Questionable decisions at the highest level

Tim Reynolds Roar Rookie

By Tim Reynolds, Tim Reynolds is a Roar Rookie


143 Have your say

    Sometimes decisions are made, or actions taken, and you know right away that someone has stuffed up.

    Two classic cases of this in the last week are the appointment of Jaco Peyper to ref the Lions/Hurricanes game in Johannesburg, and the corner that Cricket Australia has painted itself into re their negotiations with the players.

    I can accept, to a degree, that referees can control pool games that involve a team from their country on account of the cost if they had to get a ‘neutral’ ref. But surely not for a game in the finals. Teams have worked all season to get a shot at the title, and why should this be put at risk through the conscious or unconscious possibility of home town bias?

    Peyper is obviously one of the best referees in the world now, but he has been brought up in the South African way. And then to have South African officials to back him up is only adding fuel to the fire.

    Glen Jackson should never have reffed the game in Canberra for the same reason. And he probably shouldn’t have done the Crusaders/Chiefs game as he played for the Chiefs. If you go to Court you don’t expect the police to appoint the judge because they have to be seen to be absolutely free of any bias.

    And Cricket Australia has shown a similar arrogant blindness in their handling of the pay dispute with their players. For months they have known that they were putting at risk the tour to India and the Ashes series, but they have carried on as if they held all the cards and the players must crumble. In fact they hold very few cards.

    No Ashes series, no revenue to fund CA. Channel Nine will not be happy, nor will Channel Ten. And cricket fans won’t be either.

    I reckon it might help bring things to a resolution if the administrators in Cricket Australia had their salaries stopped, just like they’ve stopped paying the players. It doesn’t seem a fair go when only one side of the bargaining table is under the pressure of no money coming in.

    My suspicion is that there is majority support for the players in this disagreement. They’re not the ones who are trying to take back something from the other side. CA have not accepted the suggestion of mediation throughout as I suspect they feel that common sense is on the other side.

    They’d prefer arbitration, presuming I guess that the law always favours the haves over the have nots.

    Roar Podcast Logo