“ACTIVE PROTAGONISTS WITH THEIR OWN STYLE”

David Matthews investigates a disturbing claim that cricket umpires will soon be like rugby union referees

The Decision Review System did not exactly play a minor role in this summer’s Ashes Series and Jonathan Liew, commenting on the controversies surrounding it in a ‘Final Whistle’ feature (not to be confused with this article) from a July edition of The Daily Telegraph, wrote “The day surely cannot be far off where cricket umpires are imputed with the same game-changing powers as the referee in rugby union: active protagonists with their own style and character traits, rather than passive messengers of the rules.” Excusing the reference to “rules” – both rugby union and cricket are governed by LAWS – there was ample substance in that to strike a chord, especially at this early stage in the season.

There are some curious contradictions already reappearing in top flight rugby union; going into the third week of action many observers, watching the television coverage of New Zealand v South Africa, must have been wondering whether the use of the Television Match Official had gone too far. It appears that the IRB, in direct contrast to the RFU, has instructed its referees to take maximum advantage of the technology, which made at least one incident from this clash of the best teams in the World all the more bewildering. A South African player was yellow carded for a dangerous tackle despite information from the TMO that it had been quite legitimate; a second yellow card later for the same player, resulting in his sending off, only exacerbated the situation.

As the never ending debate on video evidence began the third week of the season, a much more subjective note brought it to a conclusion. The Northampton coaching hierarchy, after a last minute defeat at Gloucester, made the remarkable admission that a change of referee notified to them only the day before, had totally upset their plans and preparation. Needless to say they were entirely unhappy with the match affecting decisions of the ‘replacement’ while Gloucester’s think tank saw nothing wrong with the issues pinpointed by the opposition, but did add for good measure that they could put forward around thirty incidents which they were upset about!

You now see how “the game-changing powers” perception of a rugby union referee comes in; it is a regular, weekly feature of many fixtures but particularly those at the very top where they never tire of telling everyone about careers and livelihoods being at stake. Pertinent to this constant mistrust from the Premiership clubs was the decision announced in September and already covered in these columns to appoint an ‘independent’ adviser who will review the games each week. This contentious move will definitely be one to keep an eye on.

There remains a body of opinion in cricket who lament the introduction of technology to assist the umpires’ decisions, asserting that over a season good and bad decisions balance themselves out. Rugby Union’s dilemmas are not an exact parallel to cricket, though a number do subscribe to the ‘what goes round comes round’ way of thinking. I always thought that “own style and character traits, rather than passive messengers of the rules” were desirable qualities. Improved communication and a degree of consistency in both games would be better ways of silencing the critics.

How do you think the experimental scrum laws are going? Better, worse, not noticed any difference? All will be revealed in due course.

David Matthews