O'Brien, Dickenson-gate Brings Rugby's Governance into Question

In the Roman Empire, the evolution of laws from the early 12 tables through to the Corpus Juris Civilis (the grandfather of basic civil law), was often undertaken for the benefit of abridging them. They followed the principle that “the more laws there are, the harder it is to govern.”

This applies to Rugby Union more than any other sporting code.

For mine, it is one of the reasons why I love our great game more than any other.  Rugby is wonderful to watch for the contest, the complexity, and the different aspects of the game. 

Far be it for me to criticise Association football (or soccer), but I have never quite grasped the context of the statement, “the beautiful game,” when its simplicity can make it numbingly s—l—o—w. 

This is also the case when I watch Rugby League, the closest cousin of our game.  When I see their players tackled, I always shake my head as I watch the tacklers move away and see no physical contest for the ball.

But the inherent intricacy of our game can lead to complications.

After all, one man is governing the match, with two “assistants.”

But we need to take how rugby is officiated with a grain of salt at times. Without being too philosophical to say that to err is human, even with a deep understanding of the multitude of laws, it is impossible to always get it right.

In some cases, the controlling of an area is impossible. When recently reviewing the laws of the game myself, I was again surprised (despite knowing all too well), how many times the rules state the necessity of staying on your feet. Especially at the ruck.

You will never watch a game of rugby where players do not lose their feet in the tackle or ruck area. In many respects, falling deliberately over the tackled player acts as a shield for opposing scavengers, and there is no more effective way of retaining possession.

Which leads us to our next point—paramount above all others—if you can get away with it, you do it to give the team every advantage possible.

However, there are other aspects where at times the referee needs to give a certain degree of carte blanche to teams, especially if:

a) It is not directly influencing play and

b) If one team is being dominant regardless

Of course, we are talking about the recently vexed issue of scrums.

Often (in reference to points a & b), the ball will travel through to the back of the scrum, and the feeding team will prepare to play it out. The official will then blow the whistle because of illegality, even though it is not going to alter the nominal outcome. 

Equally, when a stronger scrum is dominating, penalties are blown, where clearly the front row under pressure will do anything to stop the pressure.

Front row forwards are such because of certain skills, not because of their pretty faces and well-documented abilities as stage actors. 

Too often are props and hookers completely confused with rulings, despite the fact that these specialist athletes spend days practicing their craft.

In this, the IRB needs to be decisive or, more importantly, transparent with the greatest asset any sport has:

The fans.

When the ELV’s were implemented, there was never a crystal-clear indication as to their purpose. 

Worse, they were released with two different sets of principles (the hybrid and global trials), but never truly addressed the key issues of the game.

Even if laws or rules are not to be amended, at the very least consistency needs to be applied. Even better, a uniform acceptance of certain policies and the faith that the man with the whistle will do the best job humanly possible.

Public executions, such as the one that was seen with Dickenson, are wrong.

Equally, policymakers should realistically never come to the defence of a specific party, in this case, the All Blacks. Whether or not New Zealand had a case against the Italian scrum isn’t the point, an overseeing body should remain neutral, at least publically.

But more importantly, if the two points above are said, then as it is with the referees and laws, you need to stand by what is said, not publically retract a delivered edict.

I am an unabashed fan and supporter of the game, but some within the rugby fraternity are growing disillusioned. What's worse, new fans (so necessary to growth) are quickly turning away, confused and unsure of what is happening during a match.

In business, a blemished product is revised, assessed, and most importantly, customer feedback is taken aboard to ensure eventual satisfaction.

Let us hope that rugby can take a page from this well used truism.