Tappe Henning: The protocol followed in 'spitgate' allegation
SPOTLIGHT: The United Rugby Championship’s Head of Match Officials, Tappe Henning, broke down the refereeing process if a player makes a serious allegation during a match.
Fans and pundits were in uproar over the delay in play following an allegation of spitting by Munster hooker Diarmuid Barron against Lions flanker Siba Mahashe in Round 18 of the tournament.
Referee Andrea Piardi called for a TMO check, which took nearly five minutes of reviewing various camera angles for evidence before play resumed, as it was deemed there was no conclusive footage.
*Also read: URC Play-offs: Tiebreaker Permutations
Henning explained the reasoning and process referees follow when allegations, such as spitting in this instance, are made.
“There are some difficult incidents on the field that are not [always] visible.
“Allegations such as eye gouging and spitting are serious, and we deal with it with the seriousness it deserves.
“Those are things that are not always easy to find or see; it happens in areas [of the game] where it’s not easily visible.
“When a player makes such an allegation, we as match officials will take it seriously and give it the attention it deserves.”
Henning added that in the particular incident in Limerick, referee Piardi saw the players in close contact and used his judgement to give Barron the benefit of the doubt and consult his TMO to review for any possible evidence.
The article continues below…
“In the [spitting] incident, one player was on his back with the other on top of him, face to face.
“The referee [Andrea Piardi] was aware of that because he was dealing with the players in front of him, and play continued.
“When that allegation happened, he felt that it was serious enough to review and see if there was any visible action that supported the player’s allegation, which they couldn’t find in this instance.
“When an allegation like that is made, the referee will in his good judgement decide the seriousness of it as was the case with Mike Adamson in the Connacht v Bulls clash involving Jan-Hendrik Wessels, where he took time to see what [evidence] is available at that time.”
The article continues below…
The URC referee boss explained the process that follows if no evidence is found during the match and highlighted that making the right call on the pitch takes priority over the time it takes to review footage.
“If there’s nothing [footage] available, the referee will make the appropriate decision based on what’s visible.
“But [he will] also raise awareness that there is a possibility that the citing process will kick in and have a look at the incident again.
“Then the citing commissioner will decide which action should be taken after the game.
“It takes time, but when there’s serious allegations, the accuracy of the outcome is more important than the time it takes [for the TMO to review].
“We want to give it the best attention when we have serious allegations that can be very uncomfortable to deal with if we do not do that in an appropriate manner.”
