The loophole which seemingly allows a captain to make a challenge on a refereeing decision after giving away an intentional penalty shouldn't exist.
That's according to the NRL's own rulebook, and comes to light after more controversy during the Gold Coast's almost-comeback against the Parramatta Eels on Saturday evening at CBus Super Stadium.
The controversial tactic, used after a referee calls play on following what an opposition team may think is a knock on, will see the defending team lay on a tackle until the referee signals a penalty.
The first instance - seemingly at least - of the tactic being used was during the Round 4 blockbuster clash between the Penrith Panthers and South Sydney Rabbitohs. It was then followed up later that weekend by Jake Turpin doing the same thing for the Brisbane Broncos.
It reared its head twice in a limited period on Saturday as the Gold Coast fought their way back into the match against Parramatta, causing bewilderment in the commentary box and on social media as it became something of a blight on the game.
Referee Peter Gough, in allowing the first of two challenges to be made on Saturday evening, warned Toby Sexton that if the challenge didn't come back in his favour, he would find himself in the sin bin.
And yet, Clint Gutherson, at his post-match press conference aside Brad Arthur, said the practice was outlawed by a referee the week prior, labelling the policing of the "rule" inconsistent.
โIt was a bit weird. I remember watching a game last week and the ref said you can only challenge the last play, the penalty, not the play before. The ref said that to the captain. It happened to us twice, pretty crucial, they scored off the back of both of them. Itโs pretty inconsistent,โ Gutherson said.
โLast week the ref did say you can only challenge the last play on the field. He (Gough) didnโt really communicate what was the go there. Iโd like a bit of clarity going into the next couple of weeks.โ
That is a direction from the top of the NRL, with head of football Graham Annesley using his weekly footy briefing last Monday afternoon after Round 4 to threaten players with the sin bin for giving away an intentional penalty to stop play if the challenge is not successful.
โA team canโt try to create a stoppage in order to challenge something that has previously been missed,โ Annesley said a week ago.
โIf there is a natural stoppage, then they can challenge the reason the referee caused the game to stop.
โSome people will say it doesnโt matter as long as we get the right decision in the end but there has to be some parameters, otherwise we would have stoppages to play all the time.
โOnce they think they get a decision changed, they would just be coached to give away a penalty so they can go back and challenge the original decision.โ
However, aside from commentators bemoaning the spirit of the rule (since when has there ever been a "spirit" for the NRL to be played in?), and Annesley's threats, the NRL's rulebook outlaws it from ever occurring.
Under the NRL's own rules, players are only allowed to challenge the decision which caused a stoppage as below.
The captain can only challenge decisions by the referee which cause play to stop. (i.e. any decision by the referee
to โplay-onโ cannot be challenged)
A challenge is only permissible in instances where the referee makes a decision that results in the match
recommencing with a structured restart
Both parts of the rule speak about only being able to challenge the decision which results in play stopping, while also explicitly outlawing a challenge of play on decisions. Therefore, in the instances of captain's challenges after a player has deliberately stopped a game, only the penalty itself can be challenged.
Directly under those parts of the rule, it only gets worse for players attempting to stop play.
For clarity, as detailed in point 1 above, a challenge cannot be requested during general play if a whistle has not already been blown to indicate a stoppage e.g. a defending captain/player who suspects that the referee has missed a knock-on from an attacking player may not stop general play by requesting a challenge.
That all said, none of this should ever be allowed to happen, and when it does, it should be an automatic professional foul and sin bin, regardless of whether the challenge would have been won or not.
It's a blight on the game, and almost indicates referee dissent, to actively go against the rule book in order to force a challenge.
The captain's challenge wasn't designed to challenge 50-50 calls on the run. It wasn't designed to slow the game down either.
The instances we have seen in the last fortnight are doing just that, and of course, coaches should cop a fair percentage of the blame for instructing their players to find yet another loophole in the NRL rules.
They have been doing it for years on any new rule that has ever been created, however, this time, a proper policing of the rule book will shut it down in a matter of seconds.
