The refereeing debate goes on

Brendan Venter has ploughed into the current refereeing standards, not the first one to do so. But are they really that bad?

What with all the snow and ice and all, it seems appropriate that rugby's first columns of 2010 should be filled with so much hot air.

Once again, we have a pivotal match in England degenerating into a penalty-off. It's a close-run thing but one of the teams, as is so often the case, wins.

The losing coach, as is the case almost as much as the 'one of the teams winning' scenario, then is asked in the post-match press conference what he made of the refereeing of the game and whether he thought it had an influence on the outcome. But in a break with tradition, the losing coach then lets loose with no fewer than 40 minutes of serial dissection of every possible refereeing woe.

Brendan Venter had a pop at the laws at the breakdown, the interpretations, the frustrations, the perceived lack of incentive for teams to attack. He revealed that the last time he had done this, Twickenham's brass even came to Vicarage Road and apologised.

Newspaper columns the country wide acknowledged the rant – and it was a rant, the rant of a man who had become used to winning and had then lost a couple of games – and even defended it. Referees at the moment can do no right. Professionalism eats away at the sporting morals of the game, now it may be corrupting the views of the observers of the game as well. It is certainly doing the officials no favours, even those who are paid.

So we all know what's 'wrong' with rugby at the moment. The breakdown has become a lottery. There is too much kicking. Defences are on top. There are not enough tries.

But this is not the referees' fault. The number of times referees have been given new 'directives' down the past three or four years – tighten up here, watch that specific offence, more yellow cards etc. etc. – is not dissimilar to the number of times a 'Venter' has been delivered by a disgruntled team coach whose team has not adapted.

If referees are giving us the short shrift they are said to be doing, it is largely because they are getting it from their superiors who fawningly apologise to coaches as they have done to Venter, undermining the referee completely, and continue to issue conflicting demands and edicts for the referees to follow.

Officials are told to communicate better with the players, yet now the coaches are angry because referees tell players to get their hands away before penalising them for slowing the ball down, so the penalty does not come quick enough. Referees are told to allow a fair contest for the ball in the tackle, yet now coaches and observers are angry because an attacking side loses more ball in the 'fair contest' and there are fewer tries and less attacking rugby as a result. Referees are told to be stricter at the breakdown, yet now the coaches bemoan the increase in harsh penalties, penalties as a result of split-second interpretation which can swing a game. Referees are told to be more consistent, yet coaches complain their teams are hard done by when, in the referee's eyes, they consistently infringe.

But what's the solution? Is there a sweeping move that could eradicate these problems, a middle ground that could be found which would placate both sides? A settlement? After all, there is little doubt that whatever the complaints, the actual quality of referee has improved significantly in recent years, even if the quality of instruction hasn't. It has always been the stance at Planet Rugby that referees are, unless they actually get a letter of law wrong or do not behave appropriately, untouchable. It is impossible to get a game without them after all and we'd really rather have a game. You look at refereeing performances under those criteria and you'd be hard-pushed to find a referee who makes a mistake.

The breakdown can never be cleaned up, short of stopping play at each one à la NFL. Too much goes on there for one official to deal with and there's no space for more officials. So rather than move an immoveable object, work around it. Ask objective questions.

Is three points too harsh a penalty for an unfortunate offside? Yes. Is this what hurts the coaches the most, this trickle of points that ebb away as a result of refereeing interpretations? Yes. Did the Sanctions ELV produce more tries? Yes. Did they, however, rob the game of a bit of structure? Yes.

But would the re-introduction of the Sanctions ELV, coupled with allowing a free-kick to be kicked to touch and the kicking team to get the line-out, retain the necessary elements of structure, reduce the number of infringements being punished by three points and produce more tries? Yes. And would the importance of interpretation by a referee in the context of a result of a match be mildly diminished? Yes. Would we finally see a reduction in the number of coaches/observers/fans wailing injustices about referees the moment they lose a match?

Probably not. But we can try.

By Danny Stephens