By DOK
May 28 2013

Referees are under the spotlight these days as never before. With the arrival of professional rugby, a referee making the wrong decision can have ramifications beyond just the game being played. If the game result is wrong, then the lack of points can affect promotion, relegation, whether a team plays in Europe and recruitment. In the plethora of laws that are being broken by both teams in the scrum, in the line out or the loose it is important the referee picks the right laws to apply and when to apply them.

No referee applies the laws on a straight put in to the scrum for example. French and Southern Hemisphere referees are much more laissez-faire about teams standing up in the scrum if the ball is already at the back of the scrum. Most English referees seem to whistle this offence regardless of where the ball is. So while one coach is happy with how the referee is running the game, the other coach is incandescent that the laws are not being applied. Immediately the game finishes, while the coaches are still full of adrenaline that has found no outlet, a reporter then sticks a microphone in their faces and says “What did you think of the game then?”. The coach then issues a few ill-chosen sentences in the heat of the moment, and suddenly people are taking sides, referees are under attack, coaches face sanctions and so on.

This season, for example, we had our own Conor O’Shea lashing out at referees and the way they’re managed. This is despite Harlequins beating London Welsh. Conor said he had no confidence in the feedback process, as despite feeding back issues to the RFU he saw no changes or improvements resulting from the feedback. Ed Morrison replied that he was worried about the impact attacks like this would have on recruitment at the top level.

And in the previous week to this, Leicester’s Richard Cockerill had criticised Andrew Small’s refereeing of the scrum. He said "Guessing is the word I'd use and it's not good enough. Big games decide championships and European spots. You have to get it right."  He also asked the question everyone these days asks of referees “Where is the consistency?”.

In the Autumn Internationals, England complained at the refereeing of Steve Walsh in the South Africa game. After studying video of the game, they questioned the handling of the scrum and breakdown. There was also the issue that while Chris Robshaw was repeatedly dismissed for seeking clarification on decisions, Sam Warburton (not even the Welsh captain) had a long conversation with Walsh over interpretation of the scrum laws.  

While not doubting for a moment the genuine frustration felt by DORs, this kind of public outspoken attack on referees is not good for the game. It has a drip, drip, drip effect in reducing the authority of referees. This in turn feeds back to behaviour on the field. In theory only the captain of a side can seek clarification for a decision, but we’ve started to see a referee who makes a big decision start to find himself surrounded by players, all keen to get across the point that this is the wrong decision. While none of them believe they’ll change the referee’s mind this time, it’s an attempt at intimidation so that maybe next time the referee will think twice.

Part of the problem is the technology available to the DORs to analyse and replay incidents over and over from different angles and perspectives. The referee watches the game in real time, from one fixed point. If something happens outside his immediate viewpoint then the assistant referees may pick up on it, but not necessarily. This gives the DORs huge power to tell if a pass was forward, if a player is offside, if there was a hand in the ruck. Once spotted, it’s easy to castigate the referee for missing it.

Rugby Union needs to be very careful it does not go down the same road as football. A referee who makes a contentious decision in football can find himself backing up the field pursued by an angry mob of players. A referee in rugby should only find the captain of the side that offended asking for clarification and if he finds more than that then he should not be scared to sanction the offence. This could be a penalty, extending a penalty by 10 metres or using a card (of either colour).

I did see this on a message board for referees from one referee discussing dissent:-

Stock phrases I have for dealing with "helpful" comments in the vein of "forward, ref" or "he's offside" start with a little humour - which often embarrasses players into shutting up - and then work upwards:

- "Come on lads, everyone knows refs are blind. Don't you lot try and make me go deaf as well."
- "You've got the ball, I've got the whistle - let's not play with each other's toys."
- "You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong" (delivery is important with this one - try to say it with a wink and a smile, or it'll come across as arrogant)
- "Nice as it is having 30 advisers out here with me, I'd prefer to referee this on my own." (this is for when I'm beginning to get exasperated and is the last humorous comment I'll make)

Humour stops.
- "Skipper, too much chat" (general)
- "Skipper, he needs to shut up now" (specific player)

Next "helpful" comment gets a penalty: "Skipper, we've talked about this and you've failed to control it. Try harder."

Swearing, however, gets an absolutely zero-tolerance approach. A player who drops an expletive in my direction gets a 10 minute sit down. If that expletive is accompanied by several others and/or any attempt at intimidating behaviour, his game is over and there might be an abuse report going in as well, depending on circumstances. This is the line we should all take out of consideration for next week's ref - after all, we're all going to be next week's ref somewhere...  

So the next time you see a one-eyed, cheating ref robbing Harlequins of a well deserved victory, cut him some slack and keep your opinions to yourself until you’ve at least had the chance to check his decisions on TV. No referee, no game!