Northern Edition
Select Edition
Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Refs, who needs 'em? How captains and not referees once called the shots

(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

Having referees and needing them as we do is another bit of proof of the existence of original sin, man’s propensity to get things wrong – writes Paul Dobson for Rugby 365.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dear Adam was full of innocence, till the snake came along. Rugby set out in similarly hopeful innocence till its snake reared its nasty head.

When first they played from village to village or from house to house, there were no rules to govern what happened and as a result this “game” was subject to the riot act and banned by successive kings of England – 31 times in about 300 years. But then it moved onto school fields, most notably the school in the Warwick shire town of Rugby.

Then the game garnered rules and the possible infraction of those rules was decided by the captains of the day, who had been responsible for deciding which rules (later called laws) would apply for that particular match.

This proved not to be enough. The games then acquired umpires – a word from the Old French nonper, not partial, which became in English noumper, numpire, and a numpire became an umpire as a narange became an orange.

If the captains could not agree, they could refer to the umpires. If they did not agree, they would then go off and state their case to a venerable gentleman in a wicker chair. They would refer the matter to him and so he became called the referee – the one referred to.

This all took time. The great Fairy Heatlie, captain of the first South African team to win a Test, the man who gave them the green jersey, the man who was the captain the first time South African won a series, a great man, stressed the need to select a good debater on a team to argue his team’s point in disputes of this nature.

ADVERTISEMENT

It went even further. If players could not agree they would refer the matter to the organising body, but when it came to international matches there was no organising body to refer to. When the Scots objected to a try which England claimed Richard Kindersley, they had nobody to refer to and refused to play Perfidious Albion again. Eventually the try was tried by three Irish judges. This process led to the formation of the International Rugby Board (IRB) whose original task was the formation and management of the Laws of the Game.

That was in 1889. In 1892 they scrapped the umpires and praised the venerable man out of his wicker chair and moved him out onto the field, telling the rugby world that he was the sole judge of fact and law, thus ending the disputes, causing Heatlie to exclaim: “Thanks be for small mercies!”

Not only, it seems, did this give rugby somebody to make decisions but it also gave rugby a scapegoat.

Everybody playing or watching a game of rugby will take sides, ie want one team to beat the other. There more interest there is in the match, the greater the desire for a particular team to win. If that team gets beaten, the supporter has two options – admit that the other team was better or turn on the scapegoat – the referee, in the belief that it is impossible for a man to be impartial and not to use his power in favour of one team or another. It is the loser’s lament – We played against 16 men.

ADVERTISEMENT

I used it when I was nine and my father gave me a lecture in sportsmanship. I have not used it since. Though he is 60 but just as childish, Eddie Jones used it the other day when Ben O’Keeffe refereed the team he was coaching. But, it seems, nobody gave him the salutary lecture my father gave me.

More’s the pity.

Tom Canterbury said: “The trouble with referees is that they just don’t care which side wins.”

Eddie Jones would not have said that, and he would not be alone, but in fact Tom Canterbury is really close to the truth.

Thanks be for referees!

Imagine going back to the pre-referee days.

ADVERTISEMENT

South Africa v Argentina | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

France v New Zealand | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

England v Wales | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

Tattoos & Rugby: Why are tattoos so popular with sportspeople? | Amber Schonert | Rugby Rising Locker Room Season 2

Lions Share | Episode 3

Zimbabwe vs Kenya | Rugby Africa Cup Semi Final | Full Match Replay

USA vs Spain | Men's International | Full Match Replay

Portugal vs Ireland | Men's International | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

D
DarstedlyDan 37 minutes ago
New Zealanders may not understand, but in France Test rugby is the 'B movie'

Italy have a top 14 issue too, that’s true. I doubt SA are overly pleased by that, although it’s countered somewhat by the fact they would expect to thrash them anyway, so perhaps are not that bothered.


The BIL teams are (aside from Ireland) A/B teams - still with many A team players. I would rather the England team touring Argentina be playing the ABs than this French one.


France could have reduced the complaints and the grounds for such if they had still picked the best team from those eligible/available. But they haven’t even done that. This, plus the playing of silly b@ggers with team selection over the three tests is just a big middle finger to the ABs and the NZ rugby public.


One of the key reasons this is an issue is the revenue sharing one. Home teams keep the ticket revenues. If the July tours are devalued to development larks then the crowds will not show up (why go watch teams featuring names you’ve never heard of?). This costs the SH unions. The NH unions on the other hand get the advantage of bums on seats from full strength SH teams touring in November. If the NH doesn’t want to play ball by touring full strength, then pay up and share gate receipts. That would be fair, and would reduce the grounds for complaint from the south. This has been suggested, but the NH unions want their cake and eat it too. And now, apparently, we are not even allowed to complain about it?


Finally - no one is expecting France to do things the way NZ or SA do. We oddly don’t really mind that it probably makes them less successful at RWC than they would otherwise have been. But a bit of willingness to find a solution other than “lump it, we’re French” would go a looonnng way.

75 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Divisive Henry Pollock comments backed up by team-mate Divisive Henry Pollock comments backed up by team-mate