Pearce’s zero-tolerance can be the benchmark
LOOK UP ‘rugby’s core values’ and you will find myriad versions, but there is a general agreement that one of them is respect and that it is under threat. This is why Luke Pearce is being lauded.
At Sandy Park on Saturday, the referee repeatedly punished Saracens for excessive back-chat. They kept being marched back 10 metres for disputing decisions. Twice in a row, it happened to Billy Vunipola and the stand taken by Pearce met with acclaim far and wide.
Even Mark McCall, Saracens’ director of rugby, had no complaints, after his side had been beaten by Exeter. ‘We were marched back three times, which is not good enough,’ he said. ‘It’s not just frustrating, it’s highly costly. One or two players, who I won’t name, have already apologised to their team-mates.’
In the case of Vunipola, his offences appeared relatively minor. He didn’t seem to say much and was not evidently angry or aggressive, but Pearce was showing that there is a line which must not be crossed. There is too much back-chat, with constant demands for TMO reviews and cards. A ‘yes, sir’ culture still exists, but it is being eroded by the onset of mass appealing.
Rugby likes to sees itself as a bastion of sporting civility, but that reputation needs to be preserved, not just taken for granted. There cannot be a desire to peer down from a perceived moral high ground at football — where the abusing and jostling of referees is so rife — and just assume that such a scenario is unthinkable.
There has to be a professionallevel quest to avoid a decline in standards which would lead to chaos in the grassroots game. So Pearce’s zero-tolerance approach can be the benchmark for others to follow. Let captains speak to the referee and ensure players cut out the back-chat.
But another problem for rugby was highlighted when McCall claimed that the unwise words from his players not only cost points but also ‘cost us decisions later, because you are on the wrong side of the referee’. This is a flaw; that so much is about interpretation, rather than blackand-white clarity.
There shouldn’t be a right or wrong side of the ref. Captains have to learn the art of interacting with officials, in order to curry favour. It is inherently wrong, but it is accepted as a fact of rugby life. Certain 50-50 calls go the way of the team who have shown better attitude or courtesy.
At the last World Cup, the Springboks studied referees and figured out how to ‘play’ them. That shouldn’t be possible. Maybe the answer is to cut down on any cosy small-talk and operate a strict exclusion zone around referees, unless they ask a player to approach.