0
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...426648,00.html
New measures will reduce the backchat directed at referees
THE chat show is over. Rugby is to ban the discussion of referees’ decisions by players during a game, beginning with Saturday’s Invesco Perpetual match between Wales and Australia in Cardiff.
From next weekend, nobody in Test rugby, not even the captain, will be allowed to dispute or query a penalty awarded against his side. The offending side must retreat 10m immediately. If they do not, they will be marched back another 10m. The captain may clarify the decision only when the game next stops for injury or at the next downtime.
Paddy O’Brien, the International Rugby Board’s (IRB) referee manager, is the driving force behind the changes, which are bound to be copied throughout the game. His actions reflect a welcome change at the IRB, through which their experts are being allowed to flex their muscles. On Tuesday, O’Brien will address the international referees panel in London, and hammer out the policy.
“I will be telling referees that they will have to get across the message to both camps before the game,” O’Brien said. “They will be saying that when I penalise your side, I am not going to change that decision. The only time I will debate with you is at an injury stoppage. International rugby is the shop window and it is time things changed.”
This is a procedure that rugby, with its old policy of respect for the ref, once followed meticulously. But, increasingly, any whistle is now the starting point for an often barking debate. Backchat and dissent has become the norm.
Many also believe this is a factor in a general loss of respect for refereeing that manifests itself in dissent from players, coaches and crowds at all levels.
Top games occasionally now almost mimic the worst football excesses. As O’Brien said: “You often see two or three players running towards a referee after penalties have been awarded. Many people think the captain has a divine right to question every decision, but there is nothing in law to justify this. What happens sometimes is that players who stop to argue are deliberately delaying the game and stopping the quick penalty. I will also be insisting that if touch judges see players throwing up their hands to complain that penalties are awarded.”
If referees have the courage and the support to apply these measures strictly, rugby could become healthier, quicker, quieter and better almost overnight.
The whole area of preventative refereeing, in which communication between referee and players is supposed to improve the game, is up for review. The ceaseless babble itself is now offputting. “I watched one game on the television last year and the referee was so noisy that I had to go into another room,” O’Brien said.
The role of the television match official (TMO) will also change radically, and will result in more tries being awarded. At present, the referee simply refers disputed touchdowns to the official. “From now on,” O’Brien said, “you will hear the referee ask, ‘Is there any reason why I cannot award this try?’ ”
This is significant. If, as often happens, the evidence is buried among a pile of bodies, the benefit of the doubt will no longer go in favour of the defending team. The referee can use his intuition to take the decision back from the TMO and award a try even if he did not witness the fact of the touchdown.