Did Gough make a mistake in the "can't Captains Challenge" incident (Williams' almost-try) with 2:56 remaining in the first half against the Tigers Round 5? Is that and other referring indiscretions - basically orchestrating thee game - why Gough has been dropped for Round 6? And the Moses warning letter is a smokescreen to cover up an awful refereeing performance?
At least, how are we to interpret the Captains Challenge rule? Has an inconsistency in it just been unearthed? I'm interested in clear expositions of how the following chain of reasoning is WRONG. That is, that I am wrong and the ref got it all right
Context: Williams has picked up a loose ball, ran 30-40m, and got close to line the Tigers line before being set upon by three Tigers defenders. Williams gets up to play the ball and Korisau (sp?) comes from behind and knocks the ball out. Agreed facts.
- Gough tells Moses that because he had "not ruled the tackle complete" it's a lost ball. That he won't win a challenge. This seems to suggest Gough is saying Moses cannot challenge a decision to "play on"? But if Gough has not called tackle complete nor has he ruled play on?
- Both Ryles and Moses in the press conference say they suspect Williams will have been called for a double movement if he dived over to score. I cannot attach the photos (getting a "file too large" error) but Williams' ball-carrying arm AND the ball touch the ground and at least one Tiger (Doihei) has his hands on Williams at that point. Freeze frame the footage to verify. So as best I can tell a double movement was in fact in play? Also Williams is 100% steadying to play the ball: the ball has been swapped from right to left arm while getting up and his right foot is outstretched in a play the ball not diving forward stance.
- Now look at the rules for Captains Challenge below. There was a change in possession resulting in a structured restart (scrum; Tigers feed), which CAN be challenged. Also look at the rules for when a player is tackled Williams satisfied both conditions A and D
My interpretation is that Gough failed to call held as required. Note if it was a surrender tackle, which the "sole responsibility of the referee to identify", he would have identified it. I think Gough then confused himself that it was a play on rather than a structured restart condition.
Note that IF Gough's reasoning was solid here, we would NOT be seeing strips identified by Captains Challenge?
Replies
Gough isn't named to referee this weekend. I think his boss agrees with you.
Williams was tackled, plain and simple. Gough messed it up, then ensured it couldn't be challenged by conflating his non-call with Williams not being tackled. Held is not said by the referee in every tackle. If Gough is saying the only way for a tackle to be complete is for the ref to call held then I look forward to players just getting up when tackled on the ground if a held call isn't made.
Super, remeber those press sessions Annesley would run each week, where he went thorugh controversial incidents and identified where he thought the ref got it right or wrong?
Imagine Annesley confronted with the question of "is a player tackled or a tackle complete ONLY when the ref says so?" I'd bet alot of money on Annesley saying NO and pointing to the Conditions A to D + the Surrender tackle rule, and then noting what every single fan knows without exception, that players routinely launch into attempting to play the ball without awaiting a call as soon as any of the five condotions for ' is tackled' have been met.
Also note the rules only refer to a 'held' call being required in the case of lifting and surrender tackles.
Actually, being so close to the try line it was a classic sin bin offence by the player knocking the ball out. Not since probably Henry P, have we witnessed such an incompetent performance. Touchies were bad too. Missed a blatant strip that led to a Tigers try late in first half. And NRL360 panelist said the penalty to level the score for Tigers was a square-up. Not my words, but I think it was Anasta who said it.
I was reading ( Googling NRL Rules) and it clearly stated and I'm assuming this is correct regarding 2 Questions I asked. One was about Williams and the referee Gough telling Moses that because he ( Gough) hadn't called 'Held' then the tackle isn't complete but this isn't actually correct. It states in the NRL Rules that once an attacking player 'momentum' has stopped by the opposition then the tackle is completed regardless of the referee calling 'held'
So legally Williams was in the right and Moses had every right to challenge and Referee Gough was wrong. Next we have the winning penalty awarded to the Tigers because Walker was deemed 'offside'. According to NRL Rules the RUCK is completed when the player has played the ball by rolling the ball backwards with his foot and has nothing to do with Api passing the ball! Again yet another huge error by Referee Gough
On Mallee's point, about stopping of momentum and a tackle being complete regardless of whether the ref calls held, it is interesting to look at the laws of the game. This is because Mallee's suggestion is correct. But Google or AI Overview is not your friend here because to really know just how much Gough made it up on the fly, we must go directly to 'the source'. There are two main sources, the International Rugby League Laws of the Game 2026 (Int'l Rules), and Australian Rugby League Commission (approved) Ruby League Laws of the Game International Level with Notes on the Laws and NRL Telstra Premiership Interpretations (NRL-Int'l Rules, April 2023). Both of those links go to the International Rugby League body and to the NRL Operations websites, where you can easily see the PDF documents to read the laws, but PDF links are here: Int'l and NRL.
The first thing to note is that wherever possible, trace a rule, a policy, a fact even, back to its source if you can. Various forms of AI Overview search results, and rank ordering of search results in search engines like Google & Co, access whatever rules document nrl.com is optimizing (backlinks and page speed matter). We are thus bought to a shortened version of the rules, in my search variations the main document that kept turning up was the NRL 2020 edition of the rules (here). A 2022 version also crops up but not as often as the 2020 version. We know of rules emendments since both 2020 and 2022, obviously.
Both the readily accessible 2020 and 2022 versions of the rules LACK crucial details about what counts as a tackle. We get the basics where we see conditions a-d noted above (grounded, upright, succumbing, hand on player). But there is no further detail on, crucially, 'succumbing' or when 'held' is required to be called. That said, there is no hint that 'held' must be called in the case of 'grounding' (and Williams grounded the ball).
What do the International laws of the game say? Go to pp. 29-30, or Section 11 'the tackle and the play-the-ball'. A player is tackled if (paraphrasing) a) the ball or ball-holding hand in contact with ground and held by one or more opposing players, or b) held upright or cannot make progress, or c ) they succumb. The International rules then specify (in notes) five circumstances governing the tackle, and only in three cases is the ref required to call held: the team in possession is adding weight to their own tackled player to avoid them losing ground, or the team in possession is trying to drive their tackled player forward, or the player is held upright and the ref has to indicate completed tackle before the ball can be played.
That is, the International rules specify three distinct ways - a) grounded, b) upright, and c) succumbing - in which a player is tackled, and in none of them does it specify the ref has to call 'held'. Only in those other three circumstances is a 'held' call required.
Even more interesting is the 'succumbing ' rule, which specifies the following. A player is tackled: (c) "When, being held by an opponent, the tackled player makes it evident that they have succumbed to the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play the ball".
There is also a note titled 'succumbing to a tackle'. A player who is held and wishes to play the ball - and it is evident they have succumbed - "it is to their advantage" to ground the ball (to play the ball).
I think it obvious Williams had succumbed to the tackle - knowing both the ball and his ball carrying arm made contact with the ground while Tigers players were on him - and he was attempting to pay the ball. Would not a Captains Challenge have opened the possibility of the bunker ruling Williams was tackled and attempting to play the ball, with the Tigers fouling in a try scoring situation?
Well maybe the answer to that question is to be found in the the NRL Operations website, which links to the April 2023 laws of the game noted above (Int'l laws with NRL interpretations). The relevant section is Section 11 'Tackle and Play-the-Ball'. Unless the detail slipped attention, it is Section 11 in BOTH International and NRL where what counts as a tackle is specified.
From the ARLC-approved laws of the game, a player in possession is tackled [when]]:
Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground.
Upright (b) when he is held by one or more opposing players in such a manner that he can make no further progress and cannot
part with the ball.
Succumbing (c) when, being held by an opponent, the tackled player makes it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play-the-ball.
Hand on player (d) when he is lying on the ground and an opponent places already grounded a hand on him.
First, there is nothing stipulating the ref is required to call 'held' in any of those conditions, for a player to be tackled. Second, and very importantly, this ARLC-approved document expands on the 'succumbing' condition to include 'when the player makes it evident he/she has succumbed'. I think Williams was 'making it evident' he was tackled and trying to play the ball.
But also, this one is a doozy, from the ARLC-approved version of the laws of the game:
Verbal instructions
6. "If any doubt arises as to a tackle, the Referee should to resolve doubt give a verbal instruction to “play on” or shout “held” as the case may be. (See note 6. Simultaneous Page 25)." [Note 6 says if the player does not hear the call of held, he/she returns to ther site of the play the ball].
It is pretty obvious that Williams was tackled, according to the 'grounding' condition, and that Williams was 'making it evident' (per the succumbing condition) that he was attempting to play the ball. Gough says he did not call 'held' but nor did he call 'play on', so by the laws of the game the grounding and succumbing conditions are in operation and the bunker should have found Williams had grounded the ball and was attenpting to legally play the ball.
Why does any of this really matter? Because instead of the NRL coming out and admitting Gough made a serious error, not knowing the laws of the game, the NRL decided to throw the media some red meat distraction in the form of a warning letter to Moses.
Gough 100% stuffed the tackle/held call up, which happens. That's annoying but forgivable.
But him refusing the challenge, that's doubling down on a call he would have known was wrong. That's why he's been benched this week.
If he'd just let the challenge happen it would have been corrected and no one would be talking about it now.
He deserves the loss of duties this weekend.