NRL icon Billy Slater has voiced his opinion that referees should refrain from interpreting a player’s intent when assessing the legality of an incident during matches. His comments arise in response to contentious decisions from round 24, particularly focusing on Harry Grant’s controversial penalty which some claim unfairly cost Penrith the game against Melbourne.
In the pivotal moment, Grant charged from the marker position directly into Panthers’ player Moses Leota. This calculated contact led the referee and the Bunker to penalise Penrith, nullifying a potential match-winning field goal by Nathan Cleary. Following this, Grant scored the decisive try during golden point extra time, much to Penrith’s chagrin.
While Grant received a mix of praise and backlash for his actions—termed by some as “milking” the penalty—others argue he was merely being shrewd in securing an advantage. Slater, a legendary figure in the sport, emphasized that referees ought to strictly adhere to the rule book rather than interpret the players’ motivations behind their actions.
In his remarks on Nine’s “The Billy Slater Podcast,” he acknowledged that Leota was positioned illegally, and thus Grant’s actions were justified under the rules. However, Slater maintained that referees should not weigh the appropriateness of a player’s conduct against their decisions. He cautioned against referees making calls based on personal sentiments toward a player’s actions, suggesting that it could lead to inconsistencies and confusion in officiating.
Slater pointed out that recent incidents, including obstructions in try-scoring plays, have highlighted this issue. He cited cases from the weekend’s matches, where tries were awarded despite apparent obstructions, attributing it to referees’ consideration of players’ intent rather than adherence to established rules.
He stated, “The rules are the rules. Referee the rules and forget about the player’s intentions.” According to Slater, this approach would help eliminate ambiguous situations in officiating and foster a smoother game flow. He declared that clear obstruction rulings should not be clouded by opinions on players’ actions, expressing frustration that referees sometimes misinterpret such scenarios due to perceived ‘milking’.
In conclusion, Slater’s strong stance advocates for a return to the basics of officiating—focusing solely on the rules without getting entangled in players’ intentions. While he acknowledges the challenges referees face, he believes clarity and consistency can be achieved by sticking strictly to the rulebook.