The Mote has been roused from his slumbers to consider the thorny problem of referees and comes up with a simple solution to a complex problem:
“Every spectator has problems with the referee because every spectator is a referee.
We all see the game differently, depending of course on which jersey we are wearing, but most of the time our differences are differences of opinion or interpretation and that, to me, is the fundamental problem with the Laws of the Game.
I feel there is little to distinguish the various types of stoppages in play and we would be better served if there was a clear distinction between “errors” and “offences”.
By “errors” I mean instances such as a forward pass, a knock-on ,crooked feed into lineout or scrum, running into a team-mate etc. The generally accidental stuff and the game should restart with a scrum awarded to the team not guilty of the error.
As far as “offences” are concerned I suggest that there are two types to be considered; against a player and against the continuation of play.
“Offences against a player” would include; a high tackle, head grabbing from behind in a maul, a spear tackle, a tackle in the air, a body check, head butt, punch, kick, nipping and front row offences against the person too numerous to mention.
For “offences against a player” I would punish with a penalty and if the offence against a player is a deliberate act then a yellow or red card should be issued, depending on the severity of the injury.
With “offences against the continuation of play”, such as failure to release the ball, off-side, deliberate knock-on, blocking, crossing, feet off the ground in a maul or ruck, in from the side at a maul or ruck, playing the ball in a ruck, interference [tackle, jersey pulling etc.] on a player without the ball, should be penalised according to where they occur on the field of play.
If the offence is committed outside the 22 it should be penalised by awarding a free-kick with play re-started by a tap, punt, drop, or scrum whereas offences against the continuation of play inside the 22 should be penalised with a full penalty.
The difference in the level of punishment is based on the assumption that offences committed inside the 22 are carried out to deliberately deny advantage or gain an unfair advantage, i.e. the “professional foul” is recognised by the penalty. I would take it further and suggest that rugby introduces a penalty spot which could ensure that all penalties inside the 22 have an equal chance of success if the penalty kick option was accepted.
These fixed punishments restore the “natural justice” of the game – does anybody really believe that pulling a players jersey or slowing a recycle really deserves a yellow card while front row forwards who continuously commit fouls which are defined as dangerous play remain on the pitch? Who is the worst offender? Who actually deserves the yellow card?
However the main benefit is that referees would have less influence on the outcome of a match.”
The Mote.
Corrections, comments or questions?