By Paul Flatt
December 31 2009

I promised the editors that I would try to write this when I wasn't still smarting from one of those days when you (well me, actually) round off by saying something on the Saracens Board that you end up regretting, although it seemed witty and pertinent (perty?) at the time.

Me and Sir – A Mutually Parasitic Relationship

At last, it's time to try and unburden myself about my relationship with the man with the whistle, and why I don't seem to get on with many of them. There is a danger in all of this that it might end up reading like some West Coast Janovian attempt to re-connect with my lower colon, but let's see where it takes us.

What I'm not going to do is just name names, of my favourites or of villains. I'm trying to rise above the most obvious of pigeon-holing and lists of good-uns and bad-uns just won't do.  To prove I am the most reliable of witnesses, I will say this about just one name, Wayne Barnes (Nurse! The carbolic!!).  When this young man first appeared on Mr Powell's hallowed sod, I thought him poor. Un-sympatheticto the flow of the game and too ready to keep interrupting it with his blessed peeper. Nowadays, I really think he's not bad - although he still doesn't allow himself to smile enough. (I also wonder if he was separated at birth from that other crack official, Andrew Marr?)

So, about me. Joe Public. I played rugby every Saturday morning until leaving school, then headed off intothe wilderness which was long hair, rock music and other bad habits freely available in the late sixties / early seventies. Eventually Settled down with a nuclear 2.4 family my kids discovered sport and soon I became a taxi service toTae Kwon Do, Basketball, Dance, Football, and finally I broke my self imposed exile from Mother Rugby. The boy's first spectating outing was to the Bedford Blues in about 1994 (he says). In 1996 he signed up at Sponne, played for thefirst time on the first Thursday, and had signed up for the Tows by the next Sunday. In less than a year we were regulars in the old South End (Kids went free, thanks KB!). I haven't missed much of the Saints since that time, but interms of knowledge it's just what I've picked up along the way- although I do always try to be informed in whatever I'm doing.

Along the way, I've met and listened to those who do know more about the fine print, than ever I would. The boy made the County Squad and I would follow him to wherever Norm and the Development Officers summoned. Through a mutual friend, I met Ashley Rowden when he was a regular at Wanderers games, and have engaged in threads on this Board with Messrs The Ref, Corley Services, Clare_G and some geezer called Clive Norling.  I've learnt about the concept of 'materiality' and heard a little about the politics of the RFUalong the way.

OK, a quick interpretation of'materiality' for the uninitiated : if the referee sees what is a breach of thelaws but decides that it would not materially affect the outcome of the situation he is free to not take any action in order to allow the game to'flow' but should later mention it to the offender when a natural break in play allows.

So what do I want from Sir?

Well first and foremost, I want a fair game. At my core I'm a bit prudish and I don't care much for the school of thought that says "they all cheat, it's part of the game". To me, this implies that Sir has not been able to impose himself on the game to stop them all trying.

So there is the second condition.I want a referee who is in charge, and to whom the players quickly deferwithout complaint.

Requirements 1 & 2 clearly dictate number 3. Take control of the game quickly. Preferably in the first 10minutes, so that last 70 minutes are worth watching.

Aha! Number 4 - Flattie wants a spectacle. Damn right I do. I want skillful rugby, played at pace by intelligent,creative athletes. I want physicality, and hard meaningful contact.  I want to see forwards pushing,pulling, driving and wearing down their opponents. I want to see silver winged backs darting through the narrowest of gaps with the most subtle of sidesteps catching delicate passes at the extremity of their speed.

And that's number five - give theplayers a chance to play.

Can we cut this sequence with afew of what I don't wants?  I really don't like gamesmanship. I don't go for time-wasting, interference to delay throw-ins, complaining and whinging, feigned injuries (and lost contactlenses!) and the sight of 4 million water boys and girls pouring onto the pitch at every opportunity depresses me. Oh, and the number of off pitch officials just seems like mission creep and jobs for the boys in my simple world.

Here's one of my few real gripes.From what I understand to be the laws - and from what I try to learn from those who know better, some of the sirs don't seem to know all the laws, or have decided that some are more important than others. The reverse is also true.Some sirs have clearly decided that they will become known in the annals of history as the greatest expert on the perfect distance down the middle of theline out, or the measurement of the 1.7357 nano-seconds which must elapsebefore 'not releasing' is called and then spend the whole 80 minutes giving us all a masterclass in these skills! It's very skilful but it's just not clever.

The last time Smurf was on here pointing at sub clauses to the minor codicils appended to the fourth amendmentof the De-ELVed Laws, I never spotted a law that said something along the linesof 'the referee can take his pick as to which law he chooses to apply this week (assuming there is a Y in the month' so, stop it please and apply them all,without fear or favour.

But back to the positives. Above all else, I want to see everyone on the pitch enjoying themselves - becauseit's a fun place to be, because they are enjoying the game, and because the spectators are feeding back more of that enjoyment to those in the middle.

On his own, the ref can't makepeople enjoy the game. But he can create the circumstances, and he can dealwith those who don't.

A Word in Passing About Fashion

Have you noticed how thefootballers (especially the French) suddenly started pulling their socks rightup above their knees without a fold-down? There are similar fads in rugby which normally say more about gamesmanship than about hirsute appearance.

There was the walking away from the breakdown with ball when the other side had possession. A man would run after the ball to recover it, and big lump holding it would then return it bychucking it back over his head. I've already mentioned handbags on the touchline as two preening wingers grapple for possession of the pill to speed/slow the restart. We could add in lazy runners, second balls chucked on the pitch and of course there was Mr Quinnell with his black arm pads ("all thebetter to forearm smash you with, Mr Pig, ha ha ha!"). Every fleeting fashiononly gathers momentum because Sir, collectively, has failed to stop the use of  that tactic to slow down possession.

This is a lesson that all young teachers quickly learn (and prosper) or miss (and get butchered).  The best lessons begin before the class even enters the room. Let them dawdle in, talking among themselves, before taking a lifetime to settle down before the register even can be called, and the cause is already lost.

Are They Biased? Can They Be Bought in The Car Park, Are They Homers or Just Congenitally Blind in One Eye?

Well I once offered Steve Walsh a pint if he would be nice to the English for a change. He willingly took the drink and then ignored the rest of the deal! OK, all of that is palpably not true,other than if ever one official was clearly biased it was that malevolent Aussie in his dealings with the perfidious bastards who had been responsible for the transportation of his forebears to the modern hell hole which is Channel Seven land, then I am not Homer Simpson. (And boy was Steve a great advert for neutral officials!).

But no. To answer my own questionI don't believe they are. I think most officials love the game and love being involved in the way they serve. Like I've said, there are some who think they are The Product rather than the delivery medium. And they spoil the game.

All referees, to my mind, reflect their own personality in the way they officiate (Flatt's new game to replacethe execrable Mexican wave - "Spot the schizo ref"!!). The self confident ones go out in front of The Gordon Terrace, or the Shed to prove how immune they are from local influence that they spend the whole afternoon penalising the homeside for having the wrong colour boot laces. Then there are the sheep who wait for C block to point out the forward passes before quickly applying AcmeThunderer to mouth.

I do have a bit of a theory about different racial stereotypes in the refereeing melting pot. Irish = haughty,disdainful. Scottish = workmanlike, thorough, slightly invisible. Welsh -mostly proletarian, deal with players as equals. English = try to be the most pleasant, clearly the most talkative. Sarfies = my favourites, but I'm not sure why. French = well versed in dealing with strife in far away places (especiallyFrench third division) and very unflappable. And so on. My good friend RedSaint would now doubt advise that Russian Refs combine all of these talents like a much plagiarised tractor from the Kamaz Works, but I have never seen what you might call a Black Russian!.

Building a Better Referee!

Given that most orchestras thesedays are professional and composed of really quite competent players (even the triangle chap has to read music) just what is the point of the conductor chappie. Can't the brass section beat out the required number of beats to thebar? No - because the world of music has achieved something we haven't - they realise that the conductor is the person who interprets the score and by his actions normally manages to wring out from the performance something that the first violinists are too selfish to achieve without help.

Now there is a funny word -'help'. The referee has two helpers, who have been especially trained in semaphore to help them communicate with each other and the maestro in themiddle. They've even had a Gok Kwan makoever! No longer called touch judges,they are 'Assistant Referees' (oooh get her!). But it seems from my observationthat another unwritten law like 'materiality' or 'some laws are more important than others' applies to these poor old souls trudging the touchlines - 'the referee can decide how and when he wants the assistants assistance (before, during, and after any one game').

Implicit in what follows is my thoughts for the professional and semi-professional game. A lot of what followsis not practical for the less well financed reaches of the game.  But at a Saintly level, the professionalism of our officials does not, I think, match the training or skillof the players under their direction.

To begin with, I would focus onthe managerial skills of that team of 3 officials. I would abolish assessors, fourth officials, TMOs and other snouts from the trough. I would form a permanent trio for a season at a time. The money saved from getting rid of the supernumaries should go to better match fees / salaries. The man in the middle would have clear guidance on the role of the other two and how he was to use them. Why keep the same team together for a year? Seemples! Like all the best arranged marriages it will take a little time for them to learn to talk to each other.

I would do more to check theknowledge of the officials of all the laws on the game. I would do plenty at the centre of the game to achieve a consistent interpretation of the laws, butI would strip away the mechanisms which are turning individuals into clockwork clones - so no assessors, and Star Chambers back in Rugby Road. In fact I would willingly consider a quaint idea along the lines of a Referees Society - but only as long as it was fiercely independent of the Rugby Civil Service.

I would ensure that all refereeshad good and regular training and practice in person-management, and personaleffectiveness. How and when to be assertive. How to cajole. When to be stroppyand how to communicate effectively. Oh, and how to get the most out of theofficiating team (a.k.a. the semaphore twins).

On the communication front, I would say to Sir 'put yourself about!' When David Rose was stopped from debating on SportsNetwork boards and Clive Norling subtly advised to draw inhis posting horns their masters made a mistake. The Barfly on COYDSC, and Swanny on the Sale Message Board can very quickly put out gathering forestfires with the briefest of sentences by way of explanation or interpreatation.This should be encouraged, not suppressed like Russian samizdat. Quickly, thepunters will realise that the whistlers have brains, rational thoughts and sensible opinions (well, some of them!). The refs might realise that the stoopig punters might even want to understand and learn!

On the pitch, I think it is simple, and again the classroom analogy works for me. "Say what you mean, andmean what you say" and do it quickly. Let the players know what you want, and how you mean to achieve it. When they transgress, give them a chance to find out that (a) you did seethem 'at it' and (b) re-iterate that you did mean it. Then get on and enforce.Most players will quickly come to heel. The rest can get off and try to keep warm on the touchline.  If you haven't got it right in the first 10 minutes, you've failed.

Is there a theme developing here?I hope so - the buzzword is empowerment. As close as I can get there, I'm looking for an assertive chap, who knows what he wants and how to get to get it. He should have a sense of humour about the way he does things, and the selfconfidence to take chances to back his judgement. He should combine good technical knowledge with an intuitive sense of what is needed.

In short, all I want is a Saint in Wolf's Clothing.  Thank God I'mnot a Sarrie, I'd be looking for a clockwork monkey.

Post script - Flatt fails the scrum test...?

How can an article like thisspend so long debating the merits of Sir without expressing a detailed analysisof the mastery of the dark arts? Cop out? Failure to comprehend the organic stew from which our culturehas evolved?  I don't think so. In fact I've tried specifically to avoid too many doctrinaire ordinances about anyspecific law in this piece. What I have said is, I suggest, equally valid to the scrum as to any other part of the game - know the laws, apply all the laws.Tell the players what you want. Enforce your opinion. Be consistent and get us there during the first quarter of the game. If the players trust you, know youmean what you say / say what you mean the level playing field has been established.  And if the bone-headprop on the other side keeps falling over, see what an empathetic chuckle might achieve before awarding our side a deserved Penalty Try which cost me the best part of next week's housekeeping, alright?