bcm666
Brian Moore, Ex England International Hooker
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 178
- Post Likes
- 27
I am telling the story below because I believe it represents an approach that is now endemic with some sections of the refereeing community and because it is one that appears, to me, to be happening on many different issues facing the game, from scrums, to appointments and other important issues and the approach of referees individually and collectively to them.
A while back, when I used to be allowed to attend the elite referees meeting at the Lensbury Club before the autumn internationals, I was privy to one session at which international referees discussed the Friday night meetings they had with the Coach or Manager of the teams they were to referee the following day.
These meetings were not mandatory and were not part of any match protocol but had been offered by referees and sought by Coaches in order to discuss the referee's approach to the game. The original intention was that teams would know what the referee wanted and try not to fall foul of him and that aim would be beneficial to referee and players alike.
Referees said that when this was first offered and taken up the meetings discussed matters generally and they answered questions or made points about particular areas of the games and specific laws and situations.
However, what quickly happened was that coaches would come armed with statistics and then videos and laptops which had clips of what their opponents were doing at breakdown, scrums etc. Under the guise of clarification they would ask the referee whether this was legal and what he would do if it happened. This the meetings had become little more than another way to pressure referees and to highlight things they didn't like and ensure they were at least considered by the referee. They were also referred to in post game briefing along the lines of 'we asked for clarification over and consistency about this that and the other before the game and he said this and that but didn’t do it during the game.'
They sat around moaning about it and saying how terrible it was and what could they do about it, although they didn’t actually make any practical suggestions as to what they would do and how and who should do it.
I was invited to comment and I said that I didn't see what the problem was, which drew a few snorts and general derision for my failure to understand their difficulty. I asked whether there was any rule mandating these meetings - there was not. I asked who initiated this tradition and they said they had offered it. I then said bearing in mind they were doing the coaches a favour and they weren’t bound to do it, why couldn’t they simply say this brining of stats, laptops etc had to stop and they would only discuss laws and their approach to specific situations without reference to either team or its players. If the coaches didn’t agree then stop the meetings; they obviously weren't achieving what they wanted anyway.
This was met with incredulity and comments like 'we can’t do that' ' that would not work' when I asked why nobody could give me an answer though many shook their heads as if to say 'you don’t understand.'
When I pressed them as to why they couldn't do this they finally said they would get criticised by the coaches who would complain.
I then said why don’t you complain about the way they have perverted the meetings for their own ends - no answer. I said that if that happened they should issue a press statement explaining why these had been stopped and put the blame where it lay - no, couldn't do that.
That 45 minutes session ended with no resolution to do anything; nobody actually made a suggestion and my approach was not out-argues it was simply said to be impossible.
As the meeting broke up I was moved to say that I has listened with growing dismay at not only the problem they had allowed to occur and the fact that thought they complained bitterly they didn’t seem to have the will to do anything about it and that being the case they should either stop moaning or take some, any,. action. No response.
I can understand that individually they would not take a stand, but they wouldn’t even go with a collective voice to the IRB and tell them that they wanted this issue sorting.
It seems to me that in many areas where referees come into conflict with different parts of the game they feel that they cannot take action to right the wrongs that they see. This may be down to them having no faith in the people at National and IRB level who are supposed to be their managers and that they do not feel they will support them. I understand that but in the end individually and collectively elite referees have to make a decision about certain issues and whether they are important enough or them to make a stand
If, in the end, there is no issue that they feel strongly enough about to do this then however unfair they have to put up with what they get because when it comes down to it they weren’t prepared to do anything about it but talk and moan. If they try and fail that is a completely different matter as they did their best.
That is a general comment and since the dawn of time people have had to make decisions about issues and what to do about them. Sometimes it take guts and the risk of failure and unpopularity to get things changed and I don’t take this lightly and know how hard it can be. Between 1991-95 we fought with Dudley Wood about the amended amateurism rules and were under co9ntwtant threat of de-selection, though nobody knew about it.
As far as popularity goes - do any of you think people like referees as a collective? No, they blame them for everything, stereotype them but in rugby, for the time being, they are regarded as essential and are still afforded a good amount of on and off the field respect.
My point is that risking the unpopularity of coaches and players is not as great a risk as portrayed. These two sets would stab you in an instant if they thought they could get an advantage and win - I know - 'I would have done that because that is what my responsibility was a player - to win. Your responsibility is to officiate and control the game and whilst you can take coaches and players comments into account they should never be anything like a guiding principle because they are made with their interests to the fore.
Take the above issue - if there had been a war of words in the press the referees would have won, because clearly the coaches would have been exposed as taking advantage of their largesse.
With present issues elite referees have to act collectively and demand change and be prepared to take action if it isn’t made. A strike or even a threatened strike would rock the RFU and IRB to its core and if it was handled properly and clear and proper reasons were given for the stand the press would back referees because like me a lot of them think the game is in danger of sliding towards football excess. The majority of the rugby public will support firm action as they see the dangers as well. However, if referees think they will not get blamed if they keep their heads down and just do as they are told, by coaches, players and anyone else, they are completely wrong. They will be blamed and that is not fair but it will be the case.
The one thing I know from all my dealing s with the RFU and IRB is that publicity is the thing they cannot stand against and that is the most effective negotiating tool. In private they will tie you do in subcommittee ad hoc working parties and the like. Public action gets things sorted even if it creates casualties.
At the end of the day if elite referee cannot act collectively, and I have my doubts as to whether they are incapable of this because they are mostly out for theme elves as individuals, they cannot complain.
The question was asked earlier - why should anyone stick their neck out? The answer is they don’t have to but don’t whinge about where that leads you. I have spoken to several football referees societies and I have seen where the failure of collective and individual will leads and I suspect that not many people on here will still be officiating if we get there. Whilst I will understand I won’t sympathise because sometimes you have to fight for things you want.
A while back, when I used to be allowed to attend the elite referees meeting at the Lensbury Club before the autumn internationals, I was privy to one session at which international referees discussed the Friday night meetings they had with the Coach or Manager of the teams they were to referee the following day.
These meetings were not mandatory and were not part of any match protocol but had been offered by referees and sought by Coaches in order to discuss the referee's approach to the game. The original intention was that teams would know what the referee wanted and try not to fall foul of him and that aim would be beneficial to referee and players alike.
Referees said that when this was first offered and taken up the meetings discussed matters generally and they answered questions or made points about particular areas of the games and specific laws and situations.
However, what quickly happened was that coaches would come armed with statistics and then videos and laptops which had clips of what their opponents were doing at breakdown, scrums etc. Under the guise of clarification they would ask the referee whether this was legal and what he would do if it happened. This the meetings had become little more than another way to pressure referees and to highlight things they didn't like and ensure they were at least considered by the referee. They were also referred to in post game briefing along the lines of 'we asked for clarification over and consistency about this that and the other before the game and he said this and that but didn’t do it during the game.'
They sat around moaning about it and saying how terrible it was and what could they do about it, although they didn’t actually make any practical suggestions as to what they would do and how and who should do it.
I was invited to comment and I said that I didn't see what the problem was, which drew a few snorts and general derision for my failure to understand their difficulty. I asked whether there was any rule mandating these meetings - there was not. I asked who initiated this tradition and they said they had offered it. I then said bearing in mind they were doing the coaches a favour and they weren’t bound to do it, why couldn’t they simply say this brining of stats, laptops etc had to stop and they would only discuss laws and their approach to specific situations without reference to either team or its players. If the coaches didn’t agree then stop the meetings; they obviously weren't achieving what they wanted anyway.
This was met with incredulity and comments like 'we can’t do that' ' that would not work' when I asked why nobody could give me an answer though many shook their heads as if to say 'you don’t understand.'
When I pressed them as to why they couldn't do this they finally said they would get criticised by the coaches who would complain.
I then said why don’t you complain about the way they have perverted the meetings for their own ends - no answer. I said that if that happened they should issue a press statement explaining why these had been stopped and put the blame where it lay - no, couldn't do that.
That 45 minutes session ended with no resolution to do anything; nobody actually made a suggestion and my approach was not out-argues it was simply said to be impossible.
As the meeting broke up I was moved to say that I has listened with growing dismay at not only the problem they had allowed to occur and the fact that thought they complained bitterly they didn’t seem to have the will to do anything about it and that being the case they should either stop moaning or take some, any,. action. No response.
I can understand that individually they would not take a stand, but they wouldn’t even go with a collective voice to the IRB and tell them that they wanted this issue sorting.
It seems to me that in many areas where referees come into conflict with different parts of the game they feel that they cannot take action to right the wrongs that they see. This may be down to them having no faith in the people at National and IRB level who are supposed to be their managers and that they do not feel they will support them. I understand that but in the end individually and collectively elite referees have to make a decision about certain issues and whether they are important enough or them to make a stand
If, in the end, there is no issue that they feel strongly enough about to do this then however unfair they have to put up with what they get because when it comes down to it they weren’t prepared to do anything about it but talk and moan. If they try and fail that is a completely different matter as they did their best.
That is a general comment and since the dawn of time people have had to make decisions about issues and what to do about them. Sometimes it take guts and the risk of failure and unpopularity to get things changed and I don’t take this lightly and know how hard it can be. Between 1991-95 we fought with Dudley Wood about the amended amateurism rules and were under co9ntwtant threat of de-selection, though nobody knew about it.
As far as popularity goes - do any of you think people like referees as a collective? No, they blame them for everything, stereotype them but in rugby, for the time being, they are regarded as essential and are still afforded a good amount of on and off the field respect.
My point is that risking the unpopularity of coaches and players is not as great a risk as portrayed. These two sets would stab you in an instant if they thought they could get an advantage and win - I know - 'I would have done that because that is what my responsibility was a player - to win. Your responsibility is to officiate and control the game and whilst you can take coaches and players comments into account they should never be anything like a guiding principle because they are made with their interests to the fore.
Take the above issue - if there had been a war of words in the press the referees would have won, because clearly the coaches would have been exposed as taking advantage of their largesse.
With present issues elite referees have to act collectively and demand change and be prepared to take action if it isn’t made. A strike or even a threatened strike would rock the RFU and IRB to its core and if it was handled properly and clear and proper reasons were given for the stand the press would back referees because like me a lot of them think the game is in danger of sliding towards football excess. The majority of the rugby public will support firm action as they see the dangers as well. However, if referees think they will not get blamed if they keep their heads down and just do as they are told, by coaches, players and anyone else, they are completely wrong. They will be blamed and that is not fair but it will be the case.
The one thing I know from all my dealing s with the RFU and IRB is that publicity is the thing they cannot stand against and that is the most effective negotiating tool. In private they will tie you do in subcommittee ad hoc working parties and the like. Public action gets things sorted even if it creates casualties.
At the end of the day if elite referee cannot act collectively, and I have my doubts as to whether they are incapable of this because they are mostly out for theme elves as individuals, they cannot complain.
The question was asked earlier - why should anyone stick their neck out? The answer is they don’t have to but don’t whinge about where that leads you. I have spoken to several football referees societies and I have seen where the failure of collective and individual will leads and I suspect that not many people on here will still be officiating if we get there. Whilst I will understand I won’t sympathise because sometimes you have to fight for things you want.
