game.  They won.  They were fined. Why?  In the NRL's opinion, the breach didn't significantly alter the outcome.

So much for black and white.  Looks like a judgement call to me.

Ultimately this decision shows that the NRL are losing the plot.  The controversies surrounding several clubs for a variety of reasons over the past three months in particular has forced them to take serious action which, if in a better time, they would realise is overkill of the highest order.  An overreaction of Titanic proportions.

With any luck, the Broncos' appeal to the panel led by the preeminent and unparalleled professionalism of Sir Lawrence Street will be greeted with the correct level of common sense, a characteristic one would hope NRL chief executive David Gallop displayed more frequently when he was practicing law prior to his current role.

If not... the game can illafford another protracted legal battle, but the Broncos would be left with little alternative but to take the matter further.  As rugby league fans, we must all hope and pray it doesn't come to that. 

The most amusing thing about this whole sorry affair is that the people most affected by this act of lunacy, the players, will be the ones who will react the least.  They will go about their business, continue preparing week by week to the best of their ability to secure victory, and get the job done.  In their current form and mindset, these two points may prove moot.

But deep down they know that the NRL have robbed them of one of the rewards for their hard work that hot and humid Sunday afternoon in the west of Sydney.  That sort of resentment never truly goes away. 

Just ask John Quayle and Ken Arthurson.