Online criticism of referees spirals out of control

[ad_1]

On Sunday, very much in character, he lent his support to team-mate Olly Woodburn, who was sent off for a second yellow card in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent Chris Ashton from scoring. He was ruled by the TMO to have fallen on Ashton illegally as the former England wing was tackled by Stuart Hogg, and by the rules of the game Karl Dickson was right to send the Chiefs winger off for an early dip. However, as it quickly became apparent, the majority of rugby fans viewed the decision as nonsense and ignited social media, railing against the idiocy of the decision.

Nowell grabbed his phone and tweeted, I’m actually in shock, like in shock. What is happening ? It’s one of the worst decisions I’ve ever seen. NEVER.

It didn’t take Hercule Poirot to assume he was venting his anger on a match official, and he was summarily followed by Devonian fraternity, Henry Slade and Luke Cowan-Dickie, who were equally perplexed, and let’s face it. -le, exasperated.

A puzzled Olly Woodburn is sent off for a second yellow card against Leicester Tigers (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

With a seismic Heineken Cup quarter-final against La Rochelle 10 days away, Rob Baxter would love his 46-cap England winger to be tasked with keeping Teddy Thomas in his back pocket, but instead he’ll be sweating because Nowell will don his sharpest (and probably only) suit to discipline tonight on said tweet even though he deleted it hours later when he calmed down, or more likely a confidant urged him to remove it in case it lands in hot water. The club later said they would stand firmly behind him.

Of course, any attempt to disguise his rush of blood to the head was doomed and his emotionally charged missive was duly noted in TW2.

In due course, the RFU charged him with conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Union and the game under RFU Rule 5.12 for criticizing the referee’s decision on Twitter to his more than 61,000 supporters.

Just over a decade ago, watching rugby on a couch or in a pub, rugby fans could raise their hands in exasperation at a refereeing decision they disagreed with , swearing in front of the TV, but basically forgetting about it as the game progressed.

Since the announcement of the disciplinary sanction, the court of popular opinion, on Twitter, for what it’s worth, has largely backed Nowell’s anger and found him not guilty, for his show of support for his crestfallen comrade. . Freedom of speech, your honor, its supporters shouted in unison.

Of course Nowell is right, it was a curious decision that baffled those who watched without knowing the often baffling laws of rugby, and rugby doesn’t want to muzzle one of its most credible personalities, but it’s also true that we don’t want a free-for-all social network against our referees becoming the accepted norm.

Just over a decade ago, watching rugby on a couch or in a pub, rugby fans could raise their hands in exasperation at a refereeing decision they disagreed with , swearing in front of the TV, but basically forgetting about it as the game progressed. .

For the more measured fan, there was a sense that the decisions would level off as the season progressed, but not now. Now there’s a platform to instantly and emotionally communicate how you feel and what rugby doesn’t cover in a glow of soothing, feel-good vibes. Rather the opposite. When opprobrium rains down on the individual employed to enforce and uphold the rules and values ​​of the game, it takes on a more sinister turn.

Jack Nowell and Olly Woodburn are longtime teammates at Sandy Park (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

It seems all rugby fans support the sanctity of the referee, operating in what is a devilishly difficult sport to referee unless it is on their side. Over the past few weeks, Twitter has been relentless in its criticism of game officials and perceived bias against individuals, countries and club emblems. Some of these ardent critics must remember that without a referee we have no game. When this writer spoke to Nigel Owens, the affable West Walian speculated he would make around 240 decisions in a Test match. That’s one every 20 seconds. Such was the intensity of his 100 Test career that he admitted the next day would be a near-cancellation while he recovered physically and mentally.

It seems that every time a referee opens up and says they’ve been the victim of online dog abuse, there’s a short period of reflection and navel-gazing.

We must surely accept that rugby is a perfectly imperfect game. If we want to finish the game before the metaphorical cows come home and speed up the proceedings, some complex 50-50 decisions will have to be lifted. Obviously rugby authorities need to remain vigilant on how to improve the product both in the balance of fairness and as a spectacle, but I understand that the RFU must be seen to meet the standards and underline what is expected of its top players who wield ever-increasing influence on the games of the most malleable minds.

It seems every time a referee opens up and says they’ve been the victim of online dog abuse, there’s a short period of reflection and navel-gazing, but that shaky online truce ends as soon as the whistle sounds and the armchair critics and gung-ho keyboard warriors threaten hell and damnation on their chosen subject. Only a few months ago, Wayne Barnes and his family received death threats after refereeing the France v South Africa match? Barnes, a respected lawyer, was so upset he considered hanging up his whistle, before calling for the creation of a representative body to protect referees.

After Wayne Barnes sent off Pieter Steph du Toit against France, the referee and his family received death threats (Photo by CHRISTOPHE SIMON/Getty Images)

Barnes is just the latest in a long line of referees who have been abused online, which includes Andrew Brace, Ben OKeeffe, Craig Joubert, Jaco Peyper, Steve Walsh and Luke Pearce. Many said it deeply affected their mental health and many considered quitting the game altogether. Do their critics think they could do better? For those who answer in the affirmative, please bring your CV. As a coach at U16 level, there have been many occasions over the years where a referee’s decision has been criticized in a less than polite way, and top players need to understand that they are role models, as their actions permeate community play. .

Adherence to standards is to be commended as criticism of referees is a slippery slope and risks spiraling out of control

Is there an easy answer? Of course not, the social media genie is out of the bottle and there is no turning back. We want fans to care about the game, act as gatekeepers and voice their opinions, but maybe rugby influencers should think twice before posting their opinions on a social forum with a set of rabid trolls and sometimes anonymous who seek to do everything possible to destabilize the people very employed to promote fair play.

To be clear, Nowell’s outburst was not littered with profanity, nor did it encourage abuse from match officials. It was from the heart and was done in a game he would have loved to be involved in, with adrenaline racing through his body, but as a result he led by example, and the upholding of standards is to be commended as criticism of referees is a slippery slope and in danger. to get out of control. You hope that a fair decision will be found and that lessons will be learned.

[ad_2]