JEFF PROBYN
A FRONT ROW VIEW OF THE GAME
Watching the Exeter/Sara cens game it was great to see a referee finally asserting his authority as they did when I played; Luke Pearce used a punishment that we haven't seen in quite a while: the ten yard rule, which was probably the main reason why players in my day didn't question referees decisions no matter what.
Put simply, if anyone other than the captain of the offending team questions or comments on any decision made by the referee, your team is instantly subjected to an additional punishment.
A simple ‘ah ref ' would see the spot from where the penalty is taken moved ten yards closer to the offending team's try line, instantly increasing the chances of the opposition gaining some points from your transgression.
This was something that everyone knew at all levels of the game and could make the difference between winning and losing.
With players at the top of the game now questioning the referee at virtually every call that goes against them or calling for a TMO review, I am surprised it has taken so long to return.
That's true even at international level, where I cannot remember the last time I saw a referee use it.
The good thing is that knowing it probably contributed to Exeter's win, a number of Saracens fans have come out in support of the actions of referee Pearce, even though he used it against their own players.
This is particularly important at this time as it seems there has been an increase of match official abuse at the grassroots level of the game which in part is attributed to how those at the top react to refereeing decisions and are seen by all through the various media outlets. An increase in the use of this simple yet very effective punishment will quickly reduce the number of those who question a referee and hopefully will cut the abuse towards referees at all levels.
This will help reduce the shortfall in the numbers of available referees. So, if the game wants to grow the numbers participating it is a must, after all it remains a fact that you can't play the game if you don't have the man in the middle.
I couldn't believe the about-turn that Eddie Jones used this week after the criticism he faced over his comments about his players.
Having broken the unspoken contract of trust between coach and players with the comments he wrote in the book about some of the players and particularly those surrounding Maro Itoje, he has now backtracked.
Although the book would have been written well before the Autumn Internationals, it wasn't released until a week after the final game,which should have given Jones plenty of opportunity to ‘correct' any statements he had made in the book that perhaps needed updating. But he didn't.
“There has been an increase of match official abuse at the grassroots level”
It is only after he has been criticised and his views questioned that he has changed his tune and also his previous stance.
Despite the ‘need' to send Itoje, right, for acting lessons because of his ‘inward looking temperament' it would appear Jones now sees Itoje as a future captain, if not promoted by him then probably under some future coach.
As an ex-player I would say the one thing you want from your coach is consistency, not just in how he seeks the team to play but also in his commitment to you as a player Jones, by changing his mind is now honour bound to give Itoje the captaincy for a game or two, otherwise it will appear that he has bowed to the pressure of the comments of others in making his state- ment while still truly believing Maro is not the right man for the job.
The excitement of the first week of European rugby is something all of us rugby fans look forward to as the clubs at the top of their countries' leagues get the chance to see how they compare with the rest.
Obviously, home advan- tage is crucial to teams as they seek to make an impact in these early games and get points on the board.
However, the one disappoint- ment for me was the attitude of EPCR over the Bristol/Scarlets game in failing to allow a postpone- ment, despite acknowledging the fact that Scarlets couldn't field a team because of a government virus rule change.
The squad that travelled to South Africa have had to lock down in a Belfast hotel with no access to training facilities and a lack of play time that could increase their chances of injury should they play.
I am also puzzled why EPCR have rules that give a side a 28 point victory if a game is abandoned given that advancement through the competition can come down to points difference.
The actions of EPCR really show contempt for those who compete in the competition particularly as Scarlets' loss of players was as the result of competing in the new United Rugby Championship, a competition which may eventually make the European Champions Cup a stronger and economically more viable competition.
