I’ve been fascinated to read the posts of the “Monday morning moaners” following what, for most of them, appeared to be another in a string of “awful” referee performances in rugby internationals so far this season.
Most have ranted about “the Northern Hemisphere” approach, or “whistle happy” chappies, or “one-eyed bandits”, or those referees who carry on like “fussy private school masters.”
Without wishing to trivialise the right to whinge, or for that matter, the right to “roar”, the fact is that there is a magnificent irreverence to the criticism of referees – especially rugby referees.
Players know it – or at least they should.
When they run on to the field, they embrace the reality enshrined in the Laws of the Game – specifically Law 6.A.4 (a), which states in part that the referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during the match (the remainder talks about the concept of fairness, and I’ll deal with that later).
Alain Rolland is a fine referee – perhaps the world’s finest – and a forensic analysis of his performance in the Cape Town Test last Saturday by someone who understands the refereeing of the game (me!) indicates that he was ENTITLED to make every decision that he made during the course of the match.
What this means is that there were NO substantive mistakes.
Plenty of decisions that could be argued, of course, such as Brown to the bin, or Smith’s view that Rolland should have penalised the Springboks for going over the ball at the breakdown when the Wallabies were penalised.
But the point is, it’s all irrelevant.
Rolland was entitled to make the decisions he did based on his enshrined judicial discretion to choose one of a number of options. And even if he did make a mistake, or two, or twenty, the fact is that even when he’s wrong, he’s right.
I can almost hear the screams forming in the throats of the “roarers” now, as they wonder who the hell does this “arbitro storico” character thinks he is.
Let me further rattle the cages – it doesn’t even matter what those self-appointed fonts of all wisdom called coaches have to say about a referee’s decision.
For the purposes of this argument, they are wrong.
The best of them know this, the worst just can’t break free from their obsession to control every variable.
Also wrong, by the way, are the gentlemen of the fourth estate, even those who’ve been writing in major daily newspapers for twenty years.
Despite what it might seem, this is not an attempt to suggest that referees are unaccountable – another regular, and erroneous, rant from the “roarers”.
Their performances are analysed and scrutinised and criticised and categorised to death – but not in public, and this for a very good reason.
He is the sole judge, and to open up the prospect that he might be “wrong” dangerously erodes that authority necessary for the maintenance of the good faith basis upon which the Game is based.
Don’t worry. There have been plenty of occasions in the last twenty years where international referees have been “tutored” or “rotated” or “rested” or just plain dropped – you just haven’t heard about it in other than exceptional (usually off-field) circumstances (think Steve Walsh).
Alain Rolland and his 16 colleagues on the IRB’s Merit Panel have proved themselves under extraordinary scrutiny to be the best in the world. There’s no-one out there who could do the job better.
A final thought.
Perhaps the structure of the breakdown (where most “discretionary” decisions are made by referees) as described by the current Laws is no longer able to cope with the massive increase in forces generated by the behemoths who play at international level, resulting in an increased tendency to instability and collapse, and “pot luck” from a decision-making perspective.
If this is so, change the words of the Law to reflect the reality. Until then, gentle reader, suck it up, and accept the fact that the referee is the sole judge.
john
Guest
Hoy "and I shit you not, we scored an own try!" Mate, I'm still falling about laughing! Many years ago whilst playing a very serious inter schools game, the ref awarded our opponents a penalty about 25m out. They indicated to the ref that they would take the kick, so by motioning his arms he signalled the touchies to position behind the posts, We basically all turned and trudged disconsolately towards our own line and failed to notice that the kicker had tapped the ball with his foot and strolled nochalantly towards the try line. At about 15m he suddenly broke into a mad dash for the line and amid yells of "Hey!" and "What the....!", placed the ball. The ref awarded the try. I never found out if the law had been correctly applied but it sure seemed untidy! On an international level, I watched a Wallabies v's Bokke test during which the Wallabies infringed about 20m from their right field defensive line, the ref raised his arm but called play on. The Boks ran the ball at the left feild try line but were tackled and lost the ball. Numbers of players on both teams chased the ball to contest it, the ball ran over the touch line and the ref raised his arm, called "no advantage" and pointed for the penatly back at right field and 20m out. Joost van der Westhuisen, the scum half had already moved to that position, yelled at the ball boy on the right side to throw him the spare ball, executed a tap and ran in a try virtually unopposed! In keeping with the spirit of the game? Shouldn't the ref have moderated proceedings for equity?
retired rucker
Guest
loftus, I am singlemindely after more of a spectacle, IMHO if the laws where structured to force more ball in hand the Bokkes still would have won the test against the wallas and AB's by their dominance at the breakdown and lineout, it just might have been more entertaining for ALL supporters. I don't think bokkesupporters would mind some more running rugby from both sides. Imagine if all the penalties outside the wallaby 22 had been kicked in the corner for a bokke lineout, the chances are 3/4 would have ended as tries/possible conversions or penatly tries and then you could be claiming to have humiliated us, just imagine!
Mike
Guest
He he, I note you edited that one a bit Johno. But point well made, dodgy refereeing is not a new thing. The only difference now is that it is the professional era, and when players are so much under the spotlight, why should referees be immune from criticism.
mitzter
Guest
woo just reading law 15 does my head in - a lot of these need to be simplified
Mike
Guest
No we don't Loftus. Unlike many bok supporters we think about and analyse the game. We don't criticise all referees to the same extent or for the same reason. As I noted above, whatever mistakes were made by Rolland, it is quite unfair to compare him with Joubert, who should be refereeing park competition. "If the Wallabies and All Blacks stay within the rules they wouldn't get penalised, would they?" Spare us your hypocrisy. Bok supporters are the loudest bleaters of all when they lose. Look at the effeminate whingeing when Burger copped a mere 8 weeks for eye-gouging, and when someone finally had the courage to give Bakkies a slap on the wrist for illegal play (full credit to Bakkies though, he copped it sweet and cleaned up his act for his next two test - the truly great players don't need to charge in order to play well).
Mike
Guest
RR Excellent post. What we need is more professionalism among refs, instead of Arbitro's unthinking acceptance of everything they do (which is tantamount to saying there is no room for improvement among refs). This should also help the process of tweaking the laws so as to minimise the effect of ref's decisions.
Loftus
Guest
The ref did o.k. on Saturday I think.He only made one mistake by giving Giteau a yellow card and not a red card.If the Wallabies and All Blacks stay within the rules they wouldn t get penalised,would they? Are you lot gonna complain like this about the ref if your team wins on Saturday as well? Let s see. One of the Wallabies or the All Blacks is going to win on Saturday (you would think!),so be sure the losing team's supporters will crucify the ref again on Monday.The biggest worry is the citing commissioners and the actual hearings.
Who Needs Melon
Guest
I think it's part of the interview process. The interviewer doesn't ask any questions - they just hurl abuse at you for an hour. If you can take it, you're in.
johno
Guest
I can remember Steve Walsh putting 50 up on the Springboks in 2006 and then there's our all time favorite, Stu Dickerson, the man can't even see spears after everything has stopped. and one huge bloke picks up another large fella and then drives him into the turf, oh and then he only gets a week. I don't you's have been through enough pain to even start complaining yet!
arbitro storico
Guest
No wonder the Aussie authorities have trouble recruiting and retaining people to referee.
arbitro storico
Guest
Every breakdown is different. Look up the research from Dave Mascarenhas on behalf of the Rugby Football Union, and you will see that the dynamic complexity of this phase makes it almost impossible to have a "consistent" approach. The best that a referee can hope to do is to apply a mental model constructed from the sum of his experiences to find the most important infringement in any situation. Dare I say it - try it some time and see how you go. That lack of consistency you're talking about is, at the senior levels anyway, really only a difference of opinion between you and him about what happened.
arbitro storico
Guest
WNM - shame on you; the real Melon played on the edge of the Law all his career, and copped it on the chin every time he was caught.
arbito storico
Guest
How can one expect players to know what they can get away with if the referee is changing his opinion from breakdown to breakdown. What a classic - surely players should play within the Law rather than seek to "get away with" illegal play. And if they are prepared to break the Law, they should be prepared for the consequence. The good thing is that most players do accept this - the unfortunate thing is that most commentators, coaches and armchair analysts do not.
mcxd
Guest
I would like to see some kind of experiment in that given two (or more...actually the whole damn lot of them) given a game to watch (or parts of a game) and asked their rulings on the play. Is there a penalty ? who to ? why ? play on ? etc etc.. it would be intersting to see the results.
Damo
Guest
Arbitro, Im sick of people whingeing about our God-given Aussie right to ref- bash. Accept the armchair ref's decision .
Yikes
Guest
I've gotta say, mitzer, you have it exactly backwards. If the tackler goes to ground he doesn't have to worry about the gate. If he remains on his feet, he does have to come through the gate. The referee's view was that a ruck had formed. It was a tough call, even harsher to yellow card, but it was the last in a long line of infringements, so...
sheek
Guest
That's an interesting point, pothale. I was wondering - why are schoolboy matches generally more free-flowing? Is the fact the ref interferes less in schoolboy matches have something to do with these games being more free-flowing? Yet schoolboys wouldn't have the knowledge & sophistication of their elders, & you would think they were more likely to transgress the laws? Or is it the refs in internationals & first-class matches feel compelled to interfere more?????
sheek
Guest
Yeah, that's okay Brett, I understood that. I'm not fussed one way or the other about the ELVs, except perhaps we're all missing the point. We can tinker with the laws all we like, but maybe we're tinkering in the wrong places. Making the ref less relevant is the tricky but important bit.
retired rucker
Guest
its the neverending circle of frustration wrt the INCONSISTENT interpretaion of law by the refs, by ref, by game, by different refs. There are of course exceptions! As wallabies a supporter it is nearly impossible to analyse a game without bias,but Ido try! But when I watch neutral games, like bokke vs AB, I see inconsistent interpretation all the time , within a game or from game to game, this is where the IRB is really allowing THEIR refs to root the game for the SPECTATORS/FANS - who in the proffesional era are the games reason for existence. They need to be trained to ref/interpret in the same consistent manner wk in week out. I'm not sure of the conditions or pay involved but I suggest it should be for all proffessional comps a 40 hr a week job week in week out and well paid 100-200k like a base pro player. The solution might be a public statement pre season/ even pre game by thr IRB/REF panel stating exactly the focus of the breakdown. The breakdown is a lotery at the moment and the major reason is that the advantage has swung heavily in the favour of the defending team. It is only in recent years that the ball carrier gets a micro second to release the ball, we all know we used to hold onto it in the ruck until your mates or the oppo RUCKED the ball clear. The change in advantage to the defender has resulted directly to the idea that possession isn't the number one goal anymore, not sure how to fix it but ht ekick fest is the result
Hoy
Roar Guru
Sorry, meant to say, I reserve the right to abuse the ref for wrong decisions, as is my right as a sofa jockey.