By The Crusader
September 12 2002

Northampton is a friendly club. We welcome the other teams' fans, we stay silent during their kicks, and we applaud their skills. So why, when we ooze goodwill to all men, do referees dislike us so much? Hey Ref Get your Eyes Tested!

Week in, week out, every referee seems to favour our opponents. And it's not just at Franklin's Gardens. Everywhere we go, the referee certainly hasn't got out of bed on the Saints' side.

Very strange.

Here's another curious thing. Talk to any Bath or Gloucester fan, ask the Tiggers or the Sarries and they will tell you that their team suffers from the same referees.

So who has got the problem? Are we one-eyed or is the ref? Well, for sure, we are part of the problem. When we took our lifelong vows to support the Saints for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, we made no pledges to be impartial or fair in our judgements. Our job is simply to support the Saints at all costs.

But away from the bear pit of Franklin's Gardens, do we really believe that every single referee is an incompetent, biased, short-sighted nincompoop? Truly?

In my opinion, the root of the problem is not the fan or the referee. It is the game of Rugby Union.

There is no major sport on Earth more complex than this, and there is no sport that has it's Laws more frequently amended.

This dramatic combination of speed, strength and dexterity, this fusion of grace and violence, has given us a sport that is arguably more technical than any other.

The mix of running plays and set-pieces, and kicks that can move the focus of activity 50 metres downfield in the blink of an eye, makes massive demands on the referee.

Take the scrum; within that Law alone, there are 17 paragraphs, 28 sub-paragraphs and 19 additional notes. It would be a triumph for
one man to memorise all this, let alone apply the Law!

How do other sports cope?

Football is a simple game, with limited set pieces, and three officials can cope. Cricket, at the highest level, requires two on-field umpires, plus a third umpire and a match referee.

Rugby's transatlantic cousin, American Football, uses six officials: a referee who is the final authority, an umpire, a lines judge, a field judge, a side judge and a back judge.

Each year, the game becomes more complex, the tactical nous becomes sharper and the fitness levels become higher. And, inevitably, the refereeing decisions become more crucial. In today's game, wrong decisions can endanger players' livelihoods and Clubs' economies.

In my opinion, the game is becoming too complex, and too important, to be left to the vision and the vagaries of one man. I propose two radical changes:

1. Much more decisive intervention by the touch-judges. Too often, foul play and late tackles go unpunished because touch-judges seem reluctant to question the referee's judgement. A little more assertiveness from touch-judges (and a little less from some "celebrity refs") would be welcome.

2. A second referee on the field, miked-up to the senior referee, who would police the off-the-ball incidents, the creeping offsides and the stray hands in the ruck.

"Too much whistle!" I hear you say. "Let the boys get on with it!"

But will you feel differently, when we lose a vital league match because the referee awarded a try that was never properly toucheddown, or a cup semi-final because the referee couldn't really tell if the drop-goal attempt had actually bisected the posts?

Agree or disagree?
Tell us now on the Message Board.