I still don't get why people feel the need to discount the officials' role from the game. Of course there are other factors and moments that affect a game, and sometimes might very well decide a game, but the game is about momentum and how it swings, and the officials have plenty of say in this, as much as the players on some occasions, not all occasions. I find it striking that people all over RL will happily point to something a player does well, or something they do badly, and hold this up the a/the game changing moment. But if this moment is off the back of a referee's bad call they don't see this as relevant - oh but what about the other 79 minutes, etc
The point is there are a lot of variables in the game and many are down to what the players do but some, such as the decisions of the officials are simply something that the players cannot legislate for. But just because of that doesn't mean we the fans, the players, the coaching staff and the media shouldn't call them on it. if it was a lousy call and led to a try then that is the narrative - not just that the defence wasn't up to it. Players do need to respond to bad calls, they are obliged to, BUT they cannot always be expected to every time. RL defences are reactive and attack will trump defence so sometimes they may ensure the bad call doesn't cost points but when they don't, let's not ignore a major factor in that score was that it was a bad call. If that call was at a crucial time, or a deciding score then it's a major fact in the result.
In this game the decisions looked decidedly ropey and one sided. Usually players and coaches don't mention the referee after the game, this time they did. There were numerous instances where similar calls went different ways. I'm not suggesting deliberate bias or anything, but we were playing pretty well and the 14:5 penalty count and various other calls (e.g. 40:20), in my opinion, in this case, explains the scoreline far more than any other factor.
