This year's Rugby Championship has continued to raise concerns about the standard of international refereeing, particularly procedures surrounding yellow cards. As it currently stands, there have been six yellow cards in total issued in the first half of the championship, an average of two yellow cards per game. Of the six yellow cards issued in this championship, four have been issued to New Zealand, one to Australia and one to South Africa. In last year's rugby championship there were five yellow cards issued over the same period of time.
The number of yellow cards, and particularly the contentious circumstances leading to at least three of the cards, has led to what has become an annual bemoaning of the standard of refereeing. Many South African supporters have attributed their recent loss to Australia down to the sin binning of Bryan Habana in his 100th test, while New Zealand head coach Steve Hansen made the statement "If I was allowed to do one thing in the game, I'd rip the rule book up, and just put in the ones that are necessary". Hansen continued to state that the rules were too complicated and should be broken down to what is absolutely necessary. Richie McCaw recently stated that two referees should be on the field to better enforce the rules.
It seems that the issues surrounding the current laws can be divided into three camps. Those that think the referees are simply not competent in interpreting the laws of the game consistently and to an acceptable international standard. Those that feel referees are not currently equipped to accurately manage everything that takes place on a field. And those that feel the laws of the game have become too convoluted and contentious to accurately enforce irrespective of personal or support. A fourth camp could also attribute some of the frustration in regards to the rules, with misinformation offered by every pundit, commentator and post-match interviewee who is not as familiar with the laws as should be reasonably expected, but offers their two cents regardless.
Looking briefly past international rugby into domestic rugby, it seems that some of the concerns with the policing of the laws are not as negative. Whether it is because the stakes are not as high in the ITM/Currie Cup as in the Rugby Championship, or it is generally more difficult policing international games which are played at a higher intensity, the level of officiating does seem to leave less people frustrated. Is it because the referees are selected from their own countries pool of referees, and therefore rule applications are more familiar and consistent?
Personally, it would appear me that referees are refereeing generally better because they're not so terrified of missing anything. Since the inclusion of higher TMO powers, we are seeing more referees unwilling to make what should be simple, positive decisions, instead relying on technology. The laws surrounding TMO going back several phases for any possible indiscretions before awarding a try, means an audience is being expected to halt their excitement for up to a minute. These protocols, while arguably making the game more accurate (and in some circumstances making the calls more ridiculous, as forward pass after forward pass was called acceptable – despite traveling thirty frames a minute - forward out of the hands) harm the spectacle of the game. What we have witnessed in the ITM Cup recently is marginal calls being much more leniently awarded to the attacking team. When a half blade of grass separates a boot from a try, after a length of the field effort, it seems everyone is happy the laws are being applied positively.
However what is interesting about this Championship is despite the TMO being used for every try, referees are considerably less willing to go to the TMO for disciplinary issues. Seeing as it could be argued that Habana off the field resulted in ten points being conceded, while checking replays to see if a player could be seriously injured by an indiscretion seems much quicker and more positive than checking to see how 'not' to award a try, you would think they would be better employed. It seems to me that it is the referees and his two assistance's job to see if a player's foot was in touch before grounding the ball, or if several phases back a hand was in the ruck prior to the try. That is for them to get the first time. If they miss those indiscretions that is their problem, and not the players problem on the rare occasions one of the indiscretions inadvertently leads to a try several phases later. What is acceptable however is making sure a player's safety was not at risk - and that a team will not be unfairly disadvantaged by a referees actions rather than inaction. It seems for several of the yellow cards issued this Championship, a more positive TMO approach that examined instances of foul play more accurately, while used more leniently on positive play would help prevent some of the growing frustrations.
What do you think?
The number of yellow cards, and particularly the contentious circumstances leading to at least three of the cards, has led to what has become an annual bemoaning of the standard of refereeing. Many South African supporters have attributed their recent loss to Australia down to the sin binning of Bryan Habana in his 100th test, while New Zealand head coach Steve Hansen made the statement "If I was allowed to do one thing in the game, I'd rip the rule book up, and just put in the ones that are necessary". Hansen continued to state that the rules were too complicated and should be broken down to what is absolutely necessary. Richie McCaw recently stated that two referees should be on the field to better enforce the rules.
It seems that the issues surrounding the current laws can be divided into three camps. Those that think the referees are simply not competent in interpreting the laws of the game consistently and to an acceptable international standard. Those that feel referees are not currently equipped to accurately manage everything that takes place on a field. And those that feel the laws of the game have become too convoluted and contentious to accurately enforce irrespective of personal or support. A fourth camp could also attribute some of the frustration in regards to the rules, with misinformation offered by every pundit, commentator and post-match interviewee who is not as familiar with the laws as should be reasonably expected, but offers their two cents regardless.
Looking briefly past international rugby into domestic rugby, it seems that some of the concerns with the policing of the laws are not as negative. Whether it is because the stakes are not as high in the ITM/Currie Cup as in the Rugby Championship, or it is generally more difficult policing international games which are played at a higher intensity, the level of officiating does seem to leave less people frustrated. Is it because the referees are selected from their own countries pool of referees, and therefore rule applications are more familiar and consistent?
Personally, it would appear me that referees are refereeing generally better because they're not so terrified of missing anything. Since the inclusion of higher TMO powers, we are seeing more referees unwilling to make what should be simple, positive decisions, instead relying on technology. The laws surrounding TMO going back several phases for any possible indiscretions before awarding a try, means an audience is being expected to halt their excitement for up to a minute. These protocols, while arguably making the game more accurate (and in some circumstances making the calls more ridiculous, as forward pass after forward pass was called acceptable – despite traveling thirty frames a minute - forward out of the hands) harm the spectacle of the game. What we have witnessed in the ITM Cup recently is marginal calls being much more leniently awarded to the attacking team. When a half blade of grass separates a boot from a try, after a length of the field effort, it seems everyone is happy the laws are being applied positively.
However what is interesting about this Championship is despite the TMO being used for every try, referees are considerably less willing to go to the TMO for disciplinary issues. Seeing as it could be argued that Habana off the field resulted in ten points being conceded, while checking replays to see if a player could be seriously injured by an indiscretion seems much quicker and more positive than checking to see how 'not' to award a try, you would think they would be better employed. It seems to me that it is the referees and his two assistance's job to see if a player's foot was in touch before grounding the ball, or if several phases back a hand was in the ruck prior to the try. That is for them to get the first time. If they miss those indiscretions that is their problem, and not the players problem on the rare occasions one of the indiscretions inadvertently leads to a try several phases later. What is acceptable however is making sure a player's safety was not at risk - and that a team will not be unfairly disadvantaged by a referees actions rather than inaction. It seems for several of the yellow cards issued this Championship, a more positive TMO approach that examined instances of foul play more accurately, while used more leniently on positive play would help prevent some of the growing frustrations.
What do you think?
Last edited:
