Get Newsletter

Law discussion: Too much discussion

Are we on the verge of retrogression – or at least to the days before 1892 when deciding a match could take a long time, years in one notorious case?

Are we turning back to the days when players decided what was right and wrong in what happened on the field?

In the beginning there were no referees. The captains, who had decided on the laws for the day's game, decided whether an incident was fair or not. That didn't work.

So each team chose an umpire. If the captains disagreed, they could ask the umpires. It would have taken a brave umpire to disagree with his captain. And so if the umpires did not agree they would go to an appointed man on the side line and refer to him. Because they referred to him he was the referee. This process could take long discussion and debate.

And it did not always work either and teams could refer an incident to the union in whose jurisdiction they played. But when England played Scotland and Richard Kindersley scored a disputed try for England, the Scots would not accept that it was a try and that they had lost. There was no union for them to refer to and this, after three judges judged the try, the matter was resolved.

That was five years later and had led to the formation of the International Rugby Board.

In 1892 that Board decreed that the referee was the sole judge of fact and law and his decision was final.

The great Barry Heatlie, reminiscing about the days before 1892, said that it was important for a team to pick a good debater for arguments with the referee. Nowadays, in the post Sean Fitzpatrick era, a captain is often praised for the way he can 'play' the referee, get the best decisions for his side. This is not always subtly done.

But is that no longer the case.

When South Africa played Wales in Nelspruit, the outcome of the match was determined at the end by a penalty try., a decision by the referee who was helped by an assistant and the television match official. While this was apprehending both captains, Victor Matfield and Alun Wyn Jones, hovered and had their say to the referee who was trying to concentrate on getting the decision right. And they had their say with increasing emphasis. Clearly, they believed in their right to make decisions.

This was even more evident when the Bulls were beaten by the Stormers at Newlands last Saturday.

Just five minutes into the match there was a struggle for the ball near the touchline. The ball went into touch and the assistant indicated that the Stormers would throw the ball in. Matfield expressed a different view to the assistant and then to the referee, asking for the matter to be referred to the TMO who could put it on the big screen.

The Stormers threw into the line-out and the replay suggested that the ball had gone into touch off the foot of the Bulls' hooker.

Play went on and 14 minutes later Matfield believed that there had been a knock-on in a maul. But the ball went out to the left where the Stormers were penalised. The Bulls kicked out and threw in to the subsequent line-out. They threw deep to Grant Hattingh. Matfield came round to get the ball but Ruan Botha of the Stormers got between Hattingh and Matfield and took the ball.

The referee called that the line-out was over because Hattingh was over the 15-metre line. He also said that there was no maul and so Botha was entitled to do what he did do. In the following play the Bulls were penalised, the Stormers tapped and charged and the Bulls defended but within 10 metres of the place of the penalty. The referee played advantage till there was none and then went back to the penalty.

Matfield came to the referee with an extravagant gesture which suggested anger and told the referee that he had made a mistake at the line-out, then missed a knock-on and then got the line-out wrong because it was not over. The referee told Matfield not to attack him.

Later in the match Schalk Burger and Bjorn Basson jumped for the ball. Burger collided in midair with Basson. The referee examined the evidence and penalised Burger, who was clearly upset and waved a dismissive gesture towards the referee.

So it seems that players believe that they are right and the referee wrong and they should get their way.

Law 10.4 (s) All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle except at a kick-off or at a penalty kick following admonishment, temporary suspension, or send-off.

Sanction: Penalty kick

What Matfield and Burger did was wrong. They are a part of 'all players' and certainly did not respect the referee. They disputed his decisions. There is nothing in the Laws of the game that gives a captain the right to ask the referee a question, let alone dispute his decisions.

Of course, referees, will treat a captain's courtesy with courtesy. Of course the referee at Newlands last Saturday wanted to respect players of the calibre and achievement of Matfield and Burger. But that did not make what they did right.

If this happens to Craig Joubert, one of the very best referees in the world, imagine what happens down through rugby's various strata.

Or are we happy to be back before 1892?

One of the differences between rugby and soccer has been the way that rugby men have accepted a referee's decisions. That seems to have changed greatly. If that is the case, the game will suffer.

And, by the way, Matfield was wrong to expect the TMO to rule on whose line-out it was. The TMO may be used only in cases of foul play or the scoring of a try. This was neither of those.

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Bristol Bears vs Gloucester-Hartpury | PWR 2024/25 | Full Match Replay

Edinburgh vs Brython | Celtic Challenge 2024/25 | Match Highlights

Yokohama Canon Eagles vs Toshiba Brave Lupus Tokyo | Japan Rugby League One 2024/25 | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 31 | Investec Champions Cup Review

Global Schools Challenge | Day 2 Replay

The Backyard Bunch | The USA's Belmont Shore

AUSTRALIA vs USA behind the scenes | HSBC SVNS Embedded | E04

South Africa v France | HSBC SVNS Cape Town 2024 | Men's Final Match Highlights

Write A Comment