If you don’t know very much of the sport but sit around some rugby crowds at a much you would think the referee is a blind man. That is the degree of fondness by which referees are called by during a match. They are very much in the news and are being maliciously jeered in local rugby as well as in the Rugby World Cup carnival that is on in New Zealand.
During the week we read about the request of Kandy Sports Club asking for a foreign referee to officiate at the final. The crux of the letter is not about competency but “that referees have been brought under enormous pressure both on and off the field by those wielding political power “. By the time you read this the final would be over and you would know whether there was a foreign referee or not.
To damn a referee and ask for a replay is something that seems to be in vogue in the local rugby scene and is getting the better out of men who should be more prudent in their claims. We love video footage as evidence but forget the fact that a 2D view from a single camera cannot be better than a natural 3D view of a referee who may be on the spot. A camera view is accepted for certain issues but not for all.
Controversy when it comes to rugby or for that matter for any sport is not an uncommon occurrence.
Part of it arise from the halo effect in us that we always are prone to hate when we see somebody in authority. How often do you accept or acknowledge a policeman. More often you like to talk against him as your perception of him us: as the guy who penalizes you or tells you don’t do this. Your perception of him is based on his action of issuing traffic ticket, stopping an unlawful assembly or preventing you from doing things that are not acceptable to society. All he does is interpret and implement the laws and nothing else. Similarly you don’t like a referee because he penalized your players, shows a knock on or send your player off for foul play. Like the cop all he does is to interpret and apply the laws as the book says.
This criticism is not confined to Sri Lanka but is all over the world of rugby. At the rugby world cup Wayne Barnes is at the centre of controversy again: because he was not willing to use the third official to determine whether the penalty kick went through or not. Looking through TV it looks to be curling in but when you see it carefully you entertain a doubt. As the ball goes wide and curls in possibly over the upright. The two guys under the post as assistant referees would have had a better view than the camera angle which is a 2D view as opposed to the two men under the post.
The next burning question on this issue is whether he should have referred this to the TMO. The argument is that he should have. Yes he should have if he had a doubt? The doubt if any is created when there is hesitancy on the part of the two AR and they are unsure they should have initiated the referral. The ARR never raised the flag nor did they communicate through the communication system that was available. Nothing of that sort being done can we say Barnes was wrong in not to consult the TMO?
 |
| Referee Priyantha Gunaratne overlooking the proceedings last week. Pic by Susantha Liyanawatta |
The other criticism is that the referee stood in the way of the Welsh defense and created a gap which allowed the South African to score. Was this on purpose or was it that he happened to be there? Similarly there are arguments and video footage that has been published claiming that the Wales try was off a forward pass. One as close as to calling it flat.
IRB in a recent communiqué said “during the match in question, the match official team felt at the time that there was no need to consult the TMO following a Wales penalty kick as they were confident that the kick was not successful. Correct protocol was therefore followed”.
The Welsh camp has been commendably dignified in refusing to make a song and dance about the issue in public. Gatland the Coach said” I thought it was interesting at halftime when we went in the tunnel and as coaches we were saying we thought the kick went”. He went on further as he said: "They've got that technology... look, it happens in sport... its part of sport, you take the good with the bad. That penalty was potentially costly but we missed a drop goal in front of the posts (Rhys Priestland) and James (Hook) missed a shot at goal that could have won it for us as well."
The keyword is potentially costly yet not putting the whole blame of your loss on the referee.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB |
E-mail
