I’m aware that the Steve Walsh vs. the Brumbies debacle over the last week has been flogged for all its worth in the media this week. However, the events last Saturday night have raised some interesting questions in my mind over refereeing in the Super 14.
Before going any further, I’d like to disclose my prejudices: I’m a fan of the Brumbies. I may even have hurled some unrepeatable sentences at Steve Walsh from the sidelines during last Saturday’s match.
But I will try to put that aside. And Steve, if you’re reading this, I’m sorry I told you to do that with your whistle.
My first issue is this: Should precedent become law on the rugby field?
With regard to the Adam-Ashley Cooper ‘try’, it is an issue I have been pondering. Not being an expert on the laws of the game, I will assume that Walsh was within his rights to call ‘double movement’, as far as the letter of the law is concerned.
However, I have been watching rugby for a long time.
It is very common to see players powering an extra couple of metres in exactly this fashion, particularly in a pick and drive scenario. I must have seen it hundreds of times in general play, and not once have I seen it penalised.
Given the subjective nature of rugby laws, a far-reaching precedent becomes the ‘law’ as it applies to the game. We have seen this year that different interpretations of the same laws can have drastic consequences on how the game is allowed to be played. The point is, without consistency of these rulings, rugby doesn’t work.
Under this reasoning, Walsh’s decision should be considered incorrect. No argument. No debate. The letter of the law becomes immaterial. Or, are referees within their rights to apply the law more stringently when points are concerned?
Secondly: Should the performance of referees be up for questioning?
I have no argument that on the field, the referee should be considered the absolute power. I also have no issue with the fining of Matt Giteau, who spoke well out of line with his comments this week.
However, team trust and respect for referees should be a legitimate concern to SANZAR. The game cannot exist in good spirit without it.
If a team is legitimately questioning the integrity of a referee (and, on the basis of last Saturday, the Brumbies may have a case), shouldn’t that be a genuine concern?
Teams are allowed to make post-match comments to SANZAR. However, head of SANZAR referees Lyndon Bray made it clear with his comments this week that he was not open to questioning of his referees.
Referees acting as though they are a law unto themselves is helping no-one.
Whilst this may sound a lot like sour grapes, for the first time last Saturday I felt genuinely concerned that a referee was deliberately being unfair. SANZAR should not be sticking its head in the sand. And Matt Giteau should think before he speaks next time.
Joh4Canberra
Roar Rookie
Good points you raise BMW and arbitro storico. I commented on another thread about the laws relating to the AAC incident and said that talk of a "double movement" is not helpful (you can read that response here http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/04/30/walsh-blind-giteau-fined/ -- just do a search for a comment by me, Joh4Canberra). The question we need to ask is whether the tackled player correctly played the ball after the tackle. And this question is no different whether it takes place near the opponents' line or anywhere else on the field. So BMW is right to raise the question whether a player tackled close to the opponents' line powering on a couple more metres before planting the ball over the line in any different from a player tackled elsewhere in the field of play powering on a couple more metres before releasing the ball. As a matter of law the answer is no, there is no difference. Both are penalisable offences. In my view (and I should point out that I'm both a referee and a lawyer) what AAC did was not permitted in accordance with the law and Walsh and his assistant were 100% correct in awarding the penalty (although describing the offence as a "double movement" was most unfortunate). AAC was tackled (i.e. brought to ground while being held by one or more opponents) before the line and although he got over the line in the end it wasn't just his own momentum which got him there. He used his own leg drive after the tackle to advance his position before playing the ball and this is not a permitted action after a tackle. A tackled player must immediately play the ball (which includes reaching out and placing the ball on or over the line to score a try). But AAC didn't do this. After being tackled he powered forward another couple of metres and only then placed the ball over the line. That is a penalty to the defending team. And such an action should also be a penalty if it takes place anywhere else on the field (such as in his own 22). This brings us to the next point: the consistency of refereeing at the tackle area. My response here is that the law is what is written in the laws of the game and NOT what referees do in practice. If referees aren't penalising players elsewhere on the field for doing what AAC did close to his opponents' goal line then they are misapplying the law. They do not thereby create new law. What we need to do is get referees to correctly apply the tackle law everywhere on the field and not just near goal line. This brings me to arbitro storico's good point. Yes, players and coaches also have a duty to play the game according to the law. This is important and a huge shortcoming in the game. The mindset that anything is OK as long as the referee doesn't penalise you does no-one any favours in the end. With that kind of attitude the game degenerates into anarchy. Players need to be taught the laws and not just skills. And they also need to be taught that they are expected to play within the laws. We should be teaching players from an early age that after a tackle they have to play the ball immediately and that this does not permit them to try to power on and steal another couple of metres before playing the ball. That applies whether it's done near your opponent's line in an attempt to score a try or in your own 22.
eastboy
Guest
After last nights game I think it’s about time commentators are brought into line, I was gobsmacked at K's derogatory comments towards Chris Pollock, he may have found it amusing but I found it appalling that he would resort to such juvenile and bigoted comments
eastboy
Guest
After last nights game I think it's about time commentators are brought into line, I was gobsmacked at Kearnsies racist and derogatory comments towards Chris Pollock, he may have found it amusing but I found it appalling that he would resort to such juvenile and bigoted comments.
arbitro storico
Guest
shooga asks why are referees different from any other paid professional? This is exactly the point - too many punters lump players and referees together, and expect the same standards to apply to them all. The referee is the voice of authority who must be obeyed if the game is to avoid descent into anarchy. The laws enshrine this position - the referee cannot, under law, make any mistakes. I know that's hard to accept in egalitarian Australian, where it seems everybody wants to question authority - get over it; every player who takes the field (except obviously some RS14 captains who think that they should be treated differently) accepts it. Shooga's opinion - and mine - is irrelevant.
passdashooga
Roar Rookie
Why are referees different to any other paid professional? I agree they should not be criticised during the game, but after the game they should be held accountable for their actions. Cleary this is not the case at present, as Giteau was fined for doing so and the panel of Gods you refer to, blamed the Brumbies for Walsh's removal this round. So Walsh has not been held accountable for a dreadful performance. In fact, his performance was rated by your panel as "average". You're right, the rules should be changed. They should be changed so players and coaches can speak openly to the fans about why they believe a match was won or lost. The sport does not revolve around the well-being of the referees, it revolves around the fans. As a fan, I don't want to see players spouting recycled garbage every time they are asked a question about a ref. I want to see everyone in the game, from administrators to players to whistleblowers held accountable when they tarnish the sport. It astounds me that anyone can think it's acceptable to gag any Australian, let alone a footballer. Public figures have spoken about their hatred of Muslims, in support of 9-11 attacks and openly slandered the gay community without reprisal. Yet a footballer gets fined $5000 dollars for criticising a ref? Please. Players are the same as the rest of us and should be afforded the same rights.
arbitro storico
Guest
BMWW makes two points. The first - because players are allegedly permitted to "power" an extra distance, especially in "pick and drive" situations in general play, they should be allowed to propel themselves forward using their knees after they have been legitimately tackled in order to score a try. In our game - which BMWW says he's been watching for a long time - "far reaching precedents" do not become law unless they are proposed as a law change. If that proposition is considered to be a worthy change to the law, then let's see it put up for consideration like every other proposed law change. I predict that the rest of the rugby world's reaction will be in the negative, but the point is that under current law, Walsh - and his AR Pearce - were absolutely correct in awarding a penalty against Ashley Cooper - no argument, no debate. His second point asks whether referee performance should be "up for questioning". The referee assessment process in RS14 is the most comprehensive and stringent of any tournament at any level of the game anywhere. RS14 referee performance is analysed by experts, whose number includes a former RS14 coach, and each performance is measured against benchmarks agreed by the tournament stakeholders. Some poorly performing referees have been dropped - until recently, relatively quietly. All of them take note of the assessment of their performance. None of them ignore the advice delivered in this process. The main issue here is whether the Brumbies ought to have used the media as the forum for their complaints and for their call to have Walsh removed from this week's match. I think that SANZAR's action in removing Walsh after such a public questioning of his perfomance by the Brumbies was entirely wrong. No one should be able to get away with such a blatant attempt at "judge shopping", and SANZAR should amend its regulations to make it an offence to publicly question the referee assessment and appointment process during the tournament period. Anybody who knows anything about the effects of questioning the credibility of judicial authority will realise that any erosion of that authority will destabilise the good faith basis of the game which BMWW cherishes with his comment about the referee's "power" on the field. RS14 is the highest standard provincial rugby competition on the planet, and the referee panel contains 10 of the top 17 in the world. Who else would we have do this job? The job would just be made a little easier if more people accepted that players and coaches - not referees in isolation - have a responsibility to ensure that the game is played according to the law and the spirit.