NRL issue Stuart breach notice

The NRL will issue a breach notice to the Sydney Roosters over comments made by coach Ricky Stuart in a newspaper column yesterday.

The breach notice will recommend a $10,000 fine subject to submissions from the club over the next five working days.

Of particular concern was the allegation that ?it?s happening too frequently to think it?s just 50-50 calls.?

NRL coaches were at the start of the year reminded of their right to criticise decisions but also of the fact they could not assert bias, that they could not attack the integrity of officials nor could they use inflammatory or derogatory language in relation to referees.

?The rules could not have been made more clear,? NRL Chief Executive Mr David Gallop said toady.

?If you assert that referees are biased you will be fined.

?The referees have to be protected from such accusations. Not only are those sort of claims incorrect but they can put the game in the courts if left unchecked.

?Regardless of the pressures building in this competition, those in the game need to set an example in relation to how to accept the referee?s decision. Further, it is totally unhelpful to suggest that everyone hates referees.

?There could be few better examples of how that is done than the response of Kostya Tszyu after the loss of his World Championship belt.?

The NRL Referees coach has today reviewed a number of rulings in relation to Friday night?s match.

In relation to David Fa?aso: The Referee had a clear call of ?held up? from the touch judge. His own opinion was that it was held up. He correctly referred it to the video referee who could not establish a case either way. The video referee is prevented from applying ?benefit of the doubt? in circumstances where he cannot see all aspects of the try. The referee?s opinion, backed up by a clear signal from the touch judge meant that he had to award a no-try.

In relation to the Ryan Cross Penalty: Key Indicators issued for 2005 state: ?It is the responsibility of the attacking play to play the ball in the correct manner. The ball carrier must stand to play the ball.? The referees coach believed the penalty was appropriate and in line with a similar penalty given against Manly earlier in the match.

In relation to the forward pass: The referee was in a good position and believed the pass to be forward. This view was supported by the touch judge. The ?eagle-cam? vision shows Monaghan leaning forward to catch the ball, despite Roberts having been in a stationary position.

?We?ve put our hands up when decisions have been wrong, but that is not the case in this instance,? Referees? Coach Robert Finch said today.

?A team in a match may have an error count of around 40-odd, including missed tackles and dropped balls.

?In that context it?s unfair to look at refereeing decisions alone as ?deciding? a match.

?We believe Tim Mander was correct in this case but it?s also important that we don?t demand a level of perfection from referees that we don?t expect anywhere else.?