Rugby World Cup: Referees should not be treated like a protected species

At last, some rattling good commonsense from referee Mathieu Raynal on rugby’s vexed TMO-bunker crisis. The only problem: he doesn’t go far enough.

Raynal said it was a mistake to install the bunker for the last World Cup without a trial run first; he called for referees to face the media post-games to explain decisions and said the sport has to accept the fact referees make errors.

“You can put a drone up, something in the ball, experts everywhere, 20 bunkers, but that won’t change the fact that at some moments you have to accept mistakes by referees. The game is very quick, we make decisions in a split-second. In rugby we forgive player mistakes, forgive coaching mistakes, but we never forgive refereeing mistakes. We accept that, but people need to understand that our sport is more important than victory or defeat … what sort of sport we’re going to give to our children.”

This whole situation has come about because rugby treats referees like a protected species – and that needs to change. It’s effective on one front; a rugby ref isn’t surrounded by braying bullies contesting decisions or trying to change his mind, as in football (though it’s getting worse).

But the practice of cotton-woolling referees by building a metaphorical wall between them, the players, the coaches, the fans and the media does not work in the age of social media. The online keyboard thugs reach places physical people cannot.

Raynal’s contention refs should face the media is correct. It’s not a complete solution as media needs include speed – those covering matches need to get the coverage up at warp speed. That’s where the eyeballs come from, and the advertising revenue. However, a ref explaining what happened is a good secondary story once the initial coverage – the result, the play, the key moments – has been posted. It will defuse some of the heat generated by controversial decision (or non-decisions).

But only some of it. They could go further, even if there are no signs the moribund glacier that is World Rugby will ever embrace anything like what Raynal is espousing, let alone more. In rugby, players and coaches are fair game. Their performances are keenly scrutinised; selection is affected by performance.

So too is that of referees – but in comparative secrecy. Make what World Rugby considers a bad stuff-up and the ref is quietly shifted to the equivalent of Lake Okataina Thirds v Punakaiki reserves. That happened to Raynal after his intervention against time-wasting Australians effectively gifted the opening Bledisloe Cup test to the All Blacks last year. Raynal was then demoted to Romania v Samoa, before being back in the limelight for the All Blacks-England clash late last year.

Raynal’s explanation of the time-wasting would have been good to hear at the time. A lot of rugbydom agreed with him; many others felt a ref should not decide a test match like that.

But more is required. During the recent World Cup, the Herald published a newsletter sent to many subscribers. In it, we kept an updated table of assessed referee performances, gleaned from viewing as many matches as possible. Our top four going into the knockout phase: Wayne Barnes, Ben O’Keefe, Jaco Peyper, Angus Gardner – pretty much the same as World Rugby ended up choosing for the finals.

Why not take that a step further? Why doesn’t World Rugby publish an updated ladder of referees, rating them on performances each week – and saying why they are slipping down or rising up that ladder? It can be done with some sensitivity, without permanently harming someone’s career, and it makes it all transparent and less prone to attack and death threats from unhinged keyboard warriors. This, plus ref interviews post-tests, could be applied nationally or internationally, during specific tournaments or globally when the global competition kicks in, similar to the country world rankings, though hopefully more relevant.

It’s only part of the solution but it brings the referee into the same competitive context as everyone else – and that is the way to dilute the fires that burn when fans can find no other outlet for their bile.

Perhaps this is a good time to say the All Blacks still could have won the final even after Aaron Smith’s try was disallowed. There were the kicks to the corner instead of going for goal, there was the missed Jordie Barrett long-range shot when the All Blacks had fired all their other shots.

But Barnes did make a mistake. He was clearly heard saying there was no knock-on in Smith’s try. He was the sole judge. He could have (should have?) ruled that the TMO intervention was wrong because he is only allowed to go back two phases, not the four or five that transpired. Yes, it was a knock-on and thus morally not a try.

But, according to the laws of the game it was a mistake, one Barnes has to own. So the World Rugby Referees Ladder might say, for instance: “Wayne Barnes drops from World No 1 to No 3 after the disallowed try was taken back five phases instead of the allowable two.”

As for the faceless nitpickers in the bunker? Get rid of them and their encroaching, irritating control that should rest in the hands of the refs.

Paul Lewis has been a journalist since the last ice age. Sport has been a lifetime pleasure and part of a professional career during which he has written four books, and covered Rugby World Cups, America’s Cups, Olympic & Commonwealth Games and more.