My view is that success is measured by outcomes. In this case, are we seeing better consistency between referees, and with one referee within a match? Are we seeing an improvement in the quality of decision making? Do we think some laws are poorly framed making refereeing of them difficult?
The fact is, there IS an internal system where feedback is fed up the chain, and that the referees do themselves regularly meet to discuss both individual performance and application of the laws.
On any measure that you choose to take, the system as described is not successful in delivering improvement, and is thus not working. My belief is that is the root cause of Deano's frustration.
Do we think that, with better training, more time, etc. any given referee will 'improve' (use whatever measure you want)?
If we argue that refereeing becomes more complex and difficult as one progresses up the ranks (from junior, through amateur, then professional, then international), then the Peter Principle would assert that a referee would at some point likely be 'promoted' to the level of difficulty that no amount of training will empower them to perform well.
It is all very well saying Deano should be slammed. He will be. Just as Rassie was. The problem though has not gone away, will not go away. The ref is always right is a bonkers law. This is a 'sweep it under the rug solution'. In games, players will come to 'trust' some referees less, respect them less. Where do you think it will end? Soccer comes to mind. Respect is not dictated, it is earned. That is a basic tenet of human nature, and we cannot ignore it.
That is what I inferred in my earlier comment. Whether you like it or not. What Deano said was correct, but it was not 'right' for him to say it. Do you think Lee has not felt the same after many matches, or Dimes, or any others of the DoRs? They all have. Lee has the good sense not to publicly say anything, but the twitterverse will be full of such comments. Are they all wrong? Well, the 'sour grapes' explanation has to come as a riposte. But, I have posted before now about how poor such and such a referee was, when we won. Is that sour grapes?
How did any of you feel as a player when through a whole game you knew the ref was so bad, maybe so against your side, that you simply couldn't win? I know I have played in such matches. How did you feel? Did it make you want to simply not play? It did for me.
Professional rugby players are just as human as you and I. They feel badly done to when a ref just is just plain bad. It spoils their job for them.
Always a Wasp
