Bulldog's Bite: Bill Harrigan calls for punching rules to be scrapped Former referees boss Bill Harrigan. BILL Harrigan has called for the immediate scrapping of rugby league's contentious "one punch and you're off" edict, labelling it a "farce" and "ridiculous." In an exclusive interview for Bulldog's Bite, Harrigan also called for the sacking of referee Ashley Klein for Origin III and claimed NRL referees were performing no better this year than under his watch in 2012. Bulldog: What do you think of the "one punch and you're off" edict? Harrigan: It's not necessary. If you introduce a rule without thinking about the ramifications or impact, you get yourself into all sorts of trouble. The classic example was (in Origin II) when four players were sin-binned. What happens had there been eight or nine players throwing punches? That means eight or nine would have been identified by the video referee and referees and sin-binned. Bulldog: Eleven-a-side in Origin II. What a farce. Harrigan: And it could have been worse. If there had been eight or nine players throwing punches then under the policy you get sin-binned. It would have been farcical. We are showing this game all over the world. I don't know, four, five, six million people watching this game and thinking, "What the hell have we got here?" We would have looked ridiculous. Bulldog: Bill, should this rule be punted? Harrigan: Take it off. Go back and think of all the scenarios and ask whether we can redefine the rule and put different parameters in place. Or just get rid of it and go to the referees and say, "Get a tougher stance. If you don't, we will get someone who will. Bulldog: What could happen if this rule remains in place? Harrigan: Take a player, Nate Myles for example, and he throws a punch. A coach would say: "Don't leave him like a shag on a rock, I want the other 12 players in there throwing punches because they can't get rid of 13 of us." That's what you would be telling them: "Everyone in and everyone throws a punch." Thirteen players throwing a punch ... what are they going to do? Bulldog: Some might suggest you have old-fashioned views. Harrigan: I understand they are doing it for the good of the game but what I am saying is that you don't need a hard and fast rule where you've got no room to move. You can achieve the same results in other ways. Bulldog: How? Harrigan: By the severity. Let's go back to game one. Paul Gallen throws the punch. Let's say he was sin-binned. Then the match review committee turns around and says we will still charge you with a two-match striking charge. All of a sudden players are starting to say: "Whoa, is it worth it?" The same with the shoulder charge. The match review committee whacks a charge on the player and it costs him eight weeks. Players will then realise they can't afford to do that and will start using their arms. Bulldog: Do you think the referees this year under Daniel Anderson are performing better than they were under you last year? Harrigan: No, I don't. It's a no-win question for me. Whatever I say will either look like I'm pinning tickets on myself because they were better last year or I am bagging myself because they are better this year. Bulldog: You do love pinning tickets on yourself, Billy. Harrigan: Back in the old days I did mate but I've grown and matured. I don't think they are refereeing as well this year and they're not refereeing to their potential as a squad. Bulldog: Are they diabolical? Harrigan: No, just not reaching their potential. Did you think they were diabolical last year, Bulldog? Bulldog: Did I think that? Harrigan: Yes. Bulldog: Overall last year, with referee and some video ref blunders, it was a poor year for refereeing. Would you agree? Harrigan: It's hard to disagree because there were some pretty ordinary decisions. Bulldog: Do you take responsibility for that? Harrigan: I've got to, I was the boss. But I also believe it wasn't as bad as people thought. There were a couple of decisions that really compounded it. It's like when you have momentum, the ball keeps rolling faster and faster without having to touch it. It was the same with the refereeing. Every decision that was wrong or bad just had that roll-on effect. Bulldog: Should Ashley Klein be sacked for Origin? Harrigan: More so after Origin I than II. He shouldn't have been sacked for dispatching four players. The video referee had a fair input into that. Klein should have been dispatched after game one because he didn't take firmer action on Paul Gallen. In my opinion, I wouldn't have had him there in game one anyway. I think there were a couple of better referees at the time sitting at home watching the game on television. Bulldog: Who should referee Origin III? Harrigan: I'd like to say that Ben Cummins and Matt Cecchin should be back but the reason I won't is because it is a decider and Shayne Hayne is the most experienced referee and has been there for the first two. I would leave him there but have either Ben Cummins or Matt Cecchin in there. Bill Harrigan would like to see referee Ben Cummins in Origin III. BILL Harrigan has described the NRL referees coaching position as a "poisoned chalice..." Bulldog: Did you deserve to be sacked last year? Harrigan: No, I didn't. Bulldog: Were you filthy? Harrigan: I was filthy. I thought they got rid of myself and Stuart Raper for the wrong reasons. That was because of all the publicity about the Origin decisions. Bulldog: You said "wrong reasons" Bill, but you admitted earlier in this interview the refs were poor last year. Harrigan: I will explain it to you if you like and give me the chance. There was a hell of a lot of (publicity) about the Greg Inglis try and the sin-binning of Michael Jennings. There was also talk about Justin Hodges in game three (ran a blatant obstruction where a try was awarded). Ricky Stuart gave it to me big time in the paper. Some of the other decisions then seem to steamroll. Let me say this: the NRL had an independent review done on the coaching of Stuart Raper and myself and we came out with a glowing report. The guy who did it couldn't give us a look at that report. He certainly had a conversation with us about things that may or may not have been in it and he was surprised. Bulldog: Why would you have been punted if it was a glowing report? Harrigan: You tell me. Bulldog: Do you think they were out to get you? Harrigan: Of course they were. There was that much publicity they just wanted to turn the heat down. Bulldog: Were you a scapegoat? Harrigan: They just wanted to turn the heat down. Let's get rid of Harrigan, that will turn the heat off straight away. And it did but it was only a short-term fix because the heat is right back on them now. All I can say now is "thank you, you did me a favour." I'm happy, with a smile on my face. Bulldog: What is your message to Daniel Anderson? Harrigan: All the best mate, it is a poisoned chalice.