In praise of American referees

It's fashionable to deride American referees as behind the times, but there may be some advantage to doing things the old-fashioned way.

Match officials here mainly work without technology, such as 'television match officials', and consequently still make the crucial decisions themselves. That is what law 6 intends.

In Saturday's World Cup final, the indecision and delay surrounding Mark Cueto's controversial non-try once again undermined the notion that the referee 'is the sole judge of fact and of law during a match.' Clearly he is not.

As typically happens, Alain Rolland didn't immediately rule on the play but right away deferred to replay official Stuart Dickinson, who agonized over the call for more than three minutes. No matter whether you agree or disagree the outcome, slow-motion TV didn't much improve on the vantage of the two officials who were right there.

(An image which appears to show the diving Cueto's foot on the touchline is circulating. I have not been able to confirm its source, and specifically that it had not been edited.)

The sequence points up a major shortcoming of rugby's use of instant replay. Advocates contend video replay corrects obvious errors, but instead it has come to be used as a safety net.

The Cueto play was almost too close to call; but indeed a call has to be made, and so the ref instinctively delegated responsibility. The effect is to check the game's momentum while someone else does the very thing only the ref can legally do, award a try. Again, it is not the outcome of the specific play but the process that is at issue.

What would Rolland and his sideline official have decided in a game without TV? What would he have decided in an American game, in which the touch judges are often backup players without training and experience?

At the least, rugby should take a page from the NFL's playbook and require a decision within an alloted amount of time.

Comments

[doug lyons]

There is no question that the TMO has become a crutch for the officials. It seems there were a lot of calls to the TMO that could have (or should have) been handled on the field. That sort of indecision isn't good for the game.

[GungaDin]

"In praise of American referees -
It's fashionable to deride American referees as behind the times, but there may be some advantage to doing things the old-fashioned way. Match officials………."

That’s it! – That’s all the editorial is, then a rant about TMO’s and Officialdom.

To be blunt, Ed – you did the referees of the USA a huge injustice. Leading with a praise of American referees - you fail to understand the huge effort these individuals make. While professional leagues are thrown about, no concern has been given to the development of the referees. It has come down to individual LAU Referee societies to conduct their own development regimes. You mentioned nothing about American referees, and the hard work they do to make this game of yours work.

How dare you lead with “In praise of American referees”

[Elmer Gardt]

Preach it, GungaDin. The national office and even bloggers on this site keep pushing growth however they are putting their heads in the sand when it comes to increasing the number of referees. Don't be disingenuous and praise US referees when you don't mean it.