Time for more scrutiny of rugby referees

The IRB refereeing needs a big tidy up. Paddy O'Brien has served his tenure time to move on. It's difficult to get any impartiality with O'Brien and the laws have changed a lot under his watch. Time for stablity get someone like Alan Lewis, Joel Jutge or Chris White in charge and mentoring the young refs. Some countries need to pull their weight with the refs. I know some of the younger refs have gone through a lot of law changes and procedures. One ref who clearly struggles with constant change is young Welsh ref James Jones ever see him ref a Magners League match for the first half he would be refereeing to 2009 interpretations and in the second half he would go to the current ones. An up and coming ref Paul Marks was banished because of one mistake it was a big one but he should get more time to improve where as experienced guys like Kaplan make a lot of mistakes and still get games. The RWC appointments were bizarre too with Kaplan picked ahead of in form Mark Lawrence. Walsh was picked but he has problems with fitness and he is a kiwi refereeing for the ARU.

very good. Yes an invisible ref who allows the kiwi teams to get away with illegalities so that the game can flow, who cares about fair.

ABF - your comment that he failed to manage the game according to the rules is simply wrong. I accept that this is your opinion, but with the greatest respect, your opinion - and mine - doesn't count. The fact is that Dickinson refereed the game very well, in the opinion of a selection committee made up of an ex-RS14 coach, and ex-referees who between them have controlled over 100 tests and over 1000 other first class matches. Taken as a group, they provide an unbiased, objective lens through which to judge every referee's performance. Of course Dickinson made mistakes - not many as it turns out - and you rightly point out the knock-on, but that hardly warrants an inflammatory judgement that he "failed abysmally". The Crusaders have been refereed by Dickinson since the franchise was born - that's right; for 16 years. Believe me when I say that he's been ranked at or near the top of the pile by players and coaches for more than a decade of that time. The only issue you raise with any substance is that some of his decisions were "controversial". So what? Decisions made by referees are often "controversial". Controversial does not equal wrong. This goes to the tired fallacy you express at the end - that a good ref is an invisible one. Wrong; a good ref is one who knows that he must come in to the game to ensure that it is played fairly and in the spirit. The selectors knew that this was the case with Dickinson's performance last week.

Another type are Richie McCaw's lapdogs

He failed in one very basic, and very important, criteria. He failed to manage the game according to the rules. The rules clearly state that if an attacking team commits an infringement (ie knock the ball on, forward pass, etc) then they cannot accrue any advantage from said infringement. He failed abysmally in that regard hence the criticism. The Crusaders have lost other games, I had no qualm with the refereeing. In any case, half the players on the field on Sunday were NOT happy with his officiating so that causes problems according to your analysis. And what kind of corrosive effect would the standard of refereeing have on the tournament in regards to players, fans and TV viewers if Sunday's performance was to become commonplace? If I knew there was going to be more games with more controversial refeering decisions, I'd watch AFL (they have no knock-ons and no forward passes!!) Referees should strive for excellence, just like players. The accepted mantra of rugby refereeing is ``A good ref is an invisible one!" Dickinson was by no means an invisible ref on Sunday.

It wasn't Dickinson, it was Erikson. In 1999. England scored a hundred, and the referee sent off a Tongan prop for king-hitting someone. Hard to see how the ref had much to do with it that day - there was nearly 50 minutes of ball-in-play time; unheard of then, and rare even today.

Dickinson's worst ever game was England vs Tonga in the world cup in England (can't remember the year).

Thanks for that info about the current process - you're right, I hadn't considered that it was so robust. However, I still feeel that there would be merit in opening up the process somewhat. To involve a cross section of players and spectators - who would be chosen to review a match based upon their relative impartiality - would make it more than an exercise in peer review. I'm certainly not talking about a simple "popularity" contest. We rely on juries of ordinary punters to decide mureder trials, surely there is something to be said for having some "public" accountability for referees. At the very least, the process you described above should be more transparent.

There are two types of referee the ones that ref with a police mentality and the one that refs with a facilitative style. The police mentality looks for infrinegments in everything and if in doubt blows the whistle the facilitator looks to keep the game flowing and if in doubt on a 50-/50 call lets the game go. For the sake of rugby as a spectacle the faclitator mentality needs to be fostered as in 99% of break downs something can be found to blow the whistle with. In junor rugby we need more refs to speak with the players and warn before blowing as the last option, too many refrees are blowing the whistle as their first option and the p[layers and spectators are left scratching their heads. Like players refs need regular coaching, i think each team coach and or captain should give referees a rating for each facet of their game to allow the referee to improve with direct feedback.

I agree. The suggestion put forward has major flaws in that the majority of the panel dont actually know the law book so how can they judge correct / incorrect decisions. Also they are not impartial especially fans. Like you I am aware of the detailed assessment of each referee. What I would like and what was suggested is more transparency. I believe some of the results against the assessment measures per game shoud be released to the public, more tranparency would be useful.

Sorry Luke - this post is based on a very naive understanding of what actually already happens in the assessment of referee performance. In the RS15 every referee's performance is assessed by one of the SANZAR selectors allocated specific responsibility as "lead" assesor for that match. In a weekly conference, each "lead" man's view is challenged by the other selectors who have watched the game, and a consensus decision is made about that referee's performance. At all times, the basis of the assessment is how the referee measures up to benchmarks in (broadly speaking) set piece management, breakdown management, advantage, communication, conflict management. In 2011, a special focus on the "big 5" areas of the game was agreed after significant consultation with the administration, playng and coaching sections of the RS15 community. This is an efficient and effective assessment regime, and more than enough scrutiny. What it is not - and I suspect that this is the basis of your criticism - is an open-to-all process. It never will be, and neither should it be. In a professional game, referee performance assessment is not a popularity or beauty contest, or a Dancing with the Stars-like opportunity to vote someone off, for goodness sake. If the people who run, play and coach the tournament are happy with the referee assessment process they have constructed and constantly review, surely that's good enough. Imagine for a moment the corrosive effect on the tournament that the wrong-headed and inaccurate criticism of Dickinson's performance by the viewing public would have if there were such a public opinion driven system in place. Being a referee is about doing what's right, not what's popular, and Dickinson's performance last weekend, by all the objective and subjective methods in place, was a very good one, whether the public agrees or not.