Dropping Steve Walsh opens up other problems
By Spiro Zavos, 29 Apr 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, SANZAR, steve walsh, Super Rugby
At 9.43 am on Wednesday, a media release from the ARU popped up in my email basket. It read: “Please find attached revised official appointments for Week 12. Changes are: Chris Pollock replaces Steve Walsh as Referee for the Brumbies v Reds match in Canberra. Vinny Munro replaces Chris Pollock as AR1 for Hurricanes v Chiefs match in Wellington.”
Nothing more. No explanation why the changes were made.
Did the ACT Brumbies put strong pressure on SANZAR to drop Walsh?
Was this a decision taken by the referees manager for SANZAR, Lyndon Bray, based on Walsh’s performance in the NSW Waratahs-ACT Brumbies match last weekend?
Or were there other matters that came into consideration?
Some hours later we got answers of sort to these questions. Bray told Radio Sport that Walsh had been dropped or pulled from the Brumbies-Reds match because it was “in the best interests of the game” and not because of his performance in the Waratahs-Brumbies match.
According to Bray, Walsh had an ‘average’ game last weekend.
I believe this is being a bit generous to the referee. Walsh had difficulty setting up the scrums in an effective manner. There were a lot of resets.
The Brumbies felt that their stronger scrum (in their opinion) was being pulled down by the Waratahs front row, especially by Al Baxter, who has a reputation for sinking scrums.
There was an incorrect penalty against the Canberra captain Stephen Hoiles when he continued running after a broken tackle. This incident was right out in the open. It was plain from the way Hoiles spoke to Walsh that he disagreed with the call.
Walsh seemed to resent this comment.
Then there was the decision to disallow a try scored by Adam Ashley-Cooper. Sitting in the media box, in what seemed to be a miles away from the far corner of the field, I wondered how Ashley-Cooper could have made the tryline when he was tackled from so far out.
But replays showed he had performed an astonishing feat of athleticism by tumbling after he was tackled, keep the ball and his knees off the ground, before planting the ball down for a try.
I couldn’t see this from a great distance away, but Walsh, who was not far away from the incident, and certainly the assistant referee who was only metres away, should have seen what happened.
Why didn’t Walsh go to the video referee if he felt that there was doubt about the try?
The argument is made is that the video referee only rules on what happens over the tryline, and this is why he wasn’t called into action.
But this is not strictly accurate.
Video referees are also required to judge whether the ball was placed over the tryline immediately after the tackle.
The former SANZAR boss of referees, Peter Marshall, reckons that Walsh could have asked the video referee whether a try should be awarded or not.
The video referee would have looked at the tackle incident. He would have seen that the ball was not placed twice during the tackle short of the try line, and that Ashley-Cooper’s knees avoided the ground before he actually planted the ball across the try line.
The ruling would have been, or should have been: “You may award a try.”
As the Brumbies were defeated 19-12, who knows what the effect of this might have had on the final outcome?
Walsh is a good referee who does have the occasional bad day. He had a poor game on Saturday night.
For Bray to say that it was ‘average’ was wrong.
But it was also wrong for Matt Giteau to suggest that “I don’t know if we’ll turn up, what’s the point?”
Bray has used this comment and others from the Brumbies camp to argue that “it would be remiss to ignore the sort of environment that is likely to happen if we left Steve refereeing the Brumbies and the Reds.”
What this means, in effect, is that if franchises make it clear they are going to give a particular referee a torrid time because of the way he has refereed, then Bray will pull that referee from refereeing the offended side.
This is a terrible precedent.
To take an example: the Waratahs rarely win when Jonathan Kaplan referees. What would happen if they say “I don’t know if we’ll turn up” if Kaplan is the designated referee for one of their matches?
Would Bray pull Kaplan?
Bray also wants Giteau to face disciplinary committee and be stood down for a week for his comments.
This strikes me as using the old tactic of the Chinese emperors of shooting the messenger bearing bad news.
Bray should take his focus off Giteau.
It was Steve Walsh who put in what I consider was a below-average refereeing performance. Bray’s task is to help Walsh recover the excellent refereeing form he has shown in the past.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, SANZAR, steve walsh, Super Rugby


April 29th 2010 @ 9:08am
Hombre said | April 29th 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Amazing – this is the second national columnist (Growden’s had a go as well this morning) who think:
A. they know the rulebook better than the refs
B. Think it’s ok for Giteau to mouth off in public regarding the refs performance last week and imply that he shouldn’t have been sanctioned.
Further it’s also implied in this piece that it’s ok for players to tell the ref that they think their decisions during the game are “b.s” … sure Walsh got the Hollies decision wrong – that in itself is not an unusual occurrence during a game, refs often get minor decisions wrong, but I’d love for a poll to be taken of all the refs globally to see what their decision would have been once a player responds like Hollies did.
JB above is 100% correct in what he implies – player power in Australian rugby is far too ingrained and none more so at the Brumbies – Deans has started weeding it out and the Reds have now provided him with a great oopportunity to go further than he possibly thought he could this time last year
April 29th 2010 @ 11:09am
Rusty said | April 29th 2010 @ 11:09am | Report comment
To take another view on it – lets suggest the refs could comment on the players actions outside of the existing in game sanction process.
“If Ben Alexander is scrumming we might as well not bother and just award the other team a full arm penalty”
“As a referee you know its not a try because in every other game it wouldnt be”
“Player X was very average in that match – I hope he isnt playing for them the next time I ref them”
Bit one way when you look at it from the other perspective hey
April 29th 2010 @ 1:57pm
Jock said | April 29th 2010 @ 1:57pm | Report comment
Hombre –
It is a law book
Hoiles was out of line with the comment it was a crap decision and was in dissent of the refderee at the time
Yes i am a referee and it was no try
Giteau is a clown in this instant – he should have shut it
Hoiles was held on the ground for a split second – he can not go forward -
April 29th 2010 @ 9:08am
Rusty said | April 29th 2010 @ 9:08am | Report comment
A couple of points:
- Walsh did get it wrong with the Hoiles break
- Hoiles got it wrong with his attitude to Walsh
- Walsh and Hoiles took it personally
- It was not athleticism and it was not a try. In real time I thought yes, in slow mo I thought no. Pretty amazing the touchie could even see it in normal time
- Giteau was wrong to voice his opinion so blatantly to the media. There are proper channels
So did Walsh deserve to be stood down – yes but not for overall performance which I thought wasnt bad given the standard of play. He deserved to be stood down for not being able to distance himself at a personal level.
Did Matt deserve to be punished – absolutely. There are channels for complaint and it isnt the media. Precedents also exists with coaches e.g. Eddie Jones so why should this not apply to players. Rugby is a game of violence and respect, the former cannot exist without the latter or it would be a free for all. First rule of the game, respect the ref and his decisions – they may not all go your way but we dont want open criticising to become the norm or we will be on the slope to soccer and its blatant in the face aggression.
April 29th 2010 @ 10:18am
Apelu Tielu said | April 29th 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
You made five, not two, points, Rusty.
April 29th 2010 @ 10:20am
Rusty said | April 29th 2010 @ 10:20am | Report comment
a couple here, a couple there and a couple more
April 29th 2010 @ 10:22am
Apelu Tielu said | April 29th 2010 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Fair enough; good approach to tackling a complex and emotional issue. You sound like a public servant.
April 29th 2010 @ 10:25am
Rusty said | April 29th 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
haha didnt realise my comments were so “taxing”!! last time I checked though I hadnt stooped to chair sniffing and embezzlement so reckon I am a way off the public servant
April 29th 2010 @ 10:29am
Apelu Tielu said | April 29th 2010 @ 10:29am | Report comment
It’s never too late to be one; you have the skills, it seems.
April 29th 2010 @ 12:38pm
Terry Kidd said | April 29th 2010 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
But all very good points …. well thought and well expressed Rusty
April 29th 2010 @ 12:12pm
Peter K said | April 29th 2010 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Rusty as a ref if a players dares to speak to me like that I walk them 10 metres and penalise, and at a break get the captain over and say if there is any repeat by any player he will be carded, the only question being what colour.
April 29th 2010 @ 12:15pm
Rusty said | April 29th 2010 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
and that I think is the perfect response – slightly different if he is the captain of course!
April 29th 2010 @ 1:51pm
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | April 29th 2010 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
I agree Peter K – I watch Richie McCaw at the ref’s decision, turning silently and running back to position almost invariably; and John Smit, who smiles widely and does the same. Taine Randall acted similarly, Oliver, Reuben Thorne and others who stand out. It’s almost as if they consider captaincy as a leadership thing.
But Spiro says:
“It was plain from the way Hoiles spoke to Walsh that he disagreed with the call. … Walsh seemed to resent this comment.”
Suddenly disrespectful dissent becomes the ref’s fault because of his “resentment”?!!?!! And the Brumby’s captain earned his role by what special quality – rotation?
I learned very early in the piece as captain what was expected of me – came off for half time and the coach said “If you ever swear about a ref’s decision again (as I had) you will no longer captain my team”. He was very articulate, big and fit, and he went on to become one of the best, most successful league coaches. I am most grateful for the lesson I learned from Wazza that day, decades ago.
Has the cat got Coach Friend’s tongue I wonder?
April 29th 2010 @ 9:13am
Jerry said | April 29th 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment
The thing about the Hoiles decision, is that this season with the increased expectation on tacklers to release the tackled player we’ve seen a few times where players have been tackled and released so quickly the ref has allowed them to get to their feet and play on (the Blues scored from one such occasion against the Crusaders, I believe). So, with the increased expectation on tacklers to release there’s probably got to be a bit more leeway on what constitutes a tackled player or more accurately, how long a player must be held before being ruled to be a tackled player. Given this, it’s understandable that Walsh may have erred.
April 29th 2010 @ 9:13am
Happy Hooker said | April 29th 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment
First class, balanced analysis Spiro, something sadly lacking from other media outlets, and why The Roar is compulsory reading for informed sports fans.
But you are wrong about the AAC “try”.
April 29th 2010 @ 9:14am
PB said | April 29th 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Steve Walsh wasn’t dropped. His game was swapped with Chris Pollock’s in a couple of weeks. Steve Walsh himself agrees with the decision. It would have been simply counterproductive to have him referee the same team only a week later under the circumstances.
BTW johnny-boy, couldn’t agree more.
April 29th 2010 @ 9:14am
ohtani's jacket said | April 29th 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Reading Crowden’s nonsense about The Try That Wasn’t makes me wonder how much Australia journos actually know about the laws of the game. It’s no wonder they’re always complaining about being hard done by when their attitude is “if it was a penalty against us, it shouldn’t have been a penalty.”
Why not play a new game where it doesn’t matter if you’re tackled? Score at will.
April 29th 2010 @ 9:30am
Hombre said | April 29th 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment
This is a continuation of the theme of how big a role the media now play in the subsquent public outcry following a game … you’ve only got to come onto this site after a test match that Australia have lost and read comments that mirror the innane, substandard and blatently biased ramblings of the foxsports commentators
April 29th 2010 @ 10:40am
MarkR said | April 29th 2010 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Hombre/OJ – if Kearns & Kafer can’t remember the rules of the game what help does a poor journo have.
April 29th 2010 @ 9:31am
ExpatSin said | April 29th 2010 @ 9:31am | Report comment
A mate of mine is a diehard NRL supporter. He hates rugby because he perceives it as a toffee-nosed sport played by privileged morons. Giteau just proved him right. Not a game goes by without at least one dubious call. It’s a fact of life. How you handle it determines if you’re a man or a mouse. I guess we better feed the Wallabies some cheese. This event pales in comparison to NZ loosing the World Cup to such a woeful display of refereeing by Barnes. Take the fans out of the picture and the AB players and management handed that with exceptional decorum. The same can’t be said for Ozzie players in this instant, as proven by Giteau. This whole episode is a black mark on Ozzie rugby.
April 29th 2010 @ 9:32am
Southern Waratah said | April 29th 2010 @ 9:32am | Report comment
It has all the smells of the Indian cricket team a few summers ago,
I hope we Australians aren’t threatening to take our footy and go home if we don’t get our own way.
April 29th 2010 @ 10:10am
Cameron said | April 29th 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
I agree that Steve Walsh had a bad game. But he isn’t responsible for the Brumbies being in the position they are in now. Whether he needs to be stood down is a moot point. I have seen a few of his games and in general he is a good referee. So presumably Saturday night was a “bad day atthe office” for him. As far as the Brumbies’ reactions to him, I think they do need to be censured and punished. The are playing Rugby, not Soccer or other games wher we see ref’s belittled and bullied. That is not on.
April 29th 2010 @ 10:43am
MarkR said | April 29th 2010 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Cameron – agree 100% one of the things I love in rugby is that the ref cannot be abused during the game by the player or he will just march them back 10m. I’ve even seen them reverse penalties due to mouthy players.
April 29th 2010 @ 10:42am
ballboy said | April 29th 2010 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Hang on Cameron – apart from Giteau’s response to questions put to him by a journalist, where else have the Brumbies been responsible for heaping it on Walsh? Hoiles responded in his post match press conference, nothing publically has been said by Friend or Fagan. They, from what i have heard, went through the correct channels and placed a letter to SANZAR which is what the clubs are told to do.
I totally agree that we don’t want to see rugby slide to the depths of football. I also think Gits got what he deserved. Bray has been the coward in all of this skipping around the reality. I understand all refs are going to have a bad game. Give them a week at club level to get their confidence back. If we took that approach, as they do in league, we all would have saved ourselves a lot of reading and writing time this week.
April 29th 2010 @ 11:56am
Cameron said | April 29th 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Ballboy,
I probably should have put it better. What I meant was that the Brumbies’ position – potentially missing out on the semis can’t be sheeted back to that game nor Walsh’s reffing of it. It has been a surprisingly disappointing and frutrating season for them I( am a Brumbies Fan) – they have just not had it this year. Also I think some ofthe Brumbies players comments were abit overthetop…though they were said in the immediacy of the event and in probably wouldn’t have been said later whe more reason and calm prevailed. There probably needs to be a balance. Critical andhelpful analysis of what how refs go, but no extreme emotive reactions by th players..like veiled threats of “we won’t play under some refs”