I am fairly sure that nobody should be expected to put up with the direct complaints that had been levelled. I almost used criticism and although it may the correct term, when taken outside the context of constructive feedback as in this case, there was nothing in Erasmus' conduct or intent other than being destructive.
We all know that different people interpret all things in different ways and that includes not only the application of the laws of the game but also how we hear and accept feedback. This is not about being a snowflake but more about the governing body standing up for the people that make the game possible, often in spite of the way that same governing body gives unfathomable guidance that we as referees often cannot grasp. That pundits don't want to engage and understand and continue to talk over the referee so will never understand and therefore the opportunity of the fan to gain a greater understanding is not possible. Bizarrely the fans then believe one of the people with the biggest vested interest and therefore probably the worst possible view on the subject. And then jump on the bandwagon to throw the abuse.
More like football everyday:shrug:
I've said on here a few times we can get all forensic and review every situation in minute detail via the TMO but watching the Ireland v AB game on NZ sky at the weekend it seemed form the pundits, JK and Mils, there was very little appetite for interruptions and they were happy that Ireland would have had a try rather than review.
www.rugbypass.com
(too soon or too bitter?)
