By Tiger R
August 8 2005

Almost every week during the season I see some criticism of a referee on our board. As a former referee this sometimes irks me. Referees are human and our glorious game is complex. This means that:

1. they make mistakes
2. they can’t see everything
3. they don’t appreciate destructive criticism

Most referees are enthusiasts for the game. Most are ex-players and they give up many hours to give something back to a game they enjoyed playing. Sadly some of the top referees come across as prima donnas and seem to relish the limelight. Nonetheless the referees lot is not always a happy one. The greatest compliment a referee can have is not to be noticed. Letting the game flow whilst preventing 30 men from breaking the laws is not easy. This is doubly true in the professional game where players and coaches have every incentive to gain an advantage.

In recent years I think the top referees have had a lot to cope with. The game is faster and more complex than it was. Changes to the Laws have been mixed in their effectiveness whilst usually well intentioned. However, now in my opinion is time to have a radical rethink to help out the men in the middle:

1 Two referees

The conversion of touch judges to assist the referee in matter of foul play has been a good thing. It has helped clean up the game. However there are still too many obstructions and other off the ball incidents. Also there are two sides to every scrum/maul. Either we have a second pair of eyes (a sub-referee) running round on the pitch or allow the touch judges to advise the referee on more matters. This is not a mad idea. Both hockey and American football have already seen the need for this and have worked out how to cope with more than one man having a whistle.

2 Penalty Kicks at Goal

I have often heard it said ‘the game was been ruined by the referee’. What the speaker means is that there were many infringements and the scoring was dominated by penalty goals. Or perhaps that as soon as something started to happen on the pitch, the whistle went and a penalty was awarded.

Let’s put one myth to rest here, the referee cannot blow his whistle if there is no infringement. If there is an infringement he should blow the whistle (subject to the advantage law). It is players that infringe the laws. In addition it is up to referees to manage the game, by talking to players, penalising infringements when thereby the infringing side gains an advantage etc.

It is sometimes argued that a penalty goal is worth too much when compared to a try. At other times people argue that sides are happy to give away three points to save five or seven. Both cannot be true at the same time. What is wrong is that a technical infringement on about half way can lead to three points and so can a try saving infringement five yards from the line. Not many tries are scored directly from a position on half way whereas many tries are scored from a position within the 22. Therefore to award 3 points in both situations is bizarre.

Of course I’m ignoring yellow cards. An obvious try saving infringement five yards from the try line ought to be a yellow card. However, too often it is not. Despite yellow cards, I think there is a case for a change to the Law on Penalty kicks at goal, a Law that I know has existed in its present form for many decades. So here is real controversy, unless you are old enough to remember the ball of the 1960s like me. That ball was heavier especially in wet conditions, and could not be kicked anywhere near as far. Penalties from half way used to be well nigh impossible, even on a dry day. That is no longer true.

Option 1: Penalties converted from within the 22 are worth 4 points, penalties from the 22 to the 10 metre line are worth 3 points and those kicked through the goal posts from beyond the attacking 10 metre line are worth 2 points.

But I prefer

Option 2: Kicks at goal from penalties are to be taken from 10 metres back from the mark and the Option 1 scoring scheme applies.

This scheme means that penalty infringements close to your own line hurt you much more thus giving a greater incentive to prevent the try legally. Penalties near half way would be more often kicked to the corner.

3 Line Outs

I’m not a fan of the current law by which the scrum half can join the line out. Nor do I like the dance routines prior to the throw at the line out. Let’s get on with it. Let’s outlaw a change of direction of movement in the line out. This would still allow old-fashioned ideas like the peel whilst speeding up the throw. A change of direction in the line out should be penalised by a free kick.

4 Scrums

Lets sort out the scrum. There are too many reset scrums. If a scrum collapses more than once, the referee should be at liberty to award a free kick against whichever side was more at fault (unless he is clear that a penalty offence has taken place). Attacking side might wish to scrum again in which case a repeat of being ‘more at fault’ by the defending side would be penalised by a penalty. The other laws on scrumaging should remain in place.