Laws & Referees

Call his dramatic if you want but Rugby Rugby columnist Jon Harris wants referee's to realise the important role they - even if it means he comes off sounding like Murray Mexted.

The trend is still to use a neutral referee when it comes to Internationals, although the Super 14 is this year embarking on a strategy of the best man for the job, irrespective of his background.
 
When watching a Super 14 match being commentated by the Australian triumvirate of Greg Clark, Greg Martin and Phil Kearns, as well as any match involving Murray Mexted behind the microphone, the viewer is treated to an ongoing assessment of the referee's decisions and comments monitored from the mike strapped tithe referee. It is tiresome to say the least.

These people are employed to assess the performances of the players, analyse their strategy and offer their expert opinions as ex-players not as wannabe referees. Their biasedness is palpable and thank goodness assessments of the performances of the referees is done without the input of the likes of these gentlemen.
 
On the other hand, some referees seem to play into the hands of these sensationalistic observers with their confounding decision-making and dictatorial style. I have long felt that rugby has too often followed the lead of football, right from my playing days in Italy which even twenty years ago borrowed many of the rules from their more illustrious counterparts.
 
While rugby can learn from the men with round balls, there are some things better left alone. One of them is the style that referees have borrowed from that game. While a decision made is never going to be changed by appealing and discussing, the attitude the men in neutral colours have of not entertaining subsequent discussion, showing the hand in reaction, only serves to exacerbate some situations.
 
The administrators's stance of blindly supporting the referee's decision and performance, even in the face of evidence of poor performance, frustrates all involved because of the seeming aloofness of that echelon; untouchable even when wrong.
 
While the impartiality and ability of the arbitrators should not be called into question for the sake of the game, one has to also recognise their vulnerability and fallibility in calling everything accurately in a quagmire of rules and regulations.
 
I have noticed during this year's Super 14 that certain laws are blatantly ignored by the referee. As part of an extended mailing list, I was privy to receiving an 'announcement' from the IRB that included an intention to police the straight and fair put in of the ball into a scrum. The IRB stated that any 'skew' put ins will be punished. Hands up anyone seeing one straight or accurate put-in to a scrum...at any level. Oh yes, every once in a while, almost as if there is a flashback to a junkie's bad trip, some lone-ranging official might blow the rule accurately to the amazement of all around him.
 
Another shortcut I've noticed becoming more frequent is in the free kick area. The kicker no longer releases the ball when kicking it to resume play. Simply put, it is a free kick and until the ball has moved, either from the hands or along the ground, it is not deemed to have been kicked. Play should not be allowed to continue.

In both the examples used, an unfair advantage is being gained. There is a risk element which gives the defending side a chance, albeit an outside one. The ball, being put into the scrum on the median, has a chance of being won by the defending side. The ball being released from the hands when tap kicking, introduces the risk of error which levels the chances a wee bit.
 
In both these situations, and they have been repeated and are not isolated, the referees have witnessed it and allowed play to continue.
 
So the question begs answering. If a supposedly impartial referee can witness blatant transgressions such as the ones mentioned without calling up play, what makes us believe that his integrity is unquestionable and that he is calling everything he sees?
 
Quite simply, he cannot be expected to see everything. There is so much happening when there are 30 players involved in action on the pitch that we have to excuse him for some oversights. Do we however excuse him for oversights which happen in full view of him (let's exclude the input of the Assistant Referees)?
 
Call me dramatic, but I think this is tangible proof of the partiality of referees. If his job is to call transgressions and he is focussed on those, should it not be a natural action to note, analyse and take action. If he thinks that he may be perceived as pedantic by calling such a transgression, then why does he make so many other marginal calls in a game?
 
Referees need to realise that they hold the key to results in their hands - It has a pea in it and makes a shrill, attention-grabbing sound - No the sound is not to bring attention to them, spectators pay hard bucks to see the players, not them. Rather it is to bring attention to the fact that play can no longer go ahead because the rules have been transgressed and advantage is no longer fair.
 
Let the rules be monitored in the interest of allowing play to flow, but at the same time please do not make a unilateral decision on what is important and what is not. Apply the laws fairly, consistently and with a knowledge that it may have an impact on the result.
 
Now I feel like Murray Mexted.

by Jon Harris