Time for refs to agree on breakdown process
Back in December I highlighted the problems that are caused by allowing referees to interpret the laws in their own way, and last weekend’s round of Six Nations games highlighted this again.
Whereas the set-piece used to dominate games, nowadays it’s the breakdown, and we really can’t have top refs effectively deciding games by the differing ways they officiate.
At the breakdown it’s all about how much of a contest is allowed, and there has to be consistency. In the Scotland v England game Nigel Owens allowed more of a contest than Premiership refs do, while Glen Jackson, once of Saracens and a rising star in the refs’ ranks, dealt with the Ireland v Wales match almost as if it was a Premiership game. It’s easy to say that coaches should anticipate this, and prepare accordingly, but why should they have to?
What on earth are World Rugby, and their elite refereeing supremo, Alain Rolland, doing by not tackling the issue? If World Rugby will not or cannot address this issue, then why do we have them? I’m sick of their Press releases telling me what a great job they do of growing the game worldwide, and updating me on matches between tier three nations, when what they should be doing is getting a grip on the big issues that are affecting the game at the top level. How hard can it be to have one way of interpreting the laws, and then making sure all refs follow that?
The other memories of Round Three will largely be unsavoury ones. A kerfuffle between a couple of players in the tunnel was neither here nor there, but some of the comments made before the Calcutta Cup, then the abuse suffered first by Nigel Owens, and then by Eddie Jones, were a stain on the game.
The Scottish prop, Simon Berghan, born and bred in New Zealand, but with a Scottish grandfather, showed his total lack of understanding of the Calcutta Cup with his idiotic remark that ‘everybody hates England’. That little four-letter word ‘hate’ is one that is totally unacceptable in sport – and when you add in Gavin Hastings’ daft comment about wanting to ‘rub Eddie Jones’ face in the dirt’, then it’s little wonder passions were running high.
Of course, that’s always the case when Scotland play England, especially at Murrayfield, and because of this, it’s even more important that inflammatory remarks are kept to a minimum. For people to suggest that Nigel Owens cheated, or for Eddie Jones to suffer the abuse he did, was totally unacceptable.
These big Six Nations games attract a very different audience to the one that watches rugby week in and week out, and it’s inevitable that a few drunks who fail to understand what rugby is all about, will behave like idiots. It’s one of the reasons that the Six Nations has lost some of its lustre for me – when nationalism becomes more important than the game then we’re in trouble.
The video of Eddie Jones at a Manchester railway station is sickening. That he travelled alone, and wasn’t in first class was great, as was him agreeing to have his pic’ taken, but what followed was very sad, and as a Scot, deeply embarrassing. Mind you, we didn’t have a monopoly on embarrassing behaviour, as the actions of a few keyboard warriors showed when they commented on Nigel Owens!
Last week we saw further evidence of the Southern Hemisphere’s financial dependence on the north. The NZRU announced record profits of NZ$ 33.4m, compared with a loss in the previous 12 months, but the Lions tour contributed an incremental profit of NZ$40m, with another almost NZ$250m direct contribution to the country’s GDP.
Put simply, without the Lions tour the NZRU would have once again recorded a loss.
Whatever your view on the Lions tour, this is one tremendous money-spinner, and the next obvious question to ask is how much the tour generated for the home nations? That, I’m afraid is shrouded in secrecy for reasons that I find inexplicable. The Lions won’t comment on how much the tour made for them, or how much they distribute to the four Unions.