A Lack of Leed-ership

Thursday was a frustrating evening for Leeds. They travelled to St Helens and were convincingly beaten. At the start of the season, you may have thought this would be a fixture between two of the top sides. Instead, Leeds ended the weekend in 10th place. Worse still, their players have accrued bans totalling 10 matches arising from the fixture.

Leeds were angry at perceived poor calls from the match official on the evening. For some, such as Zane Tetevano's red card, there could be no complaints. For others, such as the award of Regan Grace's try, the upset was understandable. However, when you lose by 42-12, the first place you must look is inward.

One bright spark for Leeds on the night was an excellent Harry Newman try. After collecting a loose ball, he effortlessly weaved around several St Helens defenders with apparent ease. After being blighted by injuries, it was a reminder of why so many think so much of him.

In the latter stages of the match, Alex Walmsley crashed over the line for a possible try, the contest long since over. Referee Tom Grant asked the video referee to decide, awarding an on field decision of a try. This prompted the unedifying sight of Harry Newman aggressively confronting the official before being ushered away by a team mate.

Newman was fortunate to stay on the field. One suspects that a more experienced official would have taken further action. Instead, Newman received a two match suspension.

Referees make mistakes. That cannot be justification for the vitriol shown by Newman. But, he's a young player. Players also make mistakes. We should expect that, especially of young players. If Newman is to realise his huge potential, he will learn from Thursday's incident.

That may have been in the heat of battle but what followed was not. Leeds appealed the suspension, Newman pleaded not guilty to aggressively confronting a referee and his suspension increased to three matches for making a frivolous appeal.

Let's leave to one side whether it is right or wrong for suspensions to be increased for frivolous appeals for a moment. This is the approach the RFL take this year. Leeds, Warrington and Huddersfield have all seen increased suspensions because of this in 2022.

Despite this, Leeds appealed anyway. Why? Did they seriously think they could mount a case that Newman did not behave aggressively? Perhaps an appeal based on severity with an attempt at contrition may have worked. Public media comments denying such aggressive actions in the face of evidence to the contrary would never.

This begs the bigger question about leadership at Leeds. Who sanctioned the appeal? If Newman insisted, why did senior players and coaches not intervene?

The question that came to mind was would this have happened in years gone by? In part, yes. An incident like Newman's can happen in any team at any time.  For example, Danny McGuire was banned for swearing at a referee in 2017. 

The reaction thereafter is where matters differ. McGuire apologised and took his medicine. Newman denied behaving aggressively. The club launched an appeal that was doomed to failed. It is indicative of a club that lacks nous and leadership. Two central qualities of the 'golden generation'

Leeds lack leaders like McGuire, Sinfield, Peacock and Burrow now. Those players thrived in pressure situations. When others lost their cool and doubted them, these men stayed calm, had confidence and succeeded.

Ok, you can't replace players like this. You'll never get another set of players like those. That is not say you cannot still get strong leaders. One of the most senior players in the current Leeds team is Zane Tetevano. And he spends large parts of the season on the sideline due to his incapability to maintain his own discipline.

Newman, a player plagued by injuries, will now miss three matches through an avoidable set of acts. You get the sense that with better advice and stronger leaders in his side, both on and off the field, this may not have happened.