Is non-neutral refereeing working?

We've got it again this week. A whole mass of irate fans writing in and lamenting the demise of the neutral refereeing in the Super 14.

We've got it again this week. A whole mass of irate fans writing in and lamenting the demise of the neutral refereeing in the Super 14.

Yes, most of them are Crusaders fans. No, the pass that won the Bulls the match was not forward. But it's not just been Marius Jonker this year. Steve Walsh has been under attack from the Lions in Australia, Keith Brown from the Sharks against the Chiefs in Durban. Paul Marks from the Sharks in Sydney. All referees officiating on home turf and all giving questionable decisions their home countries' ways. Jonker was not at fault for the winning try but there was a distinct tinge of green rubbed onto the Bulls shirts at times, particularly the stream of penalties at scrum-time.

It's a tough one this. Criticism of the non-neutral refereeing attacks the integrity of the officials by implication. 'If you can't trust a referee to be neutral in one match, can you ever trust him to be neutral at all?' runs the argument.

Countering this is an argument that asks whether you should ever put referees in a position where their integrity could be called into question.

It's one of the less enticing aspects of modern professional sport that the integrity – if not the intelligence itself – of match officials is the repeated subject of speculation and debate, neutral or otherwise.

It's not for us to pass any comment except that referees are sacrosanct – without them there wouldn't be a game of rugby.

But it is becoming tiresome to see public opinion resting on such issues when the appointment of neutral referees would do away with the problem. Merely having non-neutral referees is beginning to cloud the fans' minds and with it, through word of mouth, the image of the game.

The concept of allowing non-neutral referees was introduced to help the officials cope with the long stretches away from home, as much as anything else, but careful management could easily ensure that they are not away from wives and families for more than three weeks at a time.

It would be better than having a mountain of negative mail to wade through in the aftermath of what has surely been the game of the year so far, and surely better for the game that nobody could point the finger in the direction of some Highveld old boys' club?

There are some curious appointments too. Jonker was given the Bull-Crusaders game when, a few hours down the road, Australian Stuart Dickinson was managing the Sharks-Stormers clash in his own inimitable manner. Would it not have been common sense to have had the Australian managing the NZ-SA side clash and the South African managing the all-Saffer affair?

Jonathan Kaplan was the referee in last year's Super 14 final. Fortunately, the Bulls were so utter brilliant that day that not even a national side would have stood a chance. But if there's an international match in the final this time – the Bulls v Crusaders refereed by Marius Jonker let's say – and the final clinching decision goes the way of the team whose country he hails from, whether correct or otherwise, memories of that final will be clouded by the millions of voices who will choose to focus on the perceived bias.

A shame, for sure. But there needs to be a reality check. So perhaps, for less important games, we can argue that the integrity of the officials is defensible irrespective of where he comes from.

But for the big games – like Friday's – we should not put our officials in the position where the fans could call that integrity into question.

By Richard Anderson