A better game of rugby was witnessed
View(s):The Havelocks-Navy match was a better game of rugby seen over the last few years. The pace was fast and the intent to make a game of it was clear. In the first twenty minutes of the game Havelocks took an early 10 points to nil lead and looked like they were ready for the kill. Probably that is what they thought as they made many inroads but the Navy defence stood solid. A Navy player was sent to the bin for the repeated offence of being offside but Havelocks could not make use of the ten minutes which started closer to half time as Navy played with 14. Closer to half time Navy scored and it was 10 points to 7. Navy trailing but enjoying the lemons.
In the second half Havelocks lost their three-quarter and playmaker as he was shown the bin with around fifteen minutes of play left. Navy clinched the game with a try scored with eight minutes of play remaining.
Navy looked recharged with their tactical changes. Havelock’s, a comparatively young side, did not have the luxury of an experienced bench to match one to one in the changes they made. It was a good game of rugby enjoyed by those who dared the gloomy skies. Despite that, rugby was fast and furious in parts, the tragic story is when people want to offer an opinion on how the game was a refereed. I wonder whether these ideas come to people due to the halo effect: the tendency for an impression created in one area to influence opinion in another area. The tendency is to think the referee is always wrong.
American Journalist and Essayist H.L. Mencken said, “It is hard to believe a man is telling you the truth when you know you would lie if you were in his place.” Is this why people come to a conclusion that the man in the middle is biased? I have seen even with the teams struggling at the bottom. This appears to be a good exit clause when your team is not performing. Take a different view and a more positive one and you will be better and your team will do better and the game will be better. That is my thought and hopefully this can be your New Year resolution.
Another told me that off-side by the backs was missed and there were mistakes at the breakdown l. A simple answer to that question was whether the game suffered; how did the ball move well a number of times. Why did two players get a yellow card in a bid to get the game flowing? That will be a better way to look at this game than be looking for the commas and the full-stops. I am sure people come to see rugby and that is something they got. The question that arises in a mind of a referee is whether the incidents were material; different from the concept of advantage. This is a time when somebody might ask where this is in the law book.
To explain the way a referee whistles you have to realise that the approximate numbers of possible offences a referee could penalise are: Lineout, 45 Scrum, 45 Tackle, 23, Ruck, 19 Maul, 14. As the Referee climbs higher in his pathway and gets higher refereeing emphasis is more about match and people management and less of being rigid in application of the law. That is what happened at the Park.
What you can see from those numbers, is that if the Referee wants to be pedantic and play to the letter of the law, he could find something to penalize at every single breakdown. This is where referees have to apply materiality and use their management skills; if not the game would take never move. It is not that a referee has not seen the offence. The Referees has to decide, “do I need to blow for this offence?”, or “is this offence having a material effect on the game?”
When player’s officials and spectators point out perceived offences, they are not seeing the “big picture”. They do not realise that they make the life of a referee difficult when you keep shouting. When an offense is penalised and the referee is right people get the impression that he is acting on the instructions of the vociferous bench. This happens very often when the bench shouts while the referee plays advantage and then penalises. The people perceive that he blew because somebody shouted. Next time around see the hand of the referee signaling advantage before you shout. The knock-on and the forward pass are always deemed to be material and blown however small it is. If a kick-off is taken to the left, but the winger on the far right is in front of the kicker by half a yard, then he is having no material effect on the game and the referee may ignore it.
At the lower levels you are applying law and empathy. As you get to higher levels the referee starts to apply materiality to decisions – what material effect did an offence have on the side with the ball. Did what the offender do have any effect on reducing play options, reduce tactical or territorial alternatives etc?
If the blind side defending flanker is always slipping his bind and the attacking side goes open every time, the referee may not penalise but have a quiet word at next opportunity. The player does it all again from the scrum, the attacking side goes blind and the flanker makes an early tackle – and you penalise. The early break but wasn’t material and the referee lets it go. The coach and spectators would have a perceived case for the referee being inconsistent. To apply materiality correctly you need to have wide and deep match experience, with excellent judgment and match control. That is what you witnessed at the Park last week. This requires the referee to be given his space without the continuous finger pointing which does not take the game or referee anywhere.
Have a good season and enjoy Rugby 2015.
* Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB