Being a referee or an umpire in sport today is no easy task.
As most will know the respect that they used to command has been eroded. Some blame professionalism and the money now tied up in sport, but that does not explain the abuse they suffer on parks across the globe. This explained away and blamed on the example set by those at the top, who do play for money, and show a lack of respect.
Yet in many cases are not the problems they face a result of those making the rules, or in some cases laws?
Most sports fans, coaches and players will tell you in every sport that they prefer to have rules that are black and white, and not left to the official’s own interpretation. This is understandable, and is often the cause of many problems. As we have seen in many sports especially Rugby Union, Norrthern hemisphere referees have interpreted some rules differently to their Southern hemisphere counterparts. So when they officiate a game involving a team from the Southern Hemisphere there is some confusion as to why that team is being penalised, and of course vice versa.
Once again the rule makers created mayhem in the recent Cricket World Cup. The spotlight falling on the umpire in the cauldron of the last over making an error when the ball deflected off of Ben Stokes bat for four overthrows. England were awarded six runs, when it should have only been five. Yet few players seemed to know this law, and even some umpires were scrambling for their copies of the Laws of Cricket to try read the explanation. Why this issue came up was because the game ended in a tie. Had the old rule of One Day International cricket still applied, which was the team that loses the least wickets wins, New Zealand would have won and the overthrows would have become a subtext; they would have been irrelevant.
Instead when “take-away Cricket” was created, T20, – which was never supposed to be taken seriously, – it was decided that if a tie occurred a “Super Over” would be more exciting for the fans. That was in 2008. Despite that being the rule in T20 Cricket, three years later it was introduced into One Day Internationals at the 2011 Cricket World Cup. It just so happened the first time the “Super Over” was used in ODI cricket happened to be in the 2019 World Cup final. The “Super Over” also ended in a tie, which meant fans had the game decided unsatisfactorily on a count back as to which team has scored the most boundaries in the game.
At the FIFA Women’s World Cup we saw some interpretations which appeared extremely harsh. Interpretations that saw teams lose a player, goals rubbed out and penalties awarded. Where these decisions came under the microscope was whether the interpretation was that the challenge was “Reckless” or “Careless.” Unfortunately in many cases they were deemed reckless and the heavy penalties were imposed.
Where some confusion reigns is in the wording from FIFA. Should it be taken literally? How many times is a penalty awarded when a player is moving away from the opponents goal? Yet the laws state a penalty should be awarded when a player infringes “denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free-kick.”
The laws go on to say that the referee must take into account when an offence occurs in the penalty area, the following things: “distance between the offence and the goal, general direction of the play, the likelihood of keeping or gaining control and the location and number of defenders.” Once again the direction of play is mentioned, yet fouls on players moving away from goal saw Penalties awarded.
At the weekend at the Bledisloe Cup Rugby International between Australia and New Zealand played at the new Optus Stadium, in Perth the referee, Jerome Garces of France sent off Scott Barrett of New Zealand in the 39th minute.
Barrett was sanctioned under Law 9.13: A player must not tackle an opponent dangerously and Law 9.17: A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp the player. This was the decision reached after referring to the Television Match Official, who watched replays of the offence.
It is hard to argue with the decision when slowed down, and by the letter of the law the decision appeared to be the correct one. Barrett’s shoulder made contact with Michael Hooper’s head and therefore it was dangerous. However if the TMO slowed down every pick and drive during any match and you will find numerous similar instances in such close quarters occurring. Especially when an attacking player is at knee height. If all of these resulted in a send off, Rugby would be played simply between the backs. If fans want to see that, they will go and watch Sevens.
What needs to be looked at is the fact that forwards when they pick the ball up at the back of a ruck, invariably drive low towards the feet of the opposition. One reason is in order to inch the the ball forward and play closer to their opponents try-line. The second is because it makes it harder for their opponents to tackle them. Surely though this style of play is in itself creating danger?
Michael Hooper who copped Barrett’s shoulder on the head is 182cm tall (almost 5ft 10in). Scott Barrett is 198cm tall (6ft 4in), so he is 16cm and 6 inches taller than Hooper. Barrett comes into the tackle trying to take Hooper low down, but at that moment another All Black, hooker Dane Coles grabs Hooper around the waist and pulls him to the ground. In fact he pulls the Australian captain into Barrett! Some would argue that the big second rower actually drops his arm to try and lessen the blow as Hooper is thrown into him.
If you really want to analyse the attempted tackle, Barrett does initially have his left arm in a position to grab Hooper, but the intervention by Coles means that it ends up superfluous.
When a player that is that much bigger than an opponent and is bending to make a tackle it is extremely hard to change direction. When another player pulls that player into you, where can you go to avoid contact?
As mentioned, by the letter of the law Jerome Garces was right. Yet understandably many believe it should have been a yellow card and a ten minute suspension, rather than a straight red card. Using FIFA terminology it was careless, but not reckless.
Of course the thousands of Wallabies fans didn’t care that it changed the game dramatically. They were happy to see their team record a famous Bledisloe Cup victory.
Some would say that once again the video umpire has delivered the wrong decision, as they have failed to analyse the part played by Dane Coles, and its impact on Barrett’s position. Video referral was introduced to get these decisions right, but in every sport we keep getting them wrong.
Fans now pay large sums of money to attend sporting events. As was the case on Saturday night, many had travelled a long way to witness this historic encounter. They came to see a contest between two arch rivals. One steeped in tradition. They deserve more than to see it affected by such a decision.
A decision that the referee interpreted as black and white and as per the rule book. However, he was unsure, and that was why he went to the Television Match Official. Unfortunately the TMO too had a blinkered view of the passage play, and focussed only on Barrett. Surely he should have taken the circumstances leading up to the contact into consideration? As it was those circumstances that led to the contact.
It is not just Rugby Union that needs to look at their rule book and referral system. Many other sports need to before they kill the contests that people pay to watch.
