Sanzar shows some teeth in refereeing call
November 11, 2008
The much-criticised Sanzar sporting body has shown it does have a backbone with its decision to scrap its Super Rugby neutral refs rule.
And on the strength of what was been dished up at times by refs in this year's Rebel Sport Super 14, it can only be a good call.
Next year's Super 14 will see referees appointed on merit, not nationality.
So there is the very real likelihood that when the Crusaders face the Waratahs next year, that either Bryce Lawrence or Steve Walsh could be the man in the middle.
Under the system, referees will be appointed from a pilot merit panel that will be named before the start of next year's Super 14.
The panel will then be revised after the first six weeks of the competition, then again before the Super 14 semifinals.
On one hand the decision, confirmed by Sanzar on Monday night, has the potential to open up a can of worms.
The easiest thing for an aggrieved team to do post a loss will be to cry foul over the neutrality of the officials.
And given how the South African teams have taken a fancy at having a crack at New Zealand refs, in particular Lawrence and Walsh, that seems a likely reaction.
However, given that it could save a crucial match being ruined by someone like Marius Jonker, it's a reaction I believe is worth it.
One of the great things about the rival code's NRL is that there is a greater sense of responsibility placed on whistle-blowers.
A bad game or a single match-altering call from a ref or touch judge results in demotion to reserve grade.
Unfortunately for too long in the Super 14, poor refereeing displays have been rewarded by selection the following week.
Sanzar's agreement to scrap the neutral ref rule comes just weeks after they failed to agree unanimously on two crucial calls for next year.
The first was over the rules for next year's Super 14 and Tri Nations.
South Africa want Sanzar to adopt the global experimental law variations' sanctions, which see penalties replace free-kicks following most offences.
Australia and New Zealand both baulked at the move, meaning the status quo will remain.
Then the three nations were unable to agree on the much-vaunted increased play-off structure for the Super 14.
While all three member unions stated next year a six-team format to be played out over three weeks was the way to go, they could not reach a consensus on how to find the top six.
One of the most bizarre theories, understood to come from South Africa, was for the best two teams from each of the member nations would make the de facto top six.
If that scenario had been in force this year; the play-offs would have featured teams who finished first, second, third, fourth, five and eighth at the end of round-robin play.
What do you think of Sanzar's call?
And do you think opening up the way for the best refs to control the best matches is worth a referee's neutrality to be questioned?
And on the strength of what was been dished up at times by refs in this year's Rebel Sport Super 14, it can only be a good call.
Next year's Super 14 will see referees appointed on merit, not nationality.
So there is the very real likelihood that when the Crusaders face the Waratahs next year, that either Bryce Lawrence or Steve Walsh could be the man in the middle.
Under the system, referees will be appointed from a pilot merit panel that will be named before the start of next year's Super 14.
The panel will then be revised after the first six weeks of the competition, then again before the Super 14 semifinals.
On one hand the decision, confirmed by Sanzar on Monday night, has the potential to open up a can of worms.
The easiest thing for an aggrieved team to do post a loss will be to cry foul over the neutrality of the officials.
And given how the South African teams have taken a fancy at having a crack at New Zealand refs, in particular Lawrence and Walsh, that seems a likely reaction.
However, given that it could save a crucial match being ruined by someone like Marius Jonker, it's a reaction I believe is worth it.
One of the great things about the rival code's NRL is that there is a greater sense of responsibility placed on whistle-blowers.
A bad game or a single match-altering call from a ref or touch judge results in demotion to reserve grade.
Unfortunately for too long in the Super 14, poor refereeing displays have been rewarded by selection the following week.
Sanzar's agreement to scrap the neutral ref rule comes just weeks after they failed to agree unanimously on two crucial calls for next year.
The first was over the rules for next year's Super 14 and Tri Nations.
South Africa want Sanzar to adopt the global experimental law variations' sanctions, which see penalties replace free-kicks following most offences.
Australia and New Zealand both baulked at the move, meaning the status quo will remain.
Then the three nations were unable to agree on the much-vaunted increased play-off structure for the Super 14.
While all three member unions stated next year a six-team format to be played out over three weeks was the way to go, they could not reach a consensus on how to find the top six.
One of the most bizarre theories, understood to come from South Africa, was for the best two teams from each of the member nations would make the de facto top six.
If that scenario had been in force this year; the play-offs would have featured teams who finished first, second, third, fourth, five and eighth at the end of round-robin play.
What do you think of Sanzar's call?
And do you think opening up the way for the best refs to control the best matches is worth a referee's neutrality to be questioned?
Post a comment
To post a new comment, you must Sign in first.