New referee rules forcing coaches to voice concerns publicly

Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus believes World Rugby’s new match-official communication protocols are creating a growing gap between coaches and referees and forcing teams to take their concerns to the media instead.

The issue has become particularly relevant during the Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry tour, with the All Blacks using public comments to argue that South African teams, including the Springboks, deliberately slow the game down to counter New Zealand’s high-tempo approach.

Ahead of Saturday’s opening Test at Ellis Park, Erasmus was asked about the increasingly public debate and whether the All Blacks’ claims were simply part of a tactical battle between the two sides.

He suggested the current protocols had left coaches with few alternatives when they wanted to raise concerns.

*Continues below…

#SPOTLIGHT: Rennie addresses All Blacks’ growing injury toll as burly prop answers SOS 👇#SouthAfrica #Springboks #NewZealand #AllBlacks #RSAvNZLhttps://t.co/wfhxaF1RVS

— Rugby365 (@rugby365com) August 17, 2026

“I don’t think it’s a tactic. I think it’s an obvious thing: if you want to get something out, you have to get it out here [in a press conference] because you can’t really talk to the referee sometimes,” Erasmus said.

Under the new protocols, head coaches can only meet with a referee before a Test if both coaches agree to the meeting and attend together.

Post-match, coaches are restricted to submitting six video clips for clarification through a central system, with those submissions visible to other international coaches and match officials.

Erasmus questioned the system last month, arguing that it had created a communication gap between coaches and referees.

That frustration remains.

“I think there’s definitely frustration from the coaches that you can’t have meetings with the referee if both teams don’t agree,” he said.

“It’s now at a stage where you almost accept both teams’ coaches aren’t always going to agree to a pre-match meeting.”

Erasmus revealed that he had opted against a meeting himself this week, believing it would have little value at this stage of the All Blacks’ tour.

“I myself this week said, ‘No, no, we don’t need one,’ because it doesn’t help now, after they’ve played four games, and now we want to sort out things in three training sessions.”

Instead, the Springboks had to rely on the information provided through the Athlete Management System, or AMS, and the responses from World Rugby.

“We had to look at what they put on AMS – that’s a central system – and then sort of learn from what the answers are from World Rugby.”

*Also read: All Blacks ‘see an opportunity’ to knock the Springboks over

For Erasmus, however, the problem goes beyond seeking clarification on decisions.

He believes coaches previously had the opportunity to alert referees to specific tactical aspects of their game plans that could affect how incidents are interpreted.

“There are small things which, in normal referee meetings, you alert them to: ‘Listen, we might do a midfield maul, just be aware of that, know the law around that.’”

That is no longer possible unless the opposition coach agrees to attend the meeting.

“Now you can’t, because you have to have the meeting with the other coach,” Erasmus said.

“You can’t say, ‘Listen, we may be doing a front peel in the lineout, maybe don’t stand there when we do the front peel because you might not see if it’s obstruction or not.’”

As a result, Erasmus believes coaches are increasingly left to make their concerns public.

“So I think teeing up the referees with things you want to do is very difficult, and I totally understand why the All Blacks voice some of their concerns.”

That includes the current debate around the pace of the game.

“If they genuinely believe we slow down the game, they can’t say it in a meeting with us being present and we’re arguing with them, ‘We’re not slowing it down.’”

“So it’s a very natural thing to do it in the media now because of the protocols.”

Erasmus remains unconvinced by the reasoning behind the restrictions, even though he accepts that international teams and coaches must work within them.

“I feel – and I know a lot of international coaches feel that way – it’s very clear what you must do and what you can’t do,” he said.

“It’s in place and we understand that it’s there. I don’t understand why it’s like that.”

But the consequence, according to Erasmus, is clear.

“I think there’s definitely now a gap between coaches, scrum coaches and referees on small little tactical things, and then you voice your opinion in the media.”

“That’s the only option.”