When David Cameron decided that a vote on the UK’s membership of the European Union would be a good thing, he also made another mistake: that the outcome would be decided by a simple majority. Fifty per cent plus one would do the trick, which indeed it did.
Such majorities risk causing deep rifts whereas a two-thirds or three-quarters requirement is clearly decisive, so the losers cannot complain. In the event, the result of the vote in 2016 was 52 per cent “leave” to 48 per cent “remain” and as tight and divisive.
Just over a year ago, there were three contenders competing for one highly influential job, chair of World Rugby, after Bill Beaumont’s tenure ended: Abdel Benazzi from France, the Italian Andrea Rinaldo, and Australia’s Brett Robinson.
Rinaldo was eliminated quickly, then Robinson won the play-off. But narrowly the score was 27-25. Just one vote away from a tie, and only two from a different result.
Robinson, who is to be congratulated as the first chair from Australia, has been open about his ideas. He suggests introducing new laws before this year’s Rugby Championship, so that these can then go global and be utilised in the 2027 Rugby World Cup.
World Rugby’s regulations state any law-change must have 75 per cent approval, a requirement which Robertson says is outdated. But it is there for good reason and avoids the fractious discord we’ve seen in the UK since “leave” squeezed through.
Rushing through law-changes, without the due process of the various stages of trialling, is also unwise. It takes longer than a year to see how things shape up and what manipulations the coaches may introduce.
The law of unintended consequences is ignored at World Rugby’s peril. We see it now with the lineout trial, which needs urgent adjustment. The scrum also needs surgery, but holding your breath is not advised.
Brett Robinson says the northern hemisphere has been slow to adopt the bunker system due to a lack of understanding. Photograph: Charles McQuillan/Getty
Before the 2019 World Cup the head-high tackle framework was very much last-minute and caused havoc. The referees, coaches and players had no time to become accustomed to the needs of what was actually necessary for player safety, albeit introduced far too late.
Robinson also says the “north” have been slow to adopt the bunker system due to a lack of understanding. But it’s actually nothing to do with understanding, it is all about player safety and welfare.
Those who oppose the 20-minute red card are completely genuine in their conviction that the referee should be allowed to issue a permanent straight red. And not just for egregious violence such as head butts, testicle-twisting and eye-gouging, all of which have made ugly appearances recently.
Concerned unions know that unlawful dangerous collisions, concussions and dementia are ever present and that the avoidance of brain trauma must be central to World Rugby’s thinking. If it is not, the sport has a terribly serious problem.
Robinson refers to the differences as being “hemispheric” and he’s right.
In the recent match between France and South Africa match it appeared that referee Angus Gardner was reaching for a yellow card for Lood de Jager’s head-high assault on France’s Thomas Ramos. However, having consulted his “northern” assistants, Gardner delivered a straight red.
It points to a perturbing point of difference as to what kind of dangerous play deserves a straight red and what kind goes to the bunker.
We hear lots of talk about balancing the spectacle of the game with player safety. If De Jager-like actions are only a 20-minute red card then the balance tilts completely to “spectacle”. That’s a point of view, I suspect, which will be derided down south.
Then the question of who operates the bunker arises, often former referees who have never officiated at the highest level. Indeed, several have not come even close to refereeing a professional game. So huge decisions are taken away from a most-experienced official and given to the least experienced. Riddle me that.
There is also talk of combining the role of TMO with the bunker in certain competitions. So, while the official studies foul play replays, he can also keep watch for other stuff. No, sorry, he can’t; we are badly designed, with only one pair of eyes.
The involvement of the TMO is to be studied by a new group, set up by Robinson and led by New Zealander Mark Robinson. It’s a necessary initiative, which could be a game-changer. The outcome is awaited with enormous interest.
Referees ensuring that kick-chasers have access to the catcher is also generating comment. The kick-chaser is allowed to leap high, tapping the ball backwards with one hand, thereby retaining possession. A mooted solution would ban the tap, insisting on a genuine attempt to catch the ball.
I wonder what the sanction would be and whether it would apply only to box kicks or to all “up and unders”. And what about a high-attacking cross kick that is batted back by a player who out-jumps a defender for a team-mate to gather and score?
A hot topic for World Rugby must surely be getting the breakdown refereed correctly, consistently across all global competitions. Fast ball is essential to speed things up, so caterpillar rucks and moving the ball backwards at a snail’s pace before playing it must be on the forbidden list. Combined with referees calling “use it” much sooner, these would be positive in promoting a running game.
World Rugby will shortly hold a “Shape of the Game” conference. Rather than any radical new laws, actually refereeing what’s already there would solve a lot.
Everybody involved should remember the adage that acting in haste often leads to repenting at leisure. The saying “festina lente” (hasten slowly) was the oft-repeated motto of the emperor Augustus. The conference would do well to heed Rome’s ancient leader.