Hughes is a tweet for misjudging the mood

NATHAN Hughes may feel that a relatively light right-handed punch from a prone position to get Gloucester flanker Lewis Ludlow off him and get back in the game at the Ricoh last weekend has escalated out of all proportion.

If ever there was a case of a bloke being in the wrong place at the wrong time, it is the Wasps and England No.8, because dissent is quite rightly a burning issue in the game – and what Hughes did next is compound his misdemeanour by taking the mickey out of the disciplinary process.

It was bad enough for Hughes that a punch, however innocuous, these days carries a tariff of six to eight weeks just before the Autumn series. However, when he then compounded his bad timing by tweeting in an RFU disciplinary hearing, “What a joke”, it was a certainty that the joke would backfire. That is exactly what happened, with the hearing suspended until this Wednesday when the panel were alerted to his social media antics.

The upshot is that he will almost certainly be ruled out of England’s first two Autumn games against South Africa and New Zealand – and possibly more.

The problem for Hughes is that dissent is a growing problem in the professional game, and at the moment the evidence is that it is escalating, with every player on the pitch, and even those on the touchlines, feeling they have the right to question the match officials.

Any game that tolerates dissent is in danger of becoming a circus, with a disciplinary culture which is holed beneath the waterline. Even the most ardent football fans accept that their sport is tarnished by the antics of some players and the undermining of the referee’s authority, and point to Rugby Union’s traditional respect for refs as something to be envied.

Now Rugby Union is going down the same slippery slope, with players disputing every decision made by referees and their touchline assistants. Some of the biggest stars of the sport are among the worst offenders, with Owen Farrell targeted by the South African media for “incessant moaning” at referees during England’s recent summer tour.

He is not the first England captain to overstep the boundaries, with Dylan Hartley learning the hard way after detonating Northampton’s Premiership 2013 title hopes by aiming an expletive at Wayne Barnes.

A significant contributor to dissent is that the on-field law coaching and consultative ‘discussions’ which referees – especially those in the Premiership – have had with players over the past decade have undermined their authority dramatically.

In simplest terms, if you operate a consultative service it is unreasonable to expect the communication to be one way. That is why referees are now faced with having to reassert their right to make decisions without being subjected to a barrage of backchat, ‘advice’, or outright abuse from players.

The best weapon referees have in their disciplinary armoury to combat dissent is the ten metre march-back – and if it persists apply it for ten, 20, 30 metres or more until this generation of players gets the message.

Incredibly, it is still rarely used, but there is no better way to nip dissent in the bud and get players to understand that the days of refereeing decisions becoming an on-pitch conference-call are over.

The issue of dissent was also raised

“The problem for Hughes is that dissent is a growing problem in the professional game”

this week with broadcaster BT Sport contacted by European club rugby in a bid to get their commentators, most of them ex-players, to limit criticism of referees – especially where ‘zero-tolerance’ high tackle decisions are concerned.

EPCR chairman Simon Halliday said he did not want to curtail free speech but wanted the tournament’s referees’ manager, Joel Jutge, to make the case to the BT pundits: “We are trying to get ahead of it by getting Joel to speak to BT and other broadcasters about how they commentate on these incidents.”

However, the real issue is less one of what broadcasters say about incidents in commentary boxes or studios than it is about the erosion of the authority of the referee where it counts most – which is on the pitch.

Get that right by clamping down on player dissent and Rugby Union will remain in good health irrespective of opinions from the sidelines.

As for the sanctions for a punch, if it is any comfort for Hughes – which is unlikely – my view is that it should be judged by disciplinary panels on the basis of severity, intent and outcome, rather than blanket tariffs.