“What happens at the top trickles down” – Refereeing rugby at the community level
“By and large, referees are treated pretty well at the community level”, Hannah Everitt, West Manager for the London Society of Rugby Football Union Referees (LSRFUR), told Sports Gazette.
“They are made to feel welcome and appreciated in their role by the home clubs and generally looked after post-match.
“However, where issues of dissent or outright match official abuse now occur, they seem more vicious and the players or coaches making them seem to think they have a right to do this now.”
Everitt’s concerns with the changing relationship between officials and teams at the community level are not abnormal or isolated. Rather, they are a direct consequence of what’s happening in the international game.
Last week, international referee Wayne Barnes harrowingly revealed that abuse and threats of violence had been targeted towards him, his wife and even his children, all simply because of decisions he’d made refereeing a game.
After taking charge of the November test between France and South Africa, Springbok Director of Rugby Rassie Erasmus tweeted a series of clips in which he criticised Barnes’ decisions. These tweets acted as a catalyst for a furore of anger that escalated into abuse.
Two weeks later, Barnes was due to celebrate reaching 100 tests with the whistle when England hosted South Africa at Twickenham. However, he opted not to attend with fears he and his family would be subject to abuse.
This was telling. Men’s international rugby’s worsening relationship with officials had reached an unprecedented point, with Barnes’ revelations revealing just to what extent.
Much like the case of football, Everitt believes there is a direct link between behaviour towards officials at the international level and at the community level.
“What happens at the top trickles down to community level.
“This is perhaps most noticeable as a dissent issue, with an increase in players appealing for decisions or making comments if the decisions don’t go their way.
“However, we are noticing more issues with coaches commenting on referees than we used to have.”
Everitt’s last point is interesting given that it is with the inimitable Rassie Erasmus himself that this issue emerged. Banned for 12 months following his hour-long video dissecting the decisions of Nic Berry after the first 2021 Lions Test, causing Berry “irreparable damage” to his reputation, Rassie took to Twitter again for his recent tirade against Barnes, landing him with another two-match ban.
Perhaps Rassie truly believes his actions are harmless, or perhaps the inaction from the Springbok union makes him think he can get away with anything. Regardless, it’s clear that his actions are not isolated, his behaviour legitimizing similar actions further down the rugby ladder.
Based on Everitt’s comments, not only have his actions incited a general legitimization of dissidence against referees but he sits at the starts of a clear chain between international coach behaviour and community coach behaviour.
The ripple effect has lead to a recent spike in referees wanting to quit due to abuse, putting further pressure on a refereeing pool already struggling with post-Covid participation.
Everitt said: “We have definitely had some older, more experienced and dedicated referees threaten to quit recently citing match official abuse.
“The society (LSRFUR) have worked with them to give them the space they need. Ultimately, they are still refereeing, but it took good people time and patience to reach this outcome.
“Online referee forums suggest this is both a national and international issue for community rugby. Not every society will have the ability to help referees through issues caused by match official abuse. It isn’t something we should have to do.”
For Everitt, the solution is clear; sanctions have to be stronger at the international level.
“At the community level the sanctions are quite severe and are upheld quite consistently.
“There is a frustration that actions for referee abuse at the top level aren’t as severe or upheld as consistently.”
Everitt has a point. For instance, Pau head coach Sébastien Piqueronies was recently given just a 10-week ban for grabbing the arm of referee Sam Grove-White. Initially cited for physical abuse, Piqueronies was instead found guilty of using threatening words and actions. This reduced his potential ban from 96 weeks down to 20, which was then halved due to his guilty plea and clean disciplinary record.
If Erasmus gets 12 months for a YouTube video, 10 weeks for physical abuse is desperately inconsistent. It suggests that referee abuse is yet to be taken seriously by disciplinary panels.
Until consequences for referee abuse become heavier and more consistent, officials will continue to be at the mercy of coaches and soon rugby will not be that sport that holds their official to high regard.
Respect of the referee is a totem of the games supposed moral high ground, but it’s clear from recent events this is just a self-perception.
The lack of support means referees have had to act for themselves. Earlier this week, it was announced that international match officials would be launching their first representative body with a key goals to support their physical and mental wellbeing.
Ultimately, Everitt believes there needs to be an understanding across the whole community of what a referee is trying to achieve on the field.
“We’re not there to blow the whistle at every slight thing we see”, she said. “As long as players and coaches think that, there will always be a frustration.”
Recognising referees for what they are, namely volunteers who do it for the love of the game, is critical. Only then can the relationship between players, coaches and officials begin to be re-built.
Read next: The road Warriors return home for historic 1872 Cup opener
