How not to criticise the man in the middle

It seems that the more professional the game gets, the more the man in the middle is responsible for every misfortune that befalls a team at a crucial moment. But even if he is wrong, what can be done about it?

Here are two e-mails we received:

1. Hi Guys,

Most of us work, and our performance is monitored and evaluated. Our performance is subject to scrutiny, which is perfectly normal. Sometimes we do well, sometimes we do not.

Professional rugby players also get criticised when they perform poorly. Most players acknowledge when they perform poorly, and accept the blame. Most coaches accept the blame when their team performs poorly.

SANZAR judiciary does not want any evaluation of their performance to happen. No matter how poorly referee performs, nobody is allowed to criticise him.

This may be good for referees, but not for anyone else. Only very weak person seeks that sort of protection.
Pompous refs talking down to outstanding rugby players is too common.

Any person or organisation should be subject to some criticism. Judiciary is showing their hand – they are weak and useless.

Cheers – Tino Pavic, Australia

2. I saw this on a New Zealand Web site.

“There was a clear message issued to all teams, coaches and administrators before the start of this Super 14 season that there would be zero tolerance of public criticism of referees and officials,”

Q-1 Is it true?

Q-2 Has there EVER been ANY referee found guilty of ANY wrong doing (Critical mistakes) from his side, ON or OFF the field of play?

Q-3 Can a game be replayed because of referee mistakes?

Nico Bronkhorst – South Africa

There is a lot to discuss here, but let’s just stick to a few points.

There are more kinds of criticism than one. There is the criticism that the public and the media exercise – and nobody denies them that right. One would prefer accuracy from them and good manners, but they are free to do so.

Given the chance to do so, referees do admit their mistakes, as Steve Walsh did in the Ireland-France match, and he did it in public.

There is the criticism of the Eddie Jones variety – in public and personal. That by the International Rugby Board’s code of conduct is not on. This code of conduct is not unique top rugby football.

There is a mechanism in place for Eddie Jones and his captain to register their opinion on a referee. The coach and his captain actually have forms which they can fill in on referees after each match. Doing that is an exception. But the coaches have direct access to the referees – man to man, by phone or by e-mail.

This is fair enough. If a coach is allowed to express public opinion of a referee then, quid pro quo, the referee should be allowed to express a public opinion of the coach and his players, which could lead to unseemly bickering not good for the game.

Secondly there is a mechanism in place for the evaluation of referees. Look at the appointment and you will see two men down to review the referee’s performance in every match. The performance reviewer will provide a detailed report on each match. That detailed report will include statistics and the important incidents with detail as to time and happening.

There is another assessor who then audits the performance reviewer’s report. These reports are then sent with a full recording of the match to the International Rugby Board and, in the case of Super 14, to the referee managers, Peter Marshall in Australia, Keith Lawrence in New Zealand and Andre Watson in South Africa.

And it does not end there.

Each of the countries will have its own way of communicating,. In South Africa Andre Watson, Tappe Henning, Fransie Muller, the chairman of assessors, and Carel du Plessis, the chairman of referee selectors, will discuss the previous weekend’ refereeing, usually in a conference call. On each Thursday there is a conference call amongst the three Super 14 countries. Those taking part are the referees selectors of the three countries – Glenn Wahlstrom of New Zealand, Ian Scotney of Australia and Tappe Henning of South Africa. They then discuss the performance of the referees of the previous week in detail that is intense and specific. That happens every week and lasts about an hour and a half, longer if necessary. For this conference call the three will have to do intense preparation.

In the case of the Pretoria match they will examine the Anton Leonard tackle – and, in all likelihood, the Wynand Olivier tackle on Junior Pelesasa in the 36th minute that none of the three match officials picked up. They are likely to examine the scrums, including those Jones complained about and including the number of free kicks against dominant packs when on the attack. That sort of thing.

To answer Tino, referees are evaluated and criticised all right.

Nico clearly wants to knows why no sanctions are applied to referees for poor performance as the “off with their heads” brigade would like.

If we listened to vociferous critics on the stands, in the media and in the coaches’ boxes then we would have got rid of this year alone Donal Courtney, Steve Walsh, Jonathan Kaplan, Chris Pollock, Marius Jonker, Mark Lawrence, Brett Bowden, James Leckie and Matt Goddard – and it’s still February. By May we should have no referees left! After all we are talking about the top 40 referees in the world.

Referees have been held responsible. If you have a real interest in referees and their panels you will be well aware of that. You will know of referees who were dropped from panels, as Joel Dume, Rob Dickson, Tony Spreadbury, Tappe Henning and many others were. You will be aware of sudden retirements which were clearly encouraged.

Sometimes match officials are “rested” while work is done to improve things.

You will also be aware that many of those referees, dropped or retired, have gone on to serve the game in outstanding ways. Dickson and Spreadbury have come back. Dume does a great deal to help referees in France, and look at what many retired referees are doing – men such as Paddy O’Brien, Andre Watson, Colin Hawke, Brian Kinsey, Andrew Cole now, Peter Marshall, Colin High, Owen Doyle and others are doing.

Some have shifted their functions, as Steve Lander and Shaun Veldsman are doing. They would not be doing that if they had been summarily dumped and had gone away bitter. If they were not making their contribution, heaven help refereeing and as a result the game.

The worst example of a referee being held accountable is the case of Michael Nolan a referee in a match in which 17-year-old Ben Smoldon broke his neck. Nolan was found guilty of not exercising the proper care and ordered to pay damages of #1 million.

There is a great deal to talk about on this topic but the truth is that few people, apart from referees themselves, are interested in the workings of referees – until the referee is perceived to have made an error! For referees the best thing is not to be news.

The Laws of the Game say that the referee is the sole judge of fact and law during the game. He is the law in action and the laws of the game are the soul of the game, that which makes the game different from all others. That is why somebody of a philosophic bent would be circumspect in criticism of referees.

It’s easy to play to the howling mob and get them all worked up but it may not be wise, fair or right. Vox Populi is not necessarily Vox Dei.