Unfair on Steward and on ref Peyper

THE trouble with the refereeing profession? Ninety-eight per cent of its members give the rest a bad name.

Okay, okay: it’s an old joke, with lawyers the traditional target. But the fact that it is possible to feel sorry for the Bloemfontein-born whistler Jaco Peyper, who, in the view of your columnist, has never been part of the two per cent, gives you an idea of the stew in which rugby currently finds itself.

When Freddie Steward floored Hugo Keenan with a leading elbow, it had a yellow-cardy kind of feel to it, given the current sensitivities around concussion.

Then Peyper went through the agreed “process” with his fellow officials, summarising the evidence step by step and arriving at what he assumed was the only conclusion available to him. Off went Steward, and off it all kicked in every corner of the union landscape, with purple-faced outpourings about “rugby incidents” from the usual suspects. (J Marler, A Healey and so on, ad infinitum).

Soon enough, the call was labelled “wrong” by the citing commissioners, leaving Peyper pegged to his own washing line, drying in the South African sun.

A couple of things. First, the phrase “rugby incident” means precious little in an ever-changing vocabulary. (Back in the day, it covered everything from a high-speed collision in the air to a punch in the teeth). By taking a rigid stand against head contact – for the right reasons, it must be stressed – the authorities have left referees with an extremely limited set of options.

Second, does anyone imagine Peyper wanted to dismiss Steward? He did it because he thought it was what was expected of him. Talk about a lack of clarity.

Peyper found himself whistling in the dark, so to speak, and it was unfair on him, as well as on Steward. Happily, he’s a trained lawyer.