When the hits are high, inconsistent officiating presents the United Rugby Championship’s (URC) referees with a bit of a headache.
URC head of referees Tappe Henning admits match officials don’t always get it right when decisions have to be made after a head contact. He was quick to point out, though, that they were on top of the problem. “We are not happy with it,” he said.
“We have seen a lot of decisions that have drawn media and social media attention. We’ve seen a variety of decisions where things look the same, but are ruled differently. We need to be smarter, we need to work harder and we need to align ourselves better for consistency.”
Henning said coaches demand consistency but decisions around head contact fall short of that mark.
The game’s lawmakers are in the throes of a clean-up act. Rugby has made headlines for the wrong reasons, with former players who suffer long-term effects of head knocks queuing up to take the game’s top brass to task. “There has been some class action about the game not doing enough, and not informing players of the risks around head injuries,” said Henning.
As a result, laws are now scripted with an abundance of caution, but rugby at its core remains a collision sport. “We need to determine when is it foul play and when it is a rugby incident,” said Henning, a former top ref.
“Heads, arms, shoulders can end up in the wrong place because the game is dynamic. Players step, there is change of direction and height. These are all the things we need to take into consideration when we make a decision about head contact. If you take all those variances into consideration, there’ll be some inconsistency and differences of opinion about what has been observed.”
As a result, match officials — who already have a lot on their plate — have a lot more to digest. Some officials, however, get it wrong more than others. Henning assured there was accountability and transparency. “We do a performance review and we expect referees to achieve certain levels. The review is based on agreed expectations with the teams and coaches. We’ve narrowed it down to five areas, with three key things in each area we believe referees need to be on top of. If they don’t perform well against those agreed expectations, we have a discussion with them and put the referee on a remedial programme.”
Referees who return to their home unions have to monitor their progress typically over a three- to four-week period. “If the poor form continues, we will not select that referee onto our URC again,” he said.
Henning is all too aware how referees are appraised is not the only area in which public perception needs to be brought in line with reality. Laws are often tweaked but they are not at the drop of a hat. “The process is not straight forward. It’s not a group of people who sit in a room and decide a law should change and then it is changed.
“All member unions, from the old Five Nations and old Tri-Nations, have representation in the room. First it is off to what we call a law laboratory, where the wording of the law is discussed and then it goes to countries who volunteer to trial those laws at the lower end of the game.”
The Koshuis leagues at Stellenbosch University have been instrumental in giving law variations grounds to breathe. “They are then taken to club, semi-professional like Varsity Cup, the U20s and eventually into the June (July) as well as the autumn (northern hemisphere) window of Tests. A lot of data is collated from those games. After a two-year period it is put before World Rugby to make an informed decision,” Henning said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.