Players must suffer in silence

[Darren]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...426648,00.html

New measures will reduce the backchat directed at referees
THE chat show is over. Rugby is to ban the discussion of referees’ decisions by players during a game, beginning with Saturday’s Invesco Perpetual match between Wales and Australia in Cardiff.

From next weekend, nobody in Test rugby, not even the captain, will be allowed to dispute or query a penalty awarded against his side. The offending side must retreat 10m immediately. If they do not, they will be marched back another 10m. The captain may clarify the decision only when the game next stops for injury or at the next downtime.

Paddy O’Brien, the International Rugby Board’s (IRB) referee manager, is the driving force behind the changes, which are bound to be copied throughout the game. His actions reflect a welcome change at the IRB, through which their experts are being allowed to flex their muscles. On Tuesday, O’Brien will address the international referees panel in London, and hammer out the policy.

“I will be telling referees that they will have to get across the message to both camps before the game,” O’Brien said. “They will be saying that when I penalise your side, I am not going to change that decision. The only time I will debate with you is at an injury stoppage. International rugby is the shop window and it is time things changed.”

This is a procedure that rugby, with its old policy of respect for the ref, once followed meticulously. But, increasingly, any whistle is now the starting point for an often barking debate. Backchat and dissent has become the norm.

Many also believe this is a factor in a general loss of respect for refereeing that manifests itself in dissent from players, coaches and crowds at all levels.

Top games occasionally now almost mimic the worst football excesses. As O’Brien said: “You often see two or three players running towards a referee after penalties have been awarded. Many people think the captain has a divine right to question every decision, but there is nothing in law to justify this. What happens sometimes is that players who stop to argue are deliberately delaying the game and stopping the quick penalty. I will also be insisting that if touch judges see players throwing up their hands to complain that penalties are awarded.”

If referees have the courage and the support to apply these measures strictly, rugby could become healthier, quicker, quieter and better almost overnight.

The whole area of preventative refereeing, in which communication between referee and players is supposed to improve the game, is up for review. The ceaseless babble itself is now offputting. “I watched one game on the television last year and the referee was so noisy that I had to go into another room,” O’Brien said.

The role of the television match official (TMO) will also change radically, and will result in more tries being awarded. At present, the referee simply refers disputed touchdowns to the official. “From now on,” O’Brien said, “you will hear the referee ask, ‘Is there any reason why I cannot award this try?’ ”

This is significant. If, as often happens, the evidence is buried among a pile of bodies, the benefit of the doubt will no longer go in favour of the defending team. The referee can use his intuition to take the decision back from the TMO and award a try even if he did not witness the fact of the touchdown.

[Shaun]

That is pathetic! I believe the captain has every right to talk to the ref about the decisions he is making.

[GIGS20]

Hear Hear Shaun, there's a big difference between asking a ref to clarify an interpretation and dissent. That being said, I do believe the captain should be the only player with that right.

[.X.]

To be honest Shaun and GGST I think you are both wrong, this is a great move by the IRB.

Shaun how many times have you argued with a Referee and got him to change his decision?

[Flamethrower]

I don't think you should argue with the ref. However the captain should be able to ask why a decision was made if only to warn his team mates not to stuff up again.

Who will give away the first try after being marched back thirty meters across the line

[.X.]

However the captain should be able to ask why a decision was made if only to warn his team mates not to stuff up again.

And you can,

The only time I will debate with you is at an injury stoppage

[Flamethrower]

So now we will have a game full of diving.
"But Sir, he's really hurt bad!! Now about this penalty......."

[JediKnight]

When I started reading this piece I was a little disappointed as rugby players have always had a lot more respect for the refs and I initially thought that the captain's right to seek clarification from the ref was going to disappear....it is not. The only change is that the captain must now wait until the next break in play to voice his opinion. I guess they have brought this in, not only to reinforce the fact that it is only the captain who can discuss decisions with the refs, but also to stop captains (or other players for that matter) from delaying quick penalties by querying the ref's decision. A good move by the IRB.

[Sagerian]

Sounds like a good move to me. As JK said, Captains can't delay a quick tap by questioning the ref, but he can still seek clarification from the ref later.

[.X.]

This most recent season of NRL Rugby League had some highly publicised incidents featuring Andrew Johns and Match Officials. The spray that Andrew Johns gave the officials was nothing short of disgusting. The second time he did it, he was actually suspended for 2 matches.

The IRB's move will be applauded by many not just from within Rugby but from other codes as well.

[Mtbeaver]

I never liked O'Brien...

But aside from that, I think its a good move. After being captain of my team for the last 2 years I have found that arguing with the ref wont get him to change his mind, it will just piss him off.

So good on the IRB a nice move.

[The EnForcer]

Glad to see they are being proactive on this matter. The arguments and general lack of respect towards referees was just starting to creep into our game. This should pull it back into line.

[frontrow]

I grudgingly agree with this decision, although touch judges being able to alert the ref to players throwing their arms in the air in frustration is rather draconian...Perhaps if the touchies heard someone calling the ref a f ing so and so, well ok, but when someone is genuinely pissed off, and not neccesarily at the ref but the person who infringed, well how is the touch judge gonna be in a position to know this...Backchatting the ref i agree with, more power for touchjudges i don`t...I also question the TMO`s greater scope, as it seems more power is being given to technology, ie how far back from the try can he look to justify a try, for example a forward pass several phases prior to a try were the ref may have been fully sighted but made the wrong call...I do however believe if the TMO can`t make the call regarding grounding of the ball then the ref should be able to call it how he sees it..

[The InnFORCEr]

Gregan will have to gaffa tape his mouth shut or the Wallabies will be continually running backwards. A great move by the IRB and enough time to get used to it before RWC.

It was only in the last couple of years a Ref/Umpires Summit was held with all codes and the question all asked of the rugby refs was "how do you manage to gain the respect of the players in order to control matches as you do" something like that. Great to see them not just leaving it at that and trying to continually improve the game. FIFA could learn a lot from the IRB.

[Shaun]

It is not about getting the ref to change his mind on a previous decision, it is about having the right to tell him (if you are the captain) that he is calling an unfair game.