The good, the bad and the referee

In the first installment in a series of new features, our guest referee columnist discusses law changes on the horizon.

In the first installment in a series of new features on Planet Rugby, our guest referee columnist discusses possible law changes on the horizon.

Referees are often the object of abuse from rugby fans, sometimes for good reason but more often not. So, we've decided it's time to give the men in the middle to voice and our friends at rugbyrefs.com have agreed to enlighten us all on what is occurring in the world of refereeing.

In this article, Robert Burns covers what is wanted from a referee, the proposed TMO extensions, possible law changes that are at the rumour mill stage. And lastly a little law trivia:

It seems to me that players and coaches are not sure what we want from our referees. Do we want them to show nerves of steel and make those big calls, regardless of the occasion, or not make the big calls because of the occasion? Do we want them to show judgement or apply the laws rigorously?

I would say we want a happy medium of it all, a balance. But by requesting that we are asking the referee to use their judgement in an event that they only see once at full speed. When taking that into consideration, the number of plainly wrong and marginal decisions is very low, and because they use judgement, their view may not be the same as others. However, they have been charged with making those calls, and make them they must.

When you look at what we are asking them to do, and what we give them to effectively do it, they don't do a bad job. And if you don't agree, give it a go, it's not as easy as it looks, but your efforts will at all levels be appreciated most of the time, by at least one team, if not both. Think about this, if a referee doesn't show a red card when they should early in a game, and the opposition carry out a similar offence later on, how can they show a red then?

Paddy O'Brien has recently advised the rugby world of plans to trial an extension of the TMO's powers. 'Hoorah' I hear most say – about time! But this is not the first trial. They trialled using the TMO to identify the player that started foul play in the Top 14, especially where brawls developed, so that they can receive the correct (normally red) card. In South Africa they have trialled having the referee decide TMO outcomes by viewing a replay on a TV screen. Both were dropped. I'm not sure why the foul play extension was dropped, most referees seem to agree this was a great idea, but the South African trial was found to take up too much time with the game stopping for extended periods.

The new trial is believed to allow the TMO to rule on play leading up to the grounding. How far back will they be able to rule? I believe the sensible approach will be to allow the TMO to rule on play from the last tackle, ruck, maul, line-out, penalty or free kick, but only within the 22m area, outside that it should be the referee's call.

And what can the TMO rule on? Maybe we can learn from our Rugby League colleagues here, they rule on nearly anything except, strangely, forward passes. The reason being that the TV camera angles can be deceptive as they are only in 2D. Also, passes need to be judged on how they are thrown, not where they are thrown, for example a pass backwards that is blown forward by wind, is not a forward pass. The reason being that when players travelling at speed pass the ball, the ball will naturally have some forward momentum, this is made to look worse when the passer is tackled, as the receiver is then clearly in front of where the player that passed it when the ball gets to them. This old Australian Rugby Video demonstrates it quite well, and better than the recent updated Total Rugby TV version.

As also seen recently the use of the TMO for kicks at goal is a bit hit and miss, if the ball is within the posts then it's fairly easy for the TMO, if it's above the posts, then they really can't tell unless they get Hawkeye.

After the Rugby World Cup the unions will get together to look at possible law changes to adapt to the way the game of rugby is developing, as referees we have been hearing some rumours about what these changes will (may) be.

The strongest rumour is regarding the maul. It's widely believed the law will change to state that after an unsuccessful maul the ball will be thrown into the scrum by the team going forward. This is different from current law where the scrum is given to the team that didn't take the ball into the maul. We believe this law change would be a positive for the game by encouraging teams to compete to move the maul, not spoil it.

The next involves the scrum, a change to the cadence to show that the ball will not be put in until directed by the referee. We believe this will allow the referee to ensure that the scrum is straight and stable before the ball is put it. This could effectively kill the hit. Scrums could come together less aggressively, and then get the shove on once the ball has been put in.

We'll see what happens soon.

And lastly, a bit of law trivia for you:

Can you charge down a free kick? If so, at what point?

By Robert Burns

For more refereeing articles by Robert and other referees, visit www.rugbyrefs.com