Archive
THE WHISTLEBLOWER
BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY
David Matthews assesses the lessons to be learned from another Football controversy.
Chelsea FC v Mark Clattenburg, one of Football’s latest attempts to numb the senses through relentless media coverage, does throw up some useful debate for Rugby Union. We may never know what was alleged to have been said between player and referee in this stormy encounter but comparisons have already been drawn between the two sports as to how the communication technology is employed. The referee, his assistants and the TMO, where one is used, are all wired up in Rugby as indeed they are in Football but, crucially, the conversations in the latter are not available on the match recording. Ed Morrison, Head of the RFU Professional Referee Development, was asked for his thoughts on the issue and commented that not only did retaining all dialogue on the tapes prove vital should any controversy in a match need to be scrutinised but that players were aware that anything they said could also be picked up. It may not have eliminated foul language altogether but there was definitely evidence that many were having second thoughts before launching a volley of expletives at the referee.
A suitable time then to review just what methods the Rugby referee might, or perhaps should be using as he manages the game although even that might not be universally approved if Nick Cain’s ideas in one of “The Rugby Paper” columns are anything to go by. He favours a “zero tolerance” (add that to your ever growing list of infuriating phrases) approach, where the referee engages in the absolute minimum of direction to the players. Doubtless a twenty five plus penalty count, to be found regularly now in the big games, will shortly be drawing his wrath on the basis that the referee was failing to explain what he wanted!
There needs to be a sensible balance. Like every aspect of refereeing development, though individuality is a welcome feature, it is folly to attempt to copy a particular style from elsewhere; the referee needs to be himself. How players are spoken to and how the game is administered are the cornerstones of this progression. We are constantly reminded that the characters, both referees and players, are missing from the modern game, which is probably true, but Rugby is very different now from its halcyon days. Every action and every word are analysed which means that the interaction between referee and player(s) must be a lot more precise.
I was never a fan of using Christian names as the consequence was often that one team felt disadvantaged as soon as the opposition, usually containing several celebrity players, were being addressed in an over friendly, ‘best mates’ manner. Demeaning a player is definitely to be ruled out as is swearing, even if you might sometimes be driven to breaking point. The referee even needs to exercise care when choosing to smile; doing so after an all in brawl sometimes conveys terror rather than the impression of complete control and a misplaced grin in front of the Shed at Gloucester following an appalling decision against the home team would definitely not be recommended.
So you see there is a lot more to the art of communication than would at first be apparent and the learning process continues. At least Rugby has a head start on Football.
Postscript: Final score-