There is one team many of us have overlooked as a force at this year’s World Cup, and that is the team of whistle blowers. Yep, the guys in the middle who are called upon to make those all-important split second decisions that in some cases can swing a match.

We all recognise that as humans we are prone to making mistakes under pressure, and certainly the pressure of refereeing at a World Cup is right up there. But Paddy O’Brien, as IRB Head of Referees, will definitely have his work cut out for him when his team of officials go into their 2-day pre-World Cup camp at a Swiss ski resort, closely followed by a two day meeting on The Game We Want back in Paris this week. While I have no doubt their team building activities will have the desired effect as far as the camaraderie between the referees goes, will two days be enough time to ensure they’re all reading from the same page as far as application of the Laws of the Game go?

Personally, I have a few misgivings over the consistency of calls judging from what I have seen from the various international referees this year. For example, we have already seen variations on the new scrum engagement calls, notably a Northern Hemisphere v Southern Hemisphere interpretation. Despite O’Brien sending out a memo halfway through the Super 14 on how the call was to be made, we still saw no end of different calls with the result being scrum engagements are still a lottery in the Southern Hemisphere.

Add to that the confusion at the breakdown, with the wildly varying calls on when a tackle becomes a ruck and suddenly it’s hands off for all, the inability of some officials to rule on offside play at rucks (in particular when it comes to pillars who are NOT bound and therefore not part of the ruck so should therefore be standing behind the hindmost foot!) and the sometime shaky policing of the gate, consistency of interpretation will be integral in determining how well games will flow and how evenly contested the breakdown will be.

Then there is the area of advantage, which thankfully in the last 12 months appears to have finally reached a logical and correct application of the Law, which is to come back to the mark for a penalisable offence if no advantage is gained from an act of foul or illegal play, and to allow the unimpeded securing of possession from a knock-on to be the advantage – so that what you do with it after that becomes your choice, with no option of coming back for a scrum if you pick a poor option thereafter.

Some referees seem to have a natural feel for the game and play seems to flow continuously when they’re on the field, whereas others can make it a stop-start affair that frustrates both the players and the spectators. There is a fine line between being technically correct and not allowing fair contest and advantage to accrue. This is the task lying ahead of the whistle blowers, and excuse me for being a sceptic but I can’t help but feel two days is not long enough to achieve consistency across a group of referees from all over the world.

Of course, I may be wrong to feel the glass is half empty instead of half full, and the match officials may surprise and delight us all with their consistency and attitude. However, if there’s one thing that has become apparent in the last 24 months it’s that while the players have got Stonger-Faster-Fitter the refereeing hasn’t always kept up. I am hoping to be proved terribly wrong, and if I am I shall be delighted along with the other fans attending the sixth Rugby World Cup. For not only do we want to see our beloved game played in the open manner it was intended, but we also don’t want to see results determined by anyone other than the thirty players on the field.

Tracey Nelson

More Posts - Website

by