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.

 

[Warrimoo3]

I’ve been watching rugby league since 1970 and can honestly say the current batch of referees is the worst I’ve ever seen. I haven’t been to a game for over 5 years because I’m not going to pay to see some Prima Donna continually signal imaginary set restarts or leave a team short handed . Lazarus said on the Matty John’s show last year that in his day the teams determined the result but these days the referee decides the close games . And I couuld’t agree more .

Here’s a recent prime example . I was looking forward to the recent Manly v Roosters match but it took four and a half minutes of prime Ashley Klein to knock the stuffing out of Manly. Firstly Tedesco was tackled then crawled along the ground on his knees for a couple of metres then deliberately got tangled up with the marker (Lawton). Prime milking from Tedesco but Klein was fooled and signalled a set restart.

Then Young throws a desperate flick pass on the last whilst being tackled by Talau which brushes Talau’s arm when the latter wasn’t playing at the ball. Again an incorrect set restart awarded to the Roosters. Then Toupou gets tackled and accidentally flips over a Manly player . A total accident which should have been reviewed by the bunker as Toupou layed on the ground but no , an instant penalty to the Roosters . Even Alexander said that Manly were hard done by. Then in the next set Tedesco throws a flick pass which floats at least 1 metre forward for a try. That’s 4 mistakes in the first 4 and a half minutes from Klein. Manly players’ heads subsequently dropped and the Roosters piled on the points. Despite a spirited comeback from Manly the damage was already done.