Backchat to referees damages rugby’s values
Players such as Farrell, Biggar and Sexton have crossed line in constant berating of officials
Ihave been watching with growing concern the increase in chat from players to referees, and I believe that the manner in which the likes of Owen Farrell, Dan Biggar and Johnny Sexton are talking to officials is the type of behaviour that erodes the ethos and values of the game.
That is not something I say lightly, but the culture of our sport is incredibly important to me. Central to that culture is the idea of respect, and a number of individuals – and not just those three players – are failing to uphold those standards. When you can put together a two-minute compilation video of a player moaning at a referee in a single match – as with Biggar’s interactions with referee Matthew Carley during Wales’s defeat by France – it is obvious a line has been crossed.
Of course, we cannot expect players to behave like robots and simply accept every decision with a “yes, sir”. Rugby is a professional game and it is also getting quicker. As a result, referees are liable to make mistakes, as there is a limit to what you can see in real time.
When that happens I can understand why players protest at the officials. It is only human, and there were a number of players from my own officiating days who would do just that. George Gregan, Brian O’driscoll and Andrew Mehrtens – the latter of whom was a constant pain in the backside, as he would admit – were never short of an opinion.
John Eales was more statesmanlike, but you would get a look that left you in no doubt about his opinion. Martin Johnson was the same – albeit a little more verbal – although he was someone I liked and got on with very well.
I sense there has been a shift in the tone. In my day there was less haranguing of officials, and it was less sustained. There is an old saying that what you tolerate, you allow. And what makes it so bad is that there are so many players doing it. In England’s game with Ireland, I saw George Kruis having constant dialogue with referee Jaco Peyper, for example.
I was not too picky about who to talk to, and I think most players understood when to knock it on the head and move on. But now it appears as if more players feel empowered to chat to the referee, which cannot be good for his or her concentration and is not a good look for the sport. One option to combat this issue is to march players back 10 metres every time there is a show of dissent. But I am not a fan of that. For me that was always the last resort, and the players know that. It is easy for them to play on that, and in professional sport managing the referee is part of the game within the game.
Instead, I would rather World Rugby considered introducing a “captain’s challenge”, which they could use once a half, similar to the decision review system in cricket. If they got the challenge wrong, they would lose it, and then the onus is on the decision-makers in a team to decide which calls they really want to challenge.
It would minimise dissent because there would be an opportunity to right an obvious wrong. Most referees I know are happy to admit when they have made an error and would rather the correct decision be made than worry if they have been “undermined” by the video replay. The game would have a couple more stoppages, but it would add to the theatre and the overall product would be better.
Certainly something needs to be done, because children watching this on a Saturday will behave the same way in their matches on a Sunday morning.
When international players complain, they often do so because they think it puts doubt in a referee’s mind. If you make them wonder if they got that call wrong, they might subconsciously give the next 50-50 your way. I do not think it works like that at junior level, but it sets a bad precedent. If we allow the trend to continue I fear it will be hard to reverse, and our game as a whole will suffer.