Young Scud
Academy Player
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2019
- Messages
- 13
We've all seen and heard a lot of emotional outpouring during RWC 23. I don't, though, think I've seen before such a flood of referee blaming as I have during this particular competition. It might be true that consistency across a large field of officials hasn't always been forthcoming, but isn't that to be expected? Do we really expect officials to be any less 'human' than players? They're going to make mistakes. They're going to interpret what's in front of them differently.
What I haven't seen any real evidence of is any innate bias. There has been every conceivable accusation levelled; NH vs SH; Tier 1 vs Tier 2. Perhaps it's time we all examined our own prejudices. My time being involved in rugby, as a player, as a coach, as a supporter and yes, as a referee, spans just short of 55 years. I think I've pretty much seen it all. I've seen highly violent players, who arguably shouldn't have been allowed near a rugby pitch, being listed as some of the greatest Test players. I've seen officious international referees who wouldn't entertain the slightest dissent marching teams back ten yards every time someone blinked at them the wrong way. I've seen, delivered, and been the recipient of 'vigorous rucking'. For those among you too young to remember this particular 'joy' of rugby, this entailed using your studs to remove anyone lying on the wrong side of a ruck, and usually resulted in some interesting scars. I'm not justifying it, far from it, but I am adding it for perspective. Players are nowadays protected from this practice and I'm glad of it.
I knew, and anyone who gave it enough thought at the time knew, that rugby would change forever that day in 1995 when Rugby Union became professional. It had to. In Scotland, certainly, rugby was an elitist sport, and we weren't alone. The professional ranks were filled mainly with people who went to the right schools. I don't think we were alone either. Wales was one of the few countries with a decent proportion of working class players at the top level. With the advent of professionalism, that would change, slowly at first, but eventually accelerating. That could be considered an upside to money in the game. The downside, arguably was also money in the game.
When RWC 1987 came about, it was the showcase Rugby Union needed, but I'm tempted to wonder what the real motivation was. Was it to promote the game worldwide, or was it to generate revenue? It certainly did that, and the rugby authorities, those 'old farts' described by Will Carling in his now famous rant about the RFU, were horrified to discover they'd created a monster. Players, who hitherto had satisfied themselves with basking in the glow of national admiration, now demanded recompense from the unions who were collecting all the new revenue, in return for putting their bodies on the line. That was a genie which couldn't be put back in its bottle. Professional Rugby Union was here to stay.
So here we are today. We have old players (that certainly includes me) and fans who waffle endlessly about how rugby is a 'game for men' and that 'players today don't know they're born, they're so well protected'. We have younger players and fans who think every time two heads collide, someone should be yellow or red carded. Then we have, I think most of us, who think that if World Rugby isn't treating some nations better than others when it comes to disciplinary matters, then at least they're not doing enough to disabuse us of that notion. That, perhaps, is one of the areas they need to address, but with the present day structure of World Rugby, with its 'jobs for the boys' reputation, don't hold your breath. I for one am glad that Scotland are touring the Pacific Islands next year, which will give at least some of the islanders Tier 1 opposition. Italy, meanwhile, are set to tour Canada and the USA, again a fillip to the ambitions of those nations. In Europe, we've seen sides such as Georgia and Portugal perform well despite their obvious disadvantages. The idea of a two tier European competition with promotion and relegation is probably a bit of a non starter, given that the Six Nations sides aren't keen, but it's an idea which probably won't ever go away. Uruguay, Japan and even Chile have distinguished themselves too, so don't we all owe it to these nations to push for greater inclusion?
Meanwhile, can we cut referees and other officials some slack? Let's stop letting players off the hook, denying their responsibility for the safety of their fellow professionals? If you want a bad guy in all of this, point your fingers at World Rugby. After all, what does it take for a player with a fully deserved reputation for tackling with his shoulder at head height to receive a lengthy ban, and this time, no reduction for agreeing to attend yet another tackle course? Years ago now, I witnessed an England player in a sitting position, attempting to extricate himself from the back of a ruck. He was assaulted by an opposition prop, who drove his shoulder into the player's back at about neck height, driving him into a 'bent double' position. I was horrified, not only because, it could have broken his neck or his back quite easily, but because that prop went unpunished, even by the citing official. That prop, by the way, played in this RWC. I would not ever have allowed him back onto a rugby park, and I'm no shrinking violet. World Rugby says it is a player's responsibility to assure the safety of the player they are tackling. It's one of the areas on which I agree with them, and there aren't many of those. Let's expect more of our highly paid players.
What I haven't seen any real evidence of is any innate bias. There has been every conceivable accusation levelled; NH vs SH; Tier 1 vs Tier 2. Perhaps it's time we all examined our own prejudices. My time being involved in rugby, as a player, as a coach, as a supporter and yes, as a referee, spans just short of 55 years. I think I've pretty much seen it all. I've seen highly violent players, who arguably shouldn't have been allowed near a rugby pitch, being listed as some of the greatest Test players. I've seen officious international referees who wouldn't entertain the slightest dissent marching teams back ten yards every time someone blinked at them the wrong way. I've seen, delivered, and been the recipient of 'vigorous rucking'. For those among you too young to remember this particular 'joy' of rugby, this entailed using your studs to remove anyone lying on the wrong side of a ruck, and usually resulted in some interesting scars. I'm not justifying it, far from it, but I am adding it for perspective. Players are nowadays protected from this practice and I'm glad of it.
I knew, and anyone who gave it enough thought at the time knew, that rugby would change forever that day in 1995 when Rugby Union became professional. It had to. In Scotland, certainly, rugby was an elitist sport, and we weren't alone. The professional ranks were filled mainly with people who went to the right schools. I don't think we were alone either. Wales was one of the few countries with a decent proportion of working class players at the top level. With the advent of professionalism, that would change, slowly at first, but eventually accelerating. That could be considered an upside to money in the game. The downside, arguably was also money in the game.
When RWC 1987 came about, it was the showcase Rugby Union needed, but I'm tempted to wonder what the real motivation was. Was it to promote the game worldwide, or was it to generate revenue? It certainly did that, and the rugby authorities, those 'old farts' described by Will Carling in his now famous rant about the RFU, were horrified to discover they'd created a monster. Players, who hitherto had satisfied themselves with basking in the glow of national admiration, now demanded recompense from the unions who were collecting all the new revenue, in return for putting their bodies on the line. That was a genie which couldn't be put back in its bottle. Professional Rugby Union was here to stay.
So here we are today. We have old players (that certainly includes me) and fans who waffle endlessly about how rugby is a 'game for men' and that 'players today don't know they're born, they're so well protected'. We have younger players and fans who think every time two heads collide, someone should be yellow or red carded. Then we have, I think most of us, who think that if World Rugby isn't treating some nations better than others when it comes to disciplinary matters, then at least they're not doing enough to disabuse us of that notion. That, perhaps, is one of the areas they need to address, but with the present day structure of World Rugby, with its 'jobs for the boys' reputation, don't hold your breath. I for one am glad that Scotland are touring the Pacific Islands next year, which will give at least some of the islanders Tier 1 opposition. Italy, meanwhile, are set to tour Canada and the USA, again a fillip to the ambitions of those nations. In Europe, we've seen sides such as Georgia and Portugal perform well despite their obvious disadvantages. The idea of a two tier European competition with promotion and relegation is probably a bit of a non starter, given that the Six Nations sides aren't keen, but it's an idea which probably won't ever go away. Uruguay, Japan and even Chile have distinguished themselves too, so don't we all owe it to these nations to push for greater inclusion?
Meanwhile, can we cut referees and other officials some slack? Let's stop letting players off the hook, denying their responsibility for the safety of their fellow professionals? If you want a bad guy in all of this, point your fingers at World Rugby. After all, what does it take for a player with a fully deserved reputation for tackling with his shoulder at head height to receive a lengthy ban, and this time, no reduction for agreeing to attend yet another tackle course? Years ago now, I witnessed an England player in a sitting position, attempting to extricate himself from the back of a ruck. He was assaulted by an opposition prop, who drove his shoulder into the player's back at about neck height, driving him into a 'bent double' position. I was horrified, not only because, it could have broken his neck or his back quite easily, but because that prop went unpunished, even by the citing official. That prop, by the way, played in this RWC. I would not ever have allowed him back onto a rugby park, and I'm no shrinking violet. World Rugby says it is a player's responsibility to assure the safety of the player they are tackling. It's one of the areas on which I agree with them, and there aren't many of those. Let's expect more of our highly paid players.
