A different coloured shirt in the lion's den.

The referee is a lion tamer. The laws of the game are his only tools as he steps into the cage, with the full backing of his Union of course. 

Referees are special. If politics is showbiz for ugly people, refereeing is rugby for masochists. They can never win. Taking the whistle is the equivalent of coming between a man and his wife in an argument, you try to help, but both sides will end up hating you. They are Sicilian marriage councillors, divorce is not an option and the stakes are high. 

In the olden days when rugby jerseys were hand knitted, shorts came down over your knees and every rugby player sported a moustache and slicked down hair, the referee was an optional extra. The players were expected to (and hence they did) self regulate. And there were far fewer laws then. It didn't last long.

By the time Max Boyce became the first comedian to top the UK Album Charts, the game had evolved a decent slew of laws and for the referee it was open season, in Wales at least. Boyce could talk of "The Sunshine Retirement Home for Blind Irish Referees" without censure in his own land, indeed to hoots of laughter. 

Culturally the game was different in Wales of course. Its classless roots here (as in the North of England and Limerick; on the rest of the British Isles it was a game for public schoolboys and army officers) meant that there could be a healthy disregard for authority from players and spectators alike.

In Ireland to this day the older generation at least maintain a tradition that it is bad form to criticise the ref. Bad decisions even themselves out over a season they say. Generally though the advent of professionalism has changed the game. Pride is not now all that is at stake, there is money. Players dissent, crowds bay, coaches moan, pundits dissect, in slow motion, from multiple angles. 

Daniel had faith on his side. A lion tamer (and a Sicilian marriage councillor if it comes to that) requires confidence. To engender confidence in seemingly hopeless circumstances by no more than an effort of will is a human trait. It comes as second nature to top referees.

 If these referees actually stopped to think about what they were doing, they may never go through with it. Who but a masochist would seek to tame the lion of top flight rugby by applying a whip of conflicting and contradictory laws and utilising the chair of  IRB interpretation? 

I am not moralising. You shout at the ref if you want, I do. It keeps him on his toes, and the other side will. All I ask is that you think about that 'whip' the next time you see a tackle...

...player A is tackled by player B. Player A may not get up with the ball if the tackle is completed and must release (although he may place or pass) the ball before he does so. To complete the tackle player B must have hold of player A on the floor, but he must not keep hold of player A on the floor and must roll away from the tackle...

...and we haven't even got to the ruck yet! That is another article entirely. I won't even mention the scrum.

The truth is that the standard of refereeing now is better than it ever was. You would need to be superhuman to apply the laws as they currently are, especially given 'interpretation'. Referees are special but I have yet to meet a superhuman one. 

No, I don't ask you not to shout, all that I ask is that you keep some of your voice...to roar at the IRB. 

It took me three reads to find what this was about but yes, its a pretty obvious contradiction. Its made worse by the number of players who try and crawl along now or get up claiming "not held"

Maybe they should just make play stop at every breakdown once the player has been clealry held bu then give him time to play the ball cleanly once the oppsoition has retreated. Obviously this owuld take comeptition for teh ball away form teh tackle area, but that wouldclean a lot of the game up. I guess rucks do help tie defenders in, so maybe strip sides down a couple of players to enaure theres more space? Probably give sides like 6 phases to score or concede posession, decrease the relative value of kicks.

This is a big step for me to agree with the fact that referees have a thankless task.

However, I want consistency from one game to the next. A trademark if you will, of how you know a specific referee officiates. When they aren't consistent it puts teams at a handicap.

Secondly attitudes and communication should be open and to the satisfaction of both captains.

The last point is a referee must also listen, not to the whole team, but just at least to the captain.

Sorting out the laws will still mean its a thankless task, just an easier one.

Personally, I have always held refs in high regard but you have to be a bit mad to do the job. There is something just a little off about someone who believes that every decision he makes (as he must) or opinion he holds is correct (see every and all posts by Redstag) and wants to exert control over 30 large men by simply blowing a whistle.
Just one personal examle is the ref we had on a tour to Scotland who warned an opposition player to remove his hands from the ball at a ruck. He warned him again.... as he repeated the warning for a third time the ref stamped on the offenders wrist and shouted at the guy not to do it again or he would get a yellow card.

Submachine wrote:There is something just a little off about someone who believes that every decision he makes (as he must) or opinion he holds is correct (see every and all posts by Redstag)

Biscuit, I see where you're going but it doesn't have to be that way. The maul needs to re-established and by that I mean an opportunity for your forwards to pinch the ball off their forwards. All you have to do is get rid of this back foot nonsense and penalise anybody holding the ball at the back of a maul moving forwards for obstruction.

Excellent article Glas a du - very well written. There are huge issues to be addressed by the powers that be to make life a little more straightforward for refs. Currently, a lot of the rules regarding the tackle, the scrum, the maul and the ruck can be viewed as subjective - to say the least.

Subjective is not what you want in a ref. He should have no room for interpretation, let alone be required to interpret so that he doesn't blow his whistle for something on every play.

I enjoy refs. 'Bad' ones and 'Good' ones. The only 'good' one remains a subjective one that lets my team win with a blatant infringement.

I joke of course, I want my men to win by playing to the letter of the law...and a few of the spaces in between the letters if the ref isn't looking.

But I do like them. I like that they are there, because for me at least they are part of the overall package. They are as central to my enjoyment as the game itself or to whatever the lippy commentator might be saying at the time.

They are human - and that is the very point. Human intervention, human frailties when intervening. They get things wrong that have seismic proportions. They get things right and are positively lynched in the press and by ruthless fans. So they can never be right all the time. Indeed, with two sides playing, they are never right any of the time.

But they do what has to be done. They adjudicate, they give their version of what happens in the action; they don't have recourse to slowmotion armchair technology but must react in a milisecond to the action going on around them.

Whether they are against us (you can always enjoy moaning about what they are letting the other side get away with - which is entertainment in itself) or whether they are for us, I like them and never react very harshly to them getting things 'wrong'. I even remember laughing when the ballboy did his bit in Wales. I didn't like it but I enjoyed the tet-a-tets between linesmen and ref, the epic drama of it all and the idea that even if the try stood, everybody saw what happened. A moral victory of sorts that eased the sting and allowed me to let Kaplan off with it....one more time!

Good post Glas dedicated to often the most hated character on the field.

Enjoyed the article. Engaging prose.