By Spiro Zavos
July 2nd 2009 @ 12:40am
Bryce Lawrence was right on the Schalk Burger incident
South Africa's Schalk Burger, center, is sin-binned during their international rugby union match against the British Lions at Loftus Versfeld stadium, Pretoria, South Africa, Saturday, June 27, 2009. AP Photo/Paul Thomas
The cranky Brian Moore, former England hooker, now a lawyer and an excellent rabble-rousing sports columnist for The Daily Telegraph UK, has put the boot into the assistant referee Bryce Lawrence over the Schalk Burger affair. The boot has missed its proper target.
“The man that has cost the Lions dear, in not one, but both Test games, is Bryce Lawrence, of New Zealand … If Lawrence, as touch judge, is incapable of linking the vileness of an act occurring two feet away and the proper sanction of a red card, he is not fit to officiate.”
Let’s leave aside Moore’s apparent attempt to make this out to be a perfidious Southern Hemisphere conspiracy to kill off the series challenge to South Africa by the British and Irish Lions. The fact is, on every rational ground, Moore is just plain wrong.
Bryce Lawrence was right in the way he handled the Shalk Burger incident.
The guilty parties, aside from perpretator Burger and the Springboks coach, the flaky Peter de Villiers who tried to justify the unjustifiable, are the referee Cristohe Berdos, a Frenchman, and Alan Hudson, the Canadian, who as the IRB’s judicial officer, gave Burger a risible eight weeks for his eye-gouging of Luke Fitzgerald.
The main point to make in the defence of Lawrence is that he was the assistant referee, not the referee of the Test. Assistant referees, as their title suggests, are there to assist the referee to make correct decisions on infringements of the laws.
The match referee makes the final decision. He can over-rule the assistant referee, and sometimes does.
It is noticeable on occasions, too, that the referee will pre-empt what he thinks an assistant referee will advise if he thinks the assistant might have got it wrong.
The point is the match referee makes the final decision.
Now let’s go to the incident to see how these parameters played themselves out.
The eye-gouging started in a ruck and became evident to the assistant referee Lawrence (but not to the referee Bertos) as the players rolled away from the melee.
Lawrence alerted Berdos to the fact that a serious infringement had occurred. So far, so good.
Now we come to an issue that hasn’t received much attention: how accurate is the understanding of English by the Frenchman Berdos.
In the first Tes,t Berdos, in his capacity as the video referee, had trouble communicating with the match referee Lawrence over a possible try. Later in the second Test, too, Lawrence had trouble communicating to Berdos what he should really have been asking the video referee, Stu Dickinson, in relation to Jacque Fourie’s try.
But back to the incident.
Lawrence goes across to Berdos and tells him about the eye-gouging and says it warrants “a yellow card, at least.”
Moore and others are critical of Lawrence that he did not recommend a red card. But if Lawrence had done this, he would have effectively taken the decision from Berdos and given it to himself.
His choice of words invited Berdos to ask the obvious question, which would then have given him the decision to give Burger a red card.
That question from Berdos should have been something like: “You say, at least a yellow card: what about a red card?”
Lawrence presumably then would have said that it was eye-gouging and that this is an offence that can and should carry a red card sanction. You’d then expect Berdos, after an exchange like this, to give Burger a red card, which was the appropriate punishment.
Unfortunately, Berdos, whether because he didn’t fully understand the obvious choice Lawrence was offering or through not understanding the laws (a fault he revealed as a video referee), gave the inadequate yellow card.
And a furore has exploded unfairly around Lawrence who, in fact, is one of the few officials to get it right during this affair.
South Africa is appealing the two-week ban on Bakkies Botha, which raises the issue of who is going to appeal the eight-week ban on Burger.
There is no doubt that Burger has been given a totally inadequate punishment.
He is a former IRB Player of the Year and what he did has brought rugby into great disrepute. His case should be reviewed with a view to increasing his punishment to a much longer ban.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(35)
Viscount Crouchback said | July 2nd 2009 @ 2:35am | Report comment
I tend to agree.
Incidentally, Brian Moore is a ghastly specimen. His articles are a nightmare to read – the epitomy of lower middle-class prejudice masquerading as profound intellectualism. He over-writes terribly and tries just a little too hard…
Most of the UK rugger press corps is completely bonkers. The only normal chaps seem to be Hands (Times), Rees (Guardian) and possibly Jackson (Mail).
Hobart Frisbee said | July 2nd 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
It would be extremely hard to hand out a red card in the first few minutes of a game that might decide a series, as the second test did, based on hearsay. If a ref doesn’t see an incident himself, and it’s brought to his attention by a linesman/assitant, he might not have the confidence in that linesman to make such a momentous decision, or might feel diffident about dishing out the ultimate penalty knowing he’s doing it only on advice.
What is clearly needed are several permanent trios who develop a solid understanding, not to mention a solid understanding of the language they’re using to communicate. If Oz is playing NZ, or the Lions are playing the Boks, then have three officials from the same neutral country run the game who know and trust one another. It’s tough enough for players having to adjust to different refs from different countries, but at least the linespeople could be in sync with the man in the middle.
matty p said | July 2nd 2009 @ 6:40am | Report comment
I like your writing Spiro, but I think you’ve taken the wrong side on this one.
Are you insinuating here that Berdos somehow is at fault because he is a French speaker and missed some subtlety? Surely then, the blame is at least equally on Lawrence, who knew Berdos was French, and should have said what he meant, instead of implying it?
While Brian Moore’s attack is way over the top, I think you may be counteracting with a similarly overly strong defence. If the key issue was communication, it takes two to tango – the the speaker in my view is more culpable (yes, I am a lawyer) because the onus on him is to communicate his actual meaning, and Lawrence knew the language issue. You say Berdos didn’t understand the “obvious” choice. Why so obvious? The “at least” sounds like an afterthought to me. If Lawrence had said “at least a yellow card” maybe the “choice” would have been more “obvious”.
Putting aside the language issue, if a prosecutor thinks that a defendant deserves 10 years’ incarceration, he doesn’t recommend to the judge that he receive probation. Lawrence saw the offence (assuming he did get a clear view – if not then yellow was probably the right recommendation, leaving ultimate justice to the citing process). If he thought it deserved red, he should have said that. As you point out, Berdos is the final arbiter and could have overruled him.
tom h said | July 2nd 2009 @ 6:48am | Report comment
Why speak to a ref with limited English that he has to choose one card or another when he didn’t even see the incident. The assistant didn’t assist him, he confused him and should have been more clear with his recommendation.
Its not right that the refs and linesmen have difficulty communicating (like in the first test aswell) but Lawrence put the ref in a tough situation. If a French ref is not exactly fluent in English and he hears “yellow at least” from the touch judge why would he go for a red card when yellow has been used?
Poor assisting.
Hobart Frisbee said | July 2nd 2009 @ 6:55am | Report comment
VC – I Like Hands and Rees, but there are others whose slightly extreme takes are always entertaining. Eddie Butler writes well, specially when Wales are playing France (he’s an ex-French teacher and knows both countries well). And I can’t not read Jonesy because he wears his heart on his column. He was pretty gloomy about the Lions’ chances, and rightfully so, and he excoriated Geech for selection and poor substitution in the first test. Again, rightfully so. Is he bonkers? A little bit. He wanted to leave BOD out of the squad and that’s come back to haunt him. But he was right when he said that POC should not be thought untouchable for the 2nd test after having failed to impress in the open in the first test.
There are some good Brit cricket and tennis writers, but not too many good rugby writers. Maybe they stopped writing when people like Dean Richards, Mike Gibson, Gareth Edwards and John Jeffrey stopped playing.
MikeN said | July 2nd 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Spiros, I agree that the final decision was the refs, and whether he speaks good English or not, he should realise the gravitry of an eye gouge and have asked for more information from Bryce. Something like was it a serious intentional one or a brief incidental one. I do not blame Bryce, but I feel in hindsight, he probably should feel he should have provided the ref with more information anyway. In the end, whether it was red or yellow on the field, the citing process should have come up with a far longer sanction.
The French ref needs to prove he can better manage a game where English is the major method of communication before he gets another chance in a big game.
Still like to point out that the Lions have a history of thuggery as well, so I cannot get too concerned about the Northern hemisphere’s bleating.
JohnB said | July 2nd 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
I found it puzzling that if Lawrence was certain enough that eye gouging had occurred to warrant a yellow card in a test match (in itself a serious sanction) he was not certain enough to think that a red card was the only possible sanction. Isn’t this a black and white issue – either you saw it and are sure it happened, or you aren’t? If you aren’t sure, how can you give any card (of course, a citing commissioner can take the matter further)? If on the other hand you are sure what you saw, isn’t a red card the only choice?
VC – I generally don’t mind Ackford in the Telegraph. Moore and Stephen Jones I read to keep my bile duct in good working order.
Hammer said | July 2nd 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
I’ve pointed this out on another thread … after Lawrence’s report Berdos asks him “penalty or yellow?” … does that then limit Lawrence to responding to that question and that question only … hence the “at least yellow” response
Kevin, Meath said | July 2nd 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Its easy to critise officials with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. Lawerance didn’t realise ref was french? so english wasn’t first language! should have been less sutle, both could have done better but niether deserve much censure. As pointed out the real villian is the player, the coach and the Hudson. The idea of the cite is what the ref miss’s, misinterprets etc
VC what you think of several of the lions squad not even being English 1st language!?
Shocked at the site! no nationalistic mud sligging, sterotypes and tinted glasses etc shocking!!!!
Hoy said | July 2nd 2009 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Was it last year that Steve Matai was sent off for a high shot in the league test, Aus Vs NZ? That was pretty early, and a decision was made on the spot. It was more visible, but I am sure touchies would have been involved there as well, and given their reports and recommended some form of action or other.
I think it seems odd that people are crying out you can’t send a man off in the first minute. It changes the whole game. In my view, if the offence calls for it, then get the bloke off, and his team suffers for 79 minutes. Especially an eye gouge as blatant as that.
What is the ettiquete involved in advise from a touchie?
AndyS said | July 2nd 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Is everyone sure was a language problem? Talking to players that have done time in France, I suspect it was more a case that it was nothing that Berdos hadn’t seen plenty of whilst learning his trade at club level and he applied the normal penalty.
Campbell Watts said | July 2nd 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
I agree Spiro,
Berdos’s handling of the TMO decision in the first AB’s France game was a joke – you could not understand at all what he was trying to tell Lawrence! In the end Lawrence had to wade through he gobble-de-gook and make his own decision – over-ruling Berdos nounsence in the process!
In hindsight we all see 20-20 and yes Bryce maybe could have worded things differently – but it is not the assistant refs job to take the decision making process out of the refs hands. If he had said “red card” it in effect forces Berdos hand.
I have no doubt if Berdos spoke better english he would have had more of a conversation with Lawrence and the correct decision – a red card – would have been issued.
NickF said | July 2nd 2009 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
I agree with MikeN,
The Ref is the central authority. It is his final decision and blaming the assistant Ref for an inadequate chice of cards is wrong. An eye gouge is an eye gouge and any ref know the seriousness of this.
Hoy, I also agree with your point. If a player goes out and eye gouges someone in the first minute of a game, he is just as guilty as at any other time of the game. I’m sure this violence was totally premeditated. It’s effect to put the opposition of their game very early on, would be an obvious tactic, a disgraceful one at that, but a game plan none the less. The 1989 Lions v Wallabies a good example of violence used as a vehicle to distract the opposition and put them off their game.
ShakaZulu said | July 2nd 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
If the allegations about Lions players making comments about Burgers sister in the tunnel are true, then it is a premeditation I can understand. Gouging eyes would have been a mild form of revenge had they made those alleged comments about my gang raped sister.
Spiro, lay off the legal insuations. Then we can get Bekker to sue Sheridan etc, etc.
Burger should have got more weeks ban but please guys don’t come crying about the wonderful non dirty Lions. That is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.
If they want to dish it out then they must be prepared to take it.
BOD has now placed himself on the same low level as Phillips with his latest comments. Breath taking stuff from a cowardly fellow who loves the head high tackle, the swinging elbow and the shoulder charge – all usually from offside positions.
Can Will Carling please phone him?
Dexter William said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
After reading all the responses, I think the assistant referee should just describe the incident and let the referee make the decision. This is how I have seen assistant referee does it all the time in S14.
EG: “The player (Black 4) came in late after the tackle, got involved and threw a punch etc etc.”
So the report to the referee in this instance should be:
“No 7 Green intentionally eye gouged No 6 Red, when ruck was formed and continued till you blew the whistle. I have no doubt that it was intentional. Dangerous play.”
Referee should probably say: “You think it deserves a red card?”
Assistant referee should say: “Yes.”
Greg said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
If red was the appropriate card for what the AR witnessed, he should have the guts to say “red card”, rather than squb it with “at least” a yellow. Better still take Dexter’s approach and just inform the ref of what he saw.
AndyS said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
In which case it would be “Green player attacked the face of 6 Red”, unless he actually saw the fingers disappear into the eye sockets…
The Phantom said | July 2nd 2009 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Having watched the incident on the net and listening to the comments of the French ref, I am sure he did not understand what Lawrence was saying. Berdos said to Berger “your fingers…. I didn’t understand…… did something dangerous – yellow”. I thing we really need referees that can have a decent conversation with their assistants – no matter what language it is in. I also think it would be good to issue the suspensions in terms of tests not weeks, I think Berger is only going to miss a couple of games in the 8 weeks he got.
Brad said | July 2nd 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
Spiro, Bryce Lawrence is an idiot, he saw the incident and then told the referee that he deserves a yellow. By saying he deserves a yellow he told the referee that it was more than a mere talking to and penalty only. He saw a red card offence and said yellow. Lawrence real crime was in the first test. I have told my brother that Rugby in SA is very big business and adds more to the GDP than the famed wine industry, to think that lawrence was “influenced” is not so big of a conspiracy theory. But then again referees are are free to make up the rules as they go along like the France All Blacks world cup game 2007. Lawrence just as much as Pdv have brought the game into disrepute with their condoning of gouging
Greg Russell said | July 2nd 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
I agree with Spiro except in one respect: Lawrence has to accept the blame for poor communication.
Yes, to a native English speaker, Lawrence’s “a yellow card, at least” is clear. But not to a Frenchman who clearly does not have particularly good English. Maybe if Lawrence had no previous experience with Berdos. But Lawrence had already struggled to communicate with him in T1. One incident in T1 was especially memorable, because Lawrence must have screamed at him 3 or 4 times “Tell me why it’s a scrum?”, before he finally succeeded in getting the hapless Frenchman to tell him that there had been a knock-on in-goal (meaning it was a 25 dropout, as Lawrence suspected). Further, presumably the refereeing team stayed with each other for the intervening week, meaning Lawrence must have known of his limitations with English.
In such situations it is the responsibility of the native speaker to speak loudly, slowly and to use direct words, not nuances like “at least”. This is especially so given the pressure of the situation and the crowd noise (which always makes it much harder to pick out words in a non-native language – trust me, I know from living in a non-English speaking country!).
One might also question the IRB for assigning a non-native English speaker to referee this most important of matches.
The whole thing is really a farce. It should have been a red card. For a deliberate eye gouge, the judiciary should have awarded much more than 8 weeks. de Villiers has been ridiculous – even by his standards – for claiming that such incidents are just part of the game. The Lions have been unsporting for not congratulating the South Africans (after all, it’s not as if the South Africans engineered either the mild yellow card or the mild judiciary decision).
Has any party come out of this looking good? So many parties have sullied their reputations that the real villain of the piece (Schalk) almost seems to have been forgotten.
Incidentally, am I alone in suspecting that the South African back-row will actually be more balanced and more formidable for having Brussow rather than Burger for the next two months? Yes, Schalk is an amazing player when in top form, but I haven’t seen much in the way of top form from him this year.
Jameswm said | July 2nd 2009 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Guys
I am someone who has lived overseas (in France coincidentally) and has had to make himself understood by those for whom English is not their first language. Not the French, as I can speak French!
Anyway – Spiro I agree with your point (that Bryce Lawrence has been unfairly villified) but I think you should have almost transcribed what they said.
My recollection is that it was something like:
BL – “Yellow card at least”
CB – “So…yellow card?”
BL – “At least”
Bryce Lawrence said “at least” twice, to make his point. In addition, the translation for “at least” is “a moins”, which is an obvious and easy translation. There is no reason to think Berdos didn’t understand what Lawrence had said. And being an assistant ref, Lawrence didn’t want to make the crucial decision in the match on his own. As Spiro rightly says, he explains the crime and lets the main ref make the call.
Another point is that whilst it’s easy to say, with the benefit of the slo-mo replay, that it should have been a red, it isn’t that easy on the spot in normal time.
I hadn’t heard that about Burger’s sister – what is supposed to have happened?
Jerry said | July 2nd 2009 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
Greg Russell – I’m sure you’re not alone in thinking Broussow’s presence will strengthen the Boks, he’s a genuine openside (the first one SA has had in ages – Schalk plays more like a blindside, he doesn’t really play over the ball and pilfer the ball) and adds a lot to the Boks.
mcxd said | July 2nd 2009 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
im still to work out how a touch judge and an eye gouging attempt that didnt injure a player in any way (not that i condone it by any means) cost the lions the game ?
i would have thought it would have something to do with 22 players in red shirts who couldnt score enough points ?
Ian Noble said | July 2nd 2009 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
I blame the directives from the IRB. It should quite clear gouging is a red card. No argument; and perhaps one of the good things to come out of this incident is that the IRB I believe are reviewing their sanctions for dangerous play. They are also reserving the right to change the length of a ban if they consider it to be insufficient.
Dexter William said | July 2nd 2009 @ 6:28pm | Report comment
Hi AndyS
“In which case it would be “Green player attacked the face of 6 Red”, unless he actually saw the fingers disappear into the eye sockets…”
Lawrence was two metres away from the incident. Even the video replay which was much further, we can see Burger’s fingers in the other guy’s eye socket. Attack the face? You are kidding. It is eye gouging reported by Lawrence in the first instance and confirmed in the inquiry after the game as eye gouging.
AndyS said | July 2nd 2009 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
No, what he said was “I didn’t see it clearly, but clearly fingers in the eye area…”. But aside from that, the ref is no more going to use emotive language like “gouge” than he is going to say a player was “piledriven into the ground” – instead he would be “not returned safely to ground”. It basically means the same thing in ref speak, but there is certainly the potential for misinterpreting seriousness. Similarly with the penalty…watching it again, Berdos spoke about “first penalty against Red…” and was about to walk away when Lawrence reached out, touched his arm and pulled him back to discuss the penalty. As noted, Berdos then said yellow, Lawrence said “at least yellow”, etc etc
Dexter William said | July 2nd 2009 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
In that Case sorry AndyS. Fingers in the eyes area is still ore than what you suggest that “attacking face” Maybe attacking eyes may be correct.
But Lawrence definitely is a bad assistant referee because he is blind. It happened right in front of him not more than two metres away.
I saw it life on TV before any replay and I could tell that it was gouging. And this was from a 26 inch TV from the camera angle. The camera angle is higher, further and behind the head of Lawrence.
This is bad stuff. No mothers would let their children play this game if it is not stamped out.
AndyS said | July 2nd 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
Agreed – eyes area would probably be the better phrasing.
I have to admit, I missed it live time. I can even have a (little) bit of sympathy for the refs – 30 seconds into one of the bigger games of their career and there is a potential red card incident…send him off for the match and the result of the game is undoubted affected, and if it turns out you mis-saw the incident you will definitely never hear the end of it. No excuses for the citing commission though; just watching it again and it was one of the more blatant efforts I’ve ever seen. It should have been 8 months, not weeks.
mattamkII said | July 2nd 2009 @ 9:53pm | Report comment
someone might have said it above but my memory was the Frenchie was actually just going to give a penalty…Brice actually pull him up and said the above.
Davo said | July 2nd 2009 @ 11:24pm | Report comment
Jameswm -
You must have missed it, but sometime last year during the trinations Burger’s sister, Rene, was gang-raped by thugs in a university car park (i believe she’s studying medicine there, could be wrong about that).
She was pretty gutsy about it all. Fronted up to the media and said she wasn’t going to be a victim but use it as something positive by getting reports of rape to be taken seriously.
I haven’t heard anything about a the french allegedly saying things about it in the tunnel. I’ll have a look around the net now. I find it hard to believe anyone would be so callous. I truly hope no one would be so base to use that sort of thing to fire a player up. But in the tiny probability that was what happened I would then applaud Burger’s self-control for not doing anything worse!!
Thurston Mudd said | July 3rd 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
JAMESWM – No wonder you get kept getting blanquette de veau whenever you ordered
ecrevisse a la creme. What Lawrence might have/should have said is “Un jaune tout au moins.” “A yellow at the very least.” But he’s a Kiwi so he’d sound like Water Brennan whichever language he spoke. Had it been Stuart Dickenson, he might have said,
“Un billabong tout au moins.” The way to solve things IMHO is to have all officials use the language of the people who invented rugby – Swedish.
Jameswm said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Thanks Thurston – that’s clear as mudd.
Ben J said | July 3rd 2009 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
Schalk Burger has been found not guilty of eye gouging but guilty of reckless contact with the face area.
Schalk Burger’s sister was alledgedly raped, the case was investigated by the police and they found no evidence to support the claims. The Director of Public Prosecution was advised that there was little evidence to continue with the investigation.
True Tah said | July 3rd 2009 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
Maybe for big games like this, they should appoint a ref whose command of English is a bit better than Monsiour Berdos’.
Joh4Canberra said | November 19th 2009 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Agreed that Burger got off too lightly. He should have been sent off AND received a longer suspension. But I can’t agree with Spiro here that Lawrence did the right thing and that it’s all down to Berdos. And personally I find the attitude that somehow Berdos is at fault for not speaking better English a little bit arrogant. If you’re going to blame Berdos for not speaking better English than you can equally blame Lawrence for not speaking better French. If rugby is going to become a truly international game then that means our top referees (and perhaps players) will need to start speaking more than just English.
Of course the situation wasn’t ideal, and yes of course in an ideal world Berdos would speak perfect English and have been culturally attuned to interpreting Lawrence’s somewhat deferential reply as an invitation for him to ask Lawrence what he thought about the possibility of a red card. BUT we don’t live in that ideal world. Berdos’s English is not perfect and he didn’t understand Lawrence’s reply as an invitation to ask him to comment on the possibility of a red card. In a situation where a native speaker is speaking to a non-native speaker it really is up to the native speaker to make sure that effective communication takes place. You shouldn’t say things that a non-native speaker is liable to misunderstand if you can easily say them in a way that he won’t misunderstand. That will mean a NZ assistant saying things more directly to a French referee than an exchange between a NZ touchie and a ref from another English speaking country or a French touchie reporting to a French referee in French.
This is not just a problem that arises when different languages are involved though. As a referee you want your touch judges (or assistants as they now tend to be called) to give you good, clear advice. If I was refereeing a game where an eye gouge happened on the blind side of the ruck and I was unsighted I would want my TJ to give me good clear advice: yellow or red, one or the other and not dither (“well maybe a yellow, maybe a red but I’m not really sure; I’ll let you decide ref even though you didn’t see it”). In rugby union (unlike rugby league) our touch judges are actually qualified referees and as a referee that should give you a lot more confidence in their advice than the advice of people who have studied the laws but have never actually controlled a game themselves. They aren’t just reporting on what they happened to see; rather, as qualified referees running the lines they can also give the referee in the middle a recommendation as to whether the foul play was worthy of a yellow or a red card. They themselves have refereed and they know what colour card they would have shown if they had been controlling the game and saw that kind of foul play with their own eyes. As a ref I will generally run with their recommendation in such circumstances (i.e. where I haven’t seen the foul play with my own eyes but am relying wholly on what they tell me). The only exception to this (and this would never apply at test level as the TJs are all experienced referees!) is if I’m dealing with a younger inexperienced guy who although a qualified referee might not have the confidence that comes from experience to make a tough call and actually recommend a send off rather than a sin binning (and believe me, it’s hard enough sending someone off as a ref let alone being a young guy running the lines and telling a more experienced ref that something he didn’t see merits a send-off). Of course if I actually happened to see the foul play with my own eyes then things are different. I don’t just automatically accept the touch judge’s recommendation and sometimes I will see fit to “overrule” them. As a ref, even if you see the incident yourself it’s sometimes good to get a second opinion just to make sure either of the touchies didn’t see something from a different angle that would make a difference to your decision. If it turns out that my TJs saw exactly what I saw but would have recommended a different colour card than I would have then I’ll still generally go with my own opinion and NOT the TJs’ opinion as to the colour of the card. (After all the laws state that it is the *referee* who is the sole judge of fact and law). BUT if the TJ reports something factual that I didn’t see from my angle then that might change my mind as to the colour of the card and I’ll take his recommendation into account before making my decision.
If I was refereeing and a TJ said to me what Lawrence had said to Berdos I wouldn’t be at all satisfied with that advice as a *final* recommendation. As a fellow native English speaker I would of course interpret that kind of TJ report as an invitation to ask the TJ whether he thought a red card was actually warranted. When the referee and TJ speak the same language and come from the same or a similar cultural background then of course Lawrence’s way of communicating is effective because the referee and touch judge both understand one another and would soon come discuss the possibility of a red card in the ensuing conversation. BUT when the referee and TJ don’t share the same native language or come from different cultural backgrounds then you can’t assume that the TJ’s advice will prompt the further requisite question from the referee. Since Lawrence and Berdos were communicating in English and Bryce Lawrence was the native English speaker it was really up to him to mention a red card if he thought it warranted one and not assume that Berdos would subsequently ask him about this possibility.
Anyway, one final point related to this is the issue of language. Rugby is a game where the referees talk to the players (and the players talk to the referees!). You don’t really want mute referees in rugby like you have in soccer. And yet, if we have any aspirations of being a truly global game then linguistic ability is something that international referees will have to aspire to. And that shouldn’t just mean all the refs and TJs from non-English speaking countries have to learn English. If they want to referee international rugby then refs and TJs from English speaking countries should also be able to speak more than just English. Having a basic ability in French would be a start. We could add other languages to the mix, but you have to start somewhere so I suggest that as a start. France is the biggest and best of the major non-English speaking rugby countries. And between English and French you would also cover most of the Italians and Argentineans as well many of whom will speak either English or French but not both (I saw a match where the referee Allain Rolland was basically controlling the game in English but when cautioning an Italian player who played in France and who didn’t speak good English then cautioned him in French). And I say all that as an Australian. I’m not some Frog trying to downplay the importance of the English language. But just put yourself in someone else’s shoes for a moment. Most English speaking players just expect the refs to speak English as if it’s their birthright and most English speaking refs would expect their TJs and TMOs to speak to them in English. But imagine you were a player and the ref started yapping at you in French or Japanese or some other language you didn’t understand or speak well. How would you feel? And imagine you were a referee and your TJ or TMO spoke to you in French or Japanese or some other foreign language you didn’t understand or speak well. If you can imagine either of those situations and think you would feel a little bit frustrated then you know what it’s like for teams like France, Argentina, Italy, Japan etc when they are playing or the situation that a French referee has in not understanding the subtleties of effective English communication with a NZ touch judge.
If rugby wants to be a truly global game and break out of the English speaking world then the issue of international referees’ language ability has to be addressed. Our referees need to be able to communicate in more than one language and that includes refs from English speaking countries as well. We can’t just expect the Frogs etc to speak better English. We also have to learn to speak better French etc. And as Australians if we’re serious as about growing the game in Asia we might like to start encouraging our referees to learn some of the major Asian languages such as Japanese, Chinese and Korean.