Barrett wants new laws dumped
Crusaders skipper Scott Barrett wants the captain’s challenge kicked to touch after this season.
The All Blacks lock isn’t afraid to admit he’s not a fan of it, or the new goal line drop-out law, both of which were introduced to this year’s Super Rugby Aotearoa competition.
His biggest gripe is with the captain’s challenge, which he believes is hindering a sport already blighted by stoppages in play.
That’s despite benefiting from it against the Hurricanes on Sunday, when Ngani Laumape rammed his forearm into Barrett’s neck off the ball after the halftime hooter.
‘‘I just sort of cleaned out the ruck or tried to counter ruck, sort of spun out the back of it, and he’s taken it personally,’’ Barrett said.
After television match official Glenn Newman took an age to find footage of the incident, referee Paul Williams yellow carded Laumape.
‘‘I personally don’t like the rule, but the rule is there. Like the cleanout with Jordie [Barrett] and Dave [Havili earlier in the match], they referred that. It’s sort of marginal. When they challenge something like that, I’m not going to not challenge something that is off the ball and potentially foul.
‘‘It just slows up play. There’s TMOs for a reason, the game is already becoming stop-start enough. The refs, as well as the assistants, they’ve got good eyes for the game. You don’t want the game slowing down and the refs second guessing their own decisions. That’s my personal take on it.’’
Barrett isn’t the first to take exception with the new laws, which New Zealand Rugby head of high performance Mike Anthony said aimed to make the game more attractive for players and fans.
Blues assistant Tom Coventry last month shredded them, calling for them to be ditched as soon as possible.
As far as he’s concerned, the TMO is constantly checking for foul play or potential knock-ons in the lead up to tries, and there is no need for a captain to get involved.
During the first 75 minutes of a game, captains can use a challenge if they believe an infringement occurred in the leadup to a try, or if they believe foul play occurred.
In the final minutes, and in extra time, captains can use their referral to challenge any decision, as long as they do so within 10 seconds of a try being scored, a referee’s decision or a stoppage in play.
Captains lose their sole challenge if they make an unsuccessful challenge, although they’re reinstated if games go to golden point.
As for goal line drop-outs, they’ve essentially replaced the old five-metre scrum for ball held up or knocked on in-goal, and the 22m dropout for ball forced in-goal off a kick.
‘‘I’m probably a bit of a traditionalist. Same again, I’m not the biggest fan of it,’’ Barrett said.
Life isn’t fair. It is full of swirling injustices. So why do a cabal of pompous ageing men called World Rugby think rugby is different? Why do they keep changing the laws every season? Why have they created a game where nobody any longer understands what is going on, least of all the referees?
It is so sad to say this about a game that brings so many wonderful people together, but rugby is in crisis. At the top level of the sport, it has reached a point where people are not yarning about the fabulous deeds of the players at the weekend but complaining about the decisions of the referee.
Sometimes you wonder if we are now scoring the wrong game. Maybe we need to have a golden point match between the referees at the end of the weekend. Maybe the first one to correctly award a penalty in added on time should be hoisted shoulder-high and carried from the field.
It is easy to lampoon them, but I feel very, very sorry for the whistleblowers. Elite refs have been so undermined since the game turned professional that they no longer have a hope of enjoying the game that they love without abuse and worry and sleepless nights. No wonder Glen Jackson became so confused that his reffing deteriorated until he stepped down, tired and disillusioned.
The latest atrocity to undermine referees is the captain’s referral. Week-in weekout the captain is allowed to step in and ask for a review for foul play or for an infringement in the leadup to a try or whatever else may take his fancy if it happens in the final five minutes of the game. The final five is free-for-all, havea-go-at-the-ref time.
NZ Rugby head of high performance Mike Anthony said the aim of law variations was to make the game more attractive for players and fans. ‘‘We’re constantly looking at how we can make the game faster and fairer for players, and a better spectacle for fans.’’
Oh spare me the twin towers of evil – ‘‘fairer and faster’’. It never works. What has come into play is the usual law of unintended consequence. The result of the meddling is that the game has slowed down and the referee no longer knows who is in charge. We had a classic example at the weekend.
In the match between the Chiefs and the Highlanders referee Ben O’Keeffe asked for a TMO review after Aidan Ross had crossed the line. The review went back 47 seconds and six phases of scintillating play to identify a knock-on in the air. The try was ruled out.
There were several things wrong with all of this. Almost a minute of playing time was effectively lost from the game because we didn’t reset the clock. All the wonderful leadup play to the try we had enjoyed became a fiction. And finally the referee is not allowed to go that far back – at least I don’t think so – unless it is under captain’s review.
All rugby’s snowballing problems around referees started when they encouraged refs to communicate with players and gave captains the right of appeal. The man in the middle was immediately undermined. Player power was taking over.
The authorities then further undermined the referee when they brought in the TMO. Refs are now afraid to make on-field decisions because they know they have the safety net of the TMO to fall back on. It has made them timid. Paul Williams put the whistle in his mouth to blow for a Crusaders’ not straight at the weekend, but then lost his nerve and let play continue.
Here’s another problem. Williams also lost his nerve because he was put in the TMO box earlier this season. Why? Reffing a fluid game of 30 participants and observing a screen requires entirely different skills.
Williams is approximately a million times better an on-field referee than I would be. But I would be several times better a TMO than he is. That is because I have been reviewing rugby on videotape and other evolving technologies for over 30 years.
Coaches and players spend so long trying to con the ref that he has little chance of success.
Williams has not. It is a learned observational skill, down to the evolution of what constitutes a forward pass.
But never mind that, we need to bin the TMO entirely, except arguably for foul play. Refs will be stronger without a safety net. And we need to get players out of the refs’ ear. The other week Crusaders’ coach Scott Robertson said: ‘‘Ash Dixon did a great job with the ref. He was in his ear’’.
But players – and how much the Canes are missing TJ Perenara’s influence on refs? – shouldn’t be turning the game in that way. Refs are human and easily swayed. Look at next weekend’s matches. I bet if an All Black is trying to win a penalty at the breakdown, the referee will require him to spend less time over the ball than a non All Black.
Nor are the added ‘reffing’ demands of the captaincy necessarily a help to the players. Scott Barrett has not been the same player this season under the weight of the captaincy.
Barrett is not alone. The refs have far too much to think about. Week in week out they get scrummage penalties wrong. But why are they even awarding them? Unless it’s a clear and obvious cave-in by a retreating eight, get out of the way.
We could also do with the commentators criticising the refs less often, not least because half the commentators don’t actually know several of the laws. But then what fan does? They change so frequently, and there are so many of them, that it is almost impossible to keep up.
One person said in Stuff’s comments at the weekend: ‘‘The comp’s a lottery, drawn by the refs each week.’’
It’s hard to disagree with that. Coaches and players spend so long trying to con the ref that he has little chance of success. Take the coached cheating that is called blocking. A week ago the Highlanders were blocking Will Jordan following a kick and a partially sighted Jordan ended up playing the man in the air.
Everything that followed was unsatisfactory. Ref Mike Fraser consulted his TMO O’Keeffe, who told him that the obstruction was the first instance of foul play and so should be penalised. Really? Obstruction is foul play? Dixon is then griping: ‘‘So we’re happy with Will Jordan tackling players in the air?’’
And so it goes on until we reach a point where the officials no longer even have a clue as to what constitutes a forward pass. And I don’t blame them. They have been so undermined. We need to get back to the position where the referee is the sole judge of fact. That means no TMO, no captain’s referral, no one talking to the ref and players marched 10 metres for the slightest dissent.
Yes, you’ll get the odd injustice. That’s life. But if you restore authority to the referee, slash the law book, and just get on with the game, I don’t mind betting that the referees, players, fans and coaches will all start enjoying rugby again.