Foreign Referees blow a breath of fresh air

Havelocks beat Kandy despite having lost to CH and other niggles from the periphery. The League title is between two teams. There is a pseudo conclusion that Rugby has improved because games are won or lost by close margins. The test will be when Sri Lanka (SL) plays in the ARFU XVs shortly.

The media is agog praising the 2 ARFU Referees. They say there was more 'ball in play'. A post after the CR-Kandy game suggested that “it was one of the best games of running Rugby seen for a long time.” The wag who commented should drill down and ask what helped the flow. Is it interpretation and or management. This will help the locals to serve close to a thousand matches. It is not about a dozen games with foreign Referees in charge.

A coach of a leading Club confirmed that, at a meeting with the hierarchy, they suggested that SL do not need foreign players. They need a few foreign Referees, as in Hong Kong. It will help local Referees to improve, as they have a benchmark. We need a good benchmark that will compliment and include the local Rugby culture. The Peter Principle: “People rise to their own level of incompetence. The wobbly legs and wonky interpretations have ascended to the apex in incompetence that precludes taking the correct decisions. But they take to teaching what they know, not understanding that they may not know.

That is what the young Referees see and that is why they cannot improve," was his view.

There was a comment that Wilkinson was better than Kawahara who, they say, missed a few knock- ons. A comparison based on what you know. The more important is whether there were contentious decisions, than missing a knock-on or a forward pass. Contentious decisions will always be part of Rugby, but what is needed is to get interpretations right and consistent.

More and more games appear to hang on the whistle of a Referee, as seen in the top games around the world. This may be a send-off or a penalty awarded in the dying moments of a game.

Th e talking points after a weekend of Rugby is about the Referees' decisions, instead of the Rugby itself. This will never totally go away, as contentious refereeing decisions will always be a part of Rugby. A Club official commenting on the Havelocks-Kandy game, said that, Kandy got penalized for offenses that they got away with from local Referees. I pointed out that there were other clubs too that got away with goodies from the bag of dirty tricks.

When a local referee has a contentious issue, labels are attached. Bias and not offending a top league Club and playing to the crowd is the bane they see.

Match officials and coaches are getting apart, not closer. It effects the way teams prepare and play matches. Coaches know that playing the Referee effectively is crucial to winning a match.

'Red' and 'Yellow' cards though in line, kill the game as a contest. Frustration stems from inconsistency, where a couple of instances go unpunished or, when another Referee does it differently.

When stakeholders watch super Rugby and draw a parallel with local Referees, they are trying to match chalk and cheese. People say there was more Rugby in the last two weeks. The important question is why and how did this happen. Did these players learn to be different during the weekend or, did the dirty tricks of Rugby stand exposed with penalties and better management. If so, who was putting a spoke in the wheel? How come players kept behind the offside line and or the scrum bed was better.

Previously, why did they infringe? I was told, “why should they not, if they can get away by loitering around the breakdown and or encroaching in open play”. Why should they not bore in and push sideways and pull down the scrum or maul, if it is not penalized.

A maul does not become a ruck when it goes down. You take a ball into a maul then you are responsible for bringing it out. if a maul goes to the ground and the ball is not available, scrum down and throw to the side that did not have the ball. But, if Referees say ruck going forward and give the ball to the same side "dirty trick" start working. You collapse even in attack and milk a penalty or a scrum. Why not? is what a coach will ask as he plays the Referee.

It was hip, hip hurrah for the Referee that arises from a perception about local Referees. It is just not about the mistakes, but more meaning and interpretation is given on off field bias.

The old boys of schools who are in the centre of school Rugby promotion are asking for foreign Referees. The snowball is taking shape. Have we dug Rugby and officiating into a bog.

Meanwhile, there was a video that went viral on the action of a coach in delivering three slaps ostensibly to discipline a player. The judgement given in early February on an assault by a school teacher delivered in the Kurunegala High Court, is a worthy read.

A writing in 2011 on ' CoachPlayer Intimidation, Humiliation, and Physical Aggression is Never War ranted' by Dr. Chris Stankovich, says “While coaches like Bobby Knight routinely yelled, cursed, embarrassed, humiliated, and even physically grabbed his players, the reality is that those techniques simply don’t work, if you want to motivate players and help them reach their full athletic potential. Unfortunately, a few loose cannons (like Knight) have fooled fans into thinking that the authoritarian, dictatorship leadership style is a winning style.

Coaching players in sports should be viewed no differently from parenting kids at home, leading employees, or teaching kids in the classroom — regardless of the relationship, all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Unfortunately, when it comes to sports, some coaches have gotten away with being intimidating toward their players for far too long. Sadly, this type of behavior has often been viewed as “normal” when it comes to coaching, especially when the team wins and its assumed that the aggressive coaching style is the reason for the success. Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, Coach and an Accredited Referees' Evaluator IRB