Ref and Bunker Decisions

[Captain Apollo]

I wasn’t aware of this. That makes it even worse - serious questions need to be asked of Annesley.
1 - Why was it ok back then? Allowing that to happen was a ridiculous decision - it’s an obvious conflict of interest risk. Even without questioning her integrity, you just get rid of the risk anyway, if nothing else but to avoid the perception/question…
2 - Why has he now changed his stance? Can her integrity no longer be trusted? Or does he admit they got it wrong previously?

Annesley is out of his depth and the game is poorer for it.

I suspect things like "conflict of interests" was not something they would have considered asking referees about. I mean not all work places have a code of conduct requiring such disclosures. Lesson learned for the NRL on this point.

As to why he changed his stance? Now, being aware of the matter, if they did nothing, then the perceived conflict of interest and suggestions of bias would grow. Like her or not, I dare say she hasn't been biased towards Souths or against any opponents, but keep her away from games involving Souths negates any perception of a conflict of interest. I've done enough ethics training to know that it can as much about perceived bias as actual bias.

 

[kurt faulk]

You do realise that this happens in a number of sports. In the US, many ex-officials are employed by NFL and NBA teams. TV networks often have an ex-official available during the coverage to explain decisions made during the game.

I wish the nrl would do this. Too many dumbos whining about correct calls.

.

 

[Chimp]

I suspect things like "conflict of interests" was not something they would have considered asking referees about. I mean not all work places have a code of conduct requiring such disclosures. Lesson learned for the NRL on this point.

As to why he changed his stance? Now, being aware of the matter, if they did nothing, then the perceived conflict of interest and suggestions of bias would grow. Like her or not, I dare say she hasn't been biased towards Souths or against any opponents, but keep her away from games involving Souths negates any perception of a conflict of interest. I've done enough ethics training to know that it can as much about perceived bias as actual bias.

They were aware of the matter when he was at Wests, and chose to back her ‘integrity’ then. It’s a shambles - just like pretty much everything else to do with the officiating element of the game currently.

 

[Saxon]

I suspect things like "conflict of interests" was not something they would have considered asking referees about. I mean not all work places have a code of conduct requiring such disclosures. Lesson learned for the NRL on this point.

As to why he changed his stance? Now, being aware of the matter, if they did nothing, then the perceived conflict of interest and suggestions of bias would grow. Like her or not, I dare say she hasn't been biased towards Souths or against any opponents, but keep her away from games involving Souths negates any perception of a conflict of interest. I've done enough ethics training to know that it can as much about perceived bias as actual bias.

I think the NRL thought that there would be no appreciable benefit to Wests. Let's face it, even the hand of God would have trouble helping the Tigpies.

 

[Maximus]

It’s ridiculous that it’s taken a social media blowup from Sharks fans for the NRL to realise this was an issue.
I can’t believe employees of the NRL aren’t required to disclose any links to clubs to avoid conflict of interest issues.
it would be interesting to know how many Souths games she’s been involved in since Gavin has been at Souths, and to look at her decision making in those games (if there are any).
Ridiculously inept from the NRL.

No idea how long he has been there, but it's the only Souths game this year she has been in the bunker.