Now I know the Fui penalty has been done ad nauseum (and then some), as has the associated "what if" scenarios.
In creating this thread I am not intending to look at the merits of that particular penalty, nor speculate as to how it might have changed the result.
What I would like to examine is Robert Finch's response to the controversy, which I believe is totally misinformed, unprofessional and certainly not in keeping with what any member of the Rugby League fan community should expect from someone in a position of his gravity within the game.
The following quotations from him, are taken from The Daily Telegraph article: "Clearly a penalty, says Finch".
I am quoting verbatim so to avoid any potential contextual ambiguities:
"From what I have seen, it's quite clear that the player running back (Kingston) knocks the ball out of Slater's hands with his left knee," Finch said."
"If the tackle is completed you must clear the ruck. And if a player knocks the ball out of another player's hands when he hasn't cleared that ruck, it's a penalty - that's a penalty any day of the week. Also, the player (Todd Lowrie) comes back and puts his hands on Slater when the tackle is completed."
First of all, the fact that his justification (Kingston) is at odds with what the original penalty was given for, has already been sufficiently discussed.
Further to this, he also gives a backup reason of Todd Lowrie's hand (?!?) just in case his obfuscation employing Kingston, didn't muddy the original issue beyond rational debate sufficiently enough.
As the so-called "boss" of refereeing, Robert Finch more than anyone else in the game, should be able to present the on-field legalities of Rugby League in a clear, concise and understandable manner.
His job is not to lay smokescreen (Lowrie), after smokescreen (Kingston), to render the debate redundant via over-complication, when the sole area of focus should only have been the original player who was penalised (Moi Moi), for the pure and simple reason that this is the only area where "Rugby League Law" was applied at the time.
His job should solely be focused upon commenting upon how rulings were actually applied, not on how they could have been applied.
This statement reminds me of how a grade-3 schoolboy would conduct an argument:
But, but, but . . . you could have penalised Kingston!
Oh yeah?
But, but, but . . . Todd Lowrie had a hand on Slater's back!
Nerrrrrrrrr! So there!
Totally unprofessional, and illustrative of an extreme incompotence of talent and temperament, of what should be expected from somebody who sits at the top of the heap, for one of the most paramount aspects of our game, in refereeing.
I would also like to revisit the comment:
And if a player knocks the ball out of another player's hands when he hasn't cleared that ruck, it's a penalty - that's a penalty any day of the week.
Sunday was a "day of the week".
Nathan Hindmarsh had the ball knocked out of his hand, and it wasn't a penalty.
Last Friday was also a "day of the week".
Andrew Ryan's knee dislodged the ball from Ben Smith's hand when he was playing it, and it wasn't a penalty.
Of course, I am only giving Parramatta examples, but I am sure fans of all clubs could highlight instances where it wasn't their "day of the week" to receive this penalty.
And of course Robert Finch should have pointed out the Nathan Hindmarsh example, after all he also said the following:
"I think it's unfair to single out one incident. In the first half Greg Inglis was taken high and late after a kick and instead of Parramatta getting a 20m restart, Melbourne could have had two points (courtesy of a penalty goal)."
"I think it's unfair to single out one incident"
But you know what, I am going to anyway (continues with Inglis)
If he decided to point out the Inglis incident (which I also believe should have been a penalty to Melbourne), why didn't he point out the Hindmarsh one?
Also, why did he not point out that Steve Turner, having been told to play the ball once his momentum was stopped, should have been penalised for running another 30 metres?
He talks about a possible 2-pointer for the Inglis incident?
How about the possible 6 points that Parramatta might not have conceded if Turner was rightly penalised?
And this is why Robert Finch should not get into a game of "what-ifs"
His role is meant to be objective.
And here he has stuck his neck out, over one arguably incorrect penalty on Moi Moi, basically saying:
"Well, it was a penalty"
How?
"Well, if Fui didn't deserve to be penalised, Kingston did"
"And, if the Kingston excuse isn't enough to placate my detractors, then how about Lowrie, huh?"
"And if this hasn't confused you all enough, and you are still unhappy that Parramatta may have been denied a chance, then there is always Inglis"
Nerrrrrrrrr! So there!
Nevermind mentioning that by this stated logic, Hindmarsh should have earned a penalty for the exact same situation.
Nevermind pointing out that this would have been at a crucial time, given the momentum he had earnt from carving up the Melbourne line.
Nevermind pointing out that Steve Turner ran on with immunity after being told to play the ball.
This is not about Parramatta being "robbed". I only highlight these as counter-arguments to Finch's "2 point Inglis" speculation.
Melbourne are a phenomenally talented football team, and are more than worthy of their title, not only on how they played the season, but also how they played the Grand Final.
This is not about that.
This is about a refereeing boss, who should stick to commenting upon the confines of rules applied, and the merit of how these were applied; and not on speculation of how they could have been applied, all in the name of a feeble attempt at justification of a penalty that was arguably, given incorrectly at the time.
It is not his job to correct it in retrospect, by hand-picking other likely scapegoats that would substitute for any ambiguities.
And if he wants the job of pointing out penalties that could have/should have been given in other areas, then it is an "all or nothing" prospect, not one of picking only the "low hanging fruit" to suit his agenda.
To mine, Robert Finch has clearly illustrated in this instance that he is unsuited to the job that he holds.
A person of higher talent, and better temperament, is clearly required for this role, lest the game of Rugby League not only continue to suffer the indignities of such ambiguities and controversies, but also the cringe-inducing embarrassment of having to watch ham-fisted clowns like Finch butcher their way through trying to sweep these messes under the rug.
That rug has been overflowing for years.
