TALKING POINT: A positive suggestion to try and stop the referee blame game

One thing that always makes me uncomfortable is when a game’s result is determined by the referee, and coaches take to the blame game afterwards.

Most people who watched the Bledisloe Cup game between the All Blacks and Wallabies will know this weekend's referee, Andrea Piardi, infuriated the Wallabies by blowing them off the park in the third quarter. The All Blacks took their chance and won a tense match-up between the two sides.

Afterwards, coach Joe Schmidt came out frustrated at Andrea Piardi’s decisions, calling them inconsistent.

"It's really hard, because what we've perceived is inconsistencies," Schmidt said. "That makes it difficult, and then players are asking us questions and we get clarification afterwards."

Of course, there is a history here. It was the same Piardi who refused to penalise the British and Irish Lions in the crucial final decision and awarded the try that gave them the test series, so it is understandable that Schmidt, normally a level-headed coach, is a bit peeved.

Piardi, as we all know in the Vodacom United Rugby Championship, tends to referee hard against one side when the other gets on top, and teams have to adapt.

STIRRED UP DEBATE

But it has once again stirred up a debate about refereeing. In the Boks' test against the Pumas, where all the attention was on the superb performance of Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu, two decisions stirred debate afterwards.

The first came for Eben Etzebeth’s disallowed try, where the ball was purposely kicked out of the hands of Cobus Reinach, and the try was disallowed for a knock on. Many questioned afterwards why if a deliberate act of cynical play dislodged the ball, why the try didn’t stand? And it is a fair question.

The laws address a knock-on, which clearly came from Reinach and it addresses that the player must not kick the ball out of another player’s hands, but it never addresses what happens if both happen simultaneously?

Should the knock have stood, or is it like a ball being ripped - clearly gone forward out of the players hands but because it is ripped it is considered not a knock on? It certainly is an interesting question?

The other was that unfortunate drop kick from Cheslin Kolbe, who trying to get the ball to his flyhalf, saw it cross the tryline into play and picked up and scored by Argentina. So many questions have swirled around this, but it was a fair try and Kolbe, normally the maestro on the field, had what coach Rassie Erasmus called “a brain fart”.

POINT ISN’T TO BLAME REFS

The point of it all is not to blame referees. But to understand them better. Referees make more than 200 decisions in a game and not all them get correct. That is not to say they get them incorrect either, as there is a very complicated law book - as the Etzebeth disallowed try shows.

What is needed is more healthy debate, healthy education and less finger-pointing all around. We all know how Erasmus was hauled over the coals for that infamous video, but it does remind us that World Rugby does little to address the understanding of the game among fans.

They do have a weekly Whistle Watch programme where former referee Nigel Owens tries to address some decisions, but it is too little and too late after the game, and often devolves into clickbait headlining that takes away from its value.

Some of us old enough to remember will know that referees used to come to press conferences until that was stopped. The idea was to give journalists an opportunity to find out why a decision was made and educate their readers.

The obvious problem is that journalism has changed, and there are so many TikTokers, YouTubers and other social media “journalists” who look for a clickbait video now that it wouldn’t work. Things can easily get taken out of context.

THE DAY THE JOURNOS WERE SCHOOLED

In those days I clearly remember after a Bulls game the referee Willie Roos and his assistants arrived with laptops in hand to address a contentious call that settled the game. To our embarrassment, most of those in attendance knew the laws a lot less well than the refs and we were truly schooled. It was a very sobering and memorable experience, and gave me new insight on how refs think.

I’ve tried over the years to engage referees, and to my surprise, they are mostly very happy to discuss their decisions when approached respectfully and with the intention to learn. They will happily accept they get things wrong and a lot of the time are rather frustrated that they can’t defend themselves. To this day there are still ex-referees in foreign countries that I can call for a chat and they’re happy to do it.

We all know the dangers, and we all know what can go wrong and in an era of social media abuse that often spills over to the real world (Ryder Cup is a perfect example of this) World Rugby would never be keen to expose their refs to this.

A POSITIVE SUGGESTION

So what I’d suggest is a ref's boss that is willing to hold a Sunday presser after big games and discuss decisions. It will give an overnight period where some of these grey areas can be sorted out (which they are in any case for team queries) and then someone with gravitas can address it. It will need to be handled from our side with respect and it should look to educate.

I know it sounds a bit nerdy, but we all have a responsibility to be the adults in the room and not to devolve into boorish behaviour that does the game no good.

Most rugby fans will want to know if their understanding of the game is correct and if not, then why is it so? Most refs will appreciate someone batting for them where currently there is nobody.

I often say, referees, like journalists, are an integral part of the game. We can’t afford to lose them.

MORE UNDERSTANDING IS NEEDED

But they need more transparency, more education to the wider public and a greater audience without the pressure of modern-day social media scrutiny. A ref's boss or former referee can do this, in conjunction with World Rugby or the various competitions that govern themselves.

Tappe Henning has been superb in URC at trying to educate, but is often constrained by what he can and cannot say. World Rugby needs to do more of this.

It won’t be perfect, but it can start a process of understanding. It can usher in a more nuanced view of the referee's role and the game in general. You’re never going to win over the trolls, but by doing this, you can make sure there are fewer of them.

And it can only do the game the world of good.

Because the current system isn’t helping anyone, and every coach’s outburst in frustration only makes it worse.