Bad refereeing

What makes for a bad refereeing mistake?

Let's be honest - every referee makes a mistake every now and again. Probably less often than players and coaches believe in the heat of the moment, but make mistakes they do.

But why are some of them shrug and move on, while others are talked about for days, weeks, sometimes even years?

I rather think the quality of offence is irrelevant. It could be a knock-on to a head-butt - a scrum to a red card - and it might be talked about for ages to come. The clarity and impact of the offence means more - much more.

Contemponi's offside against Scotland was clear - he was miles offside - and critical - because it affected the outcome of the match very clearly. Last second, award a penalty in front of the sticks to the side that's 1 point down... he might have missed of course, but it's very unlikely. It's destined to hang around on Barnes' resume, along with that forward pass and so on for a long time. And Mr. Barnes has just missed another one, catching the retaliation and not the original offence. OK, that's not uncommon, but the original offence wasn't subtle and should have been caught.

There is another issue I believe - that is having a feel for the spirit of the game. Rugby is a game, perhaps more than any other, where circumstances come into play at every moment. A player crawling out the wrong side of the ruck is technically offside but is rolling away from the ball letting the other team play it (at least supposedly). The whistle shouldn't (and usually doesn't) go for that, unless that player impedes the other side playing the ball before he gets back onside. I remember one Tri-Nations match when the opposite lock was pretty much in the three-quarter line and the side with the ball just passed the ball across in front of him like he wasn't there. Clearly offside, but he kept his discipline and watched the ball go by in front of him and the referee kept his cool and let the play develop - not even an advantage because he didn't interfere. Smart and definitely right in terms of letting the game flow. If the referee is one that is generally believed to have a good sense of the game, his mistakes are perhaps overlooked or forgiven more easily. If they're a martinet and blow for every little thing, then missing something is even less acceptable.

RWC Good and bad

As we've got further into the world cup the tier 2 nations have appeared worse and worse. I suspect there are three reasons for this.

First, as a less professional side, it's relatively easy to get up for the first game, but it gets harder and harder as the tournament progresses.

Second, the big teams are, to use a cliché, finding their straps and getting their form teams together, combinations working. In week one playing a bit below par still gives you a win if you're a big side. Come week 3 or 4, you're not worrying about the tier 2 nation, you're playing to show combinations and form for the quarter-finals.

Neither of these can really be changed. But the third one can be looked at.

The 'big' nations play every week or so. They get 6 or more days between matches. The smaller nations often get only 4. Namibia played their 4 RWC matches in 16 days! That's a challenge to fitness and conditioning that even the fittest of the top-flight teams would struggle with - although they have the resources to put out two sides pretty much which the smaller sides don't. That could be changed.

I understand that there's a strong desire to have the big sides play at the weekends to get better TV audiences, and an equal drive to get matches, or at least a match, on every day to keep the audience hooked. However, Russia vs USA or similar is one for the real purists to be honest.

So, what to do? If you have a pattern spreading the 4 groups over 7 days, and we count Friday, Saturday and Sunday as the weekend (possibly only one evening game on a Friday) then we should be able to construct a timetable so that the "big" matches are on the peak viewing days, but there's rugby every day. In addition, we should be able to create a timetable such that everyone gets at least 6 days rest. This might not be as good as 7 days, but will be fairer on the weaker sides, the squads with less depth and so on. It will, of course, also let the bigger sides have a bit more chance to soak sore muscles and recover from minor injuries.

I sketched out such a timetable and you can do it. In fact it becomes quite easy to expand the competition slightly, add a 6th team in each pool and spread rugby wider. I understand this is expensive and time consuming - but you could also add an extra layer (a shield and plate contest similar to 7's) of knock-out rounds. More time, more matches, more TV revenue.

And I hope whoever takes the baton for the next one has noted just how good choirs sound singing anthems. They are, after all, designed for mass singing and it sounds good. The duets last time worked but the choirs have been great. Lets do it again please?

I was going to rant about Wayne Barnes. He has no sympathy for the game, no feel for it, and yet again he's made a critical and obvious mistake in a match that has directly and clearly affected the outcome. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone accepts that. If they don't, they don't survive long playing the game, nor watching it. But if you're selecting the best referees you want to pick people that don't make big critical ones often. Missing a knock-on in the middle of a ruck... ok. Missing a player 6m offside causing the drop kick to win the game to miss... not OK. Call a ball being reefed back out of control but legally (I think) a knock-on by the other side - bad. Appearing to change how you referee the break-down REALLY bad.

OK, I've ranted a bit. Hopefully he'll get the shove. Again. And someone will learn.

The first week of the RWC

This week has been too hectic to allow for a review of each match, in fact, I haven't managed to watch more than highlights of some.

The best match, despite the result, of week 1 was SA v Wales. Wales played really well, and South Africa were lucky to win. In fairness, though, South Africa v Wales was, to both me and a die-hard Boks fan I know too close to call for the first time in a while. The wheels could fall off the Welsh wagon - they seem rather lacking in depth in too many positions to cope with injuries for example - but their first 15 are genuinely world-quality players, with certainly Warburton challenging to be recognised as the best open side in the world. I don't think he's there yet, but in a year or two, I think he'll take the crown - stealing it from McCaw's hands, and nudging aside Pocock and Brussow in the process.

The other thing to take away has been the improvement of the so-called minnows. Japan scared France. Scotland were lucky against Romania, Ireland did outclass USA - but it was a match rather than a demolition. On Wednesday Canada thoroughly deserved to beat Tonga - maybe not a huge upset, but a result that 4 years ago would have been unthinkable. The IRB deserves a lot of credit for this. They have been putting money, facilities and training opportunities into improving the game for the Tier 2 nations, and more widely. We're seeing the results of that. In some way rugby is a hard game to do that with... if one side is just 1% better than the other at every position you can get some very one-sided results, even at the highest level. In football, for example, if you're within 5% at every position, winning, or drawing is plausible, but not really in rugby. But that gulf in the Tier 2 nations is down from 5-10% to 2-5% , and maybe this year, more likely in 4 years time if the improvements continue, the weaker top tier sides will lose - at least one of them.

It would be nice to see changes to make the gap narrow even more. In the Southern Hemisphere it's a bit harder, but perhaps inviting a NZ Maori side into the Pacific Nations Cup would make sense to get exposure to the toughest competition. In the Norther Hemisphere there is already an understrength Shadow Six Nations (A-teams from the countries that field them). Making that up to 6 nations by inviting the better teams in tier 2 to replace the major nations that don't field an A-team should make sense to all of them - and a competition for the second tier nations in the November test window would let you determine the top teams and give them more match practise. There must be other ways to do this too, but they are at least moving the right way.

The spectacle and the matches are doing their normal thing. We've had grinding matches, we've finally had a blow-out, but interest is high, at least chez moi.

Will Canada follow up their good performance against Tonga to deliver against an unpredictable and unsettled France? Will Ireland suddenly shake off their cobwebs and remember why they're called the Golden Generation? Or will they be remembered as the generation that hung on for a year or two too long? Will Samoa repeat their heroics of a few weeks ago when they beat Australia in Australia, and repeat Welsh heartache?

I wouldn't put money on any of those results to be honest. In fact if I were a betting sort of girl, I might put money on Australia to beat the spread, I'm so underwhelmed by Ireland. But three matches from six well worth watching for that risk of significant upset should make for a good weekend.