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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

“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.

i would have thought it would have something to do with 22 players in red shirts who couldnt score enough points ?

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?

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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?

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.