STEVE WALSH DECISION TO GO POSSIBLY A SHOCK, BUT OTHERS AT THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM MIGHT CONSIDER JOINING HIM

David Matthews ponders the reasons for calling it a day. . . . or failing to do so    

In one of the many analyses of the 2015 Six Nations, a question the pundits were asked was, “What was the best decision of the Tournament?” to which Brian Moore responded, “The decision of referee Steve Walsh to retire.” I don’t normally shout at the television as I watch a game, but when England were beaten 30-3 in Wales two years ago (a result which they never cease to enjoy reminding us about) I was on the point of throwing something; he had no little influence in shaping the development of what turned out to be a real hammering for England. Their inability to satisfy his requirements at the scrum was the crux of it all, nor did he seem very pleased with the protestations from their forwards. It was not his first or last dabble with controversy.

Amongst a catalogue of misdemeanours, in 2009 he ‘retired’ from his refereeing position in New Zealand and left for Australia where he was offered affiliation to the Australian Rugby Union. Subsequently managing to return to the IRB Elite Panel, he claimed a number of distinctions including refereeing the most Super Rugby games, a total of 111. Though appointed to this year’s games between Wales and Ireland, England v France, he suddenly announced his retirement, at the age of 42, to take up business interests outside the game. I can’t offer any more details but it seemed to happen very abruptly. In spite of his various brushes with authority he was regarded as good for the game, a compliment that always eluded my assessment; I never had the opportunity to work with him but the impression he gave was one of arrogance.

The question has been posed in these columns as to what referees do when they retire, but never why they decide to call it a day. Injury is the most obvious reason or being too old, though some don’t seem to have had enough even when they ought to know better. I fail to grasp the appeal of trying unsuccessfully to keep up with play in a lower team game, with the result that many decisions are made from miles away. All very well for those who still go out each week, along with quite a few players, to defend it with the old John Dawes adage “No referee, no game,” but surely patrolling the centre of the halfway line in the manner of an ageing football referee doesn’t look right? On a ‘Presidential’ visit to Colne and Nelson in September I did witness exactly that. First, walking past the local football team’s game, the referee could definitely not be mistaken for being a member of the FIFA panel, then lo and behold when the rugby teams came out, what appeared to be his double was the man in charge. In a strange way everyone looked as if they were enjoying it. Maybe the tolerance level in a game like this improves or the players have the famous John Dawes saying etched in their minds?

All a far cry from the international scene in which there are invariably political influences at work. Very occasionally at this rarified level has there been too many unexplained disappearances but, below this at the RFU Panel stage, one or two have given it up who looked to be marked out for great things. The mystery element of Steve Walsh’s departure has been covered by “business interests outside the game” but I wonder how much irony there could have been in the wearing of a tattoo on his left inner arm; it read, “ He who controls himself, controls the game.”