Rugby World Cup!

Ha, well, honestly, I've just come back to this after a very long spell not writing anything (for various reasons, chief of which being a profound laziness) and it seems I set this blog up in May of last year. Unfortunately it looks like my blogging may have much in common with Christmas and marital sex - they all come once a year... hmmm, maybe I should leave the jokes alone for now...

...anyway, here's something I wrote ages ago and meant to post, but clearly never got around to - about the rugby world cup.

So, what to make of recent sporting events? The rugby world cup is my current focus – I’m devouring as many games as possible, trying to make sure I watch each team at least once. And loving it. But, the beauty of sport is that there's always something to discuss, improve or debate - and here's something I've been pondering recently:

- I think it’s hugely unfair that almost all the referees talk incessantly to the teams in English. Understandably, with the heartlands of the games being English-speaking, this reflects in the referees. But, with the increase of preventative refereeing – where the ref is constantly warning players of potential infringements, giving instructions and generally trying to shepherd the players through the numerous laws, by-laws and interpretations of the game – this hands an incalculable advantage to those English-speaking teams. For example, in both Ireland-Georgia and South Africa-Samoa you could see the non-englishised teams growing increasingly frustrated with giving away penalties and free-kicks for offences the opposition were avoiding by following the ref’s instructions - “hands-off’ and “roll away” being the most obvious examples. It’s an enormous advantage to have a final warning at almost every breakdown – when you hear ‘hand’s off’ you make an exaggerated gesture of throwing your arms up, and the foul is avoided.
Further, I’m sure referees must, unconsciously even, instinctively go to penalise someone when they’ve given a clear instruction to do something and it hasn’t been done. As much as the ref should know they’re facing a language barrier, the fact that the instruction has clearly been given and ignored can only prejudice what is, essentially, an instinctive reaction.
You could suggest that these instructions are so simple, why can’t everyone learn them? But rugby, especially these days, is such a frenetic, exhausting game that you can’t expect some lumpy Georgian prop who’s just run 40 metres to tackle an Irish back to be able to recall his rudimentary rugby-english and differentiate between an instruction to roll away and the demand that the tackled player release the ball, especially when it might be barked in any manner of heavily inflected national accent! The immediacy with which you comprehend your own language hands English-speaking players a real competitive edge. Is there a solution? I fear that if the refs suddenly imposed a policy of silence during play, the players would be so lost without their constant direction anarchy would break out – the first ruck would turn into a 30 man rumble for the ball. That or the English speaking players would take so long to get used to it the other teams would be handed huge advantages in the first games of any tournament…although that might not be a bad thing at all.

Generally, I think preventative refereeing is a great thing in national leagues, where everyone, or at least the majority of every team, will understand the ref. It really seems to improve the flow of a game when stoppages are avoided and players can quickly learn what the ref is expecting and where he draws the line. But, for the world cup, and also, whilst I’m thinking about it, international club tournaments like the Heineken cup, what can be done? Obviously, if bilingual referees can be found, then there is no problem. As long as he’s rugby-capable in both languages, everyone’s a winner. However, we can’t introduce bilinguity as criteria for ref-selection, or the current standard will drop even further. Officiating the modern game is near-impossible already, never mind making non-linguists think about something else. The only two solutions I can think of (short of inventing some babel-fish-like language device) is either cutting out all such game management, or rendering it universally understandable. I think you must either force players to make their own decisions and interpretations, and hope the referees can officiate consistently enough that the players will learn the margins and expectations as the games progress. Or, you devise some sort of simplified rugby-language. Perhaps referees should only be allowed to address players by nationality and number, and the only instruction they can offer is a polar yes or no. This should allow them to get their point across, either of admonishment or approval, without giving one side a huge advantage by offering specific instruction. For example, in the Ireland-Georgia scenario mentioned above, the ref might, instead of shouting ‘hands off’, shout ‘Georgia - one - NO’. As long as the foreign players can recognise their own number, and the name of their country (something, by the looks of them, some may struggle with!), it could work. It’s not perfect, and I’m sure would lead to some confusion, but if it even slightly rebalances a playing-field that is already skewed hugely into the big-boy’s favour through finances and infrastructure, I’d be in favour. These teams have really showed up this year (of course, not limited to the non-english-speaking, Canada and the US will both leave with real pride, but Georgia, Tonga and Portugal are the leading lights), huge of frame and heart with no little skill besides, they deserve a fair shot at every game, and I’m not sure the current situation is allowing it.