The first thing I notice as I approach Chris is that none of the major print media outlets seem interested in him. In fact, after talking to Sky TV, it’s just me, a freelancer and a couple of students from the NZ School of Broadcasting who approach Chris.

Immediately I realize I’m leading this interview for all the others so I start off by introducing myself to Chris, who immediately asks if I’m related to David McBrearty, a former Air New Zealand Cup referee coach and my father. I think this is getting off to a good start.

First question is an easy one for Chris, in a game free from what assessors would call “critical incidents”, how had he enjoyed the game? Chris tells me that it was an enjoyable game to referee, but he would reserve judgment on his performance until he had checked the tape of the game later.

Thinking this is a fair, if slightly stock and meaningless answer, I press on with my sole “hard” question: There seem to have been a number of issues at scrum time, was this a case of being unable to initially identify the culprit or giving the players a chance to sort it out themselves?

“I thought pre-engagement they were very good and compliant,” he answers, “But after engagement it was very competitive. You had two international players going up against each other and just giving it a good crack.”

The other notable feature of the game, from a refereeing stand point, was the amount of chatter from the players. Referees are never short of advice, but from what I observed, this seemed to be a bit more than usual.

“Everyone’s in to wanting to have a crack,” says Chris, “It’d be boring if they didn’t.”

Finally I ask how he enjoys refereeing the Crusaders. Chris tells me they are a positive team who play an attractive brand of rugby and are always a pleasure to referee, which is a fairly pragmatic answer to give in the players’ tunnel under AMI Stadium.

As I conclude, I can’t resist a cheeky question about his refereeing colleagues and how they are to work with. Chris’s face suddenly breaks into a broad smile. “Terrible, just awful these Canterbury boys,” he says grinning mischievously.

I look up and spot Kane McBride, the TMO, over Chris’s shoulder who returns the grin and I know that these guys share a wonderful passion and camaraderie for one of the toughest jobs in rugby.

As I reflect on the interview, it was somewhat strange to pick apart the referee’s performance and then ask him to account for certain aspects of his game, but giving the fans an incite into how the referees think and critique their own performance can only make the game more accessible. However, as a referee myself I will try to extend a certain level of professional courtesy to the referees and refrain from asking questions like, “Why did you miss so many forward passes?” as was suggested by one reporter after the game.

Two of Fairfax’s star rugby writers, Toby Robson and Duncan Johnstone, penned stories noting that try scoring is down on week one in 2009. They are, of course, correct but perhaps taking too narrow a view of the stats.

Week one of 2010 produced 30 tries, while week one of 2009 gave us 45, a drop of 33%! But the full story is, week one of the 2009 Super 14 was a blip with only week 13 producing more tries (46) and only four weeks out of 14 producing more than 40 tries.

The average number of tries scored in a week in 2009 was 35.57 and three weeks actually produced fewer than 30 tries, so perhaps the drop in try scoring during the first week can be put down to another statistical blip.

So while the esteemed rugby writers of the world pen their editorial columns bemoaning the lack of attacking rugby and claiming that the tough new breakdown interpretations have failed to achieve their goal of more running rugby, because it’s too early to make that kind of comparison yet. One round does not make a season, and the final judgment can really only be made at the end of the round robin.

And here’s an interesting little anomaly: there were actually more points scored in week one of 2010 than in week one of 2009.

Unfortunately it would already appear that 3 News have shown they lack restraint and a little maturity with their first piece of the season about referee Stu Dickinson.

The introduction to the story contains the claim that Dickinson racked up one of the highest penalty counts in Super rugby history. Now claim reeks of a lack of fact checking and reporter putting their own spin on a story with no regard for facts.

Firstly, with the new interpretations of the tackle ball law coming into effect and players reverting to bad habits as they tired, the penalty count was always going to be higher than usual. And that doesn’t even take into account the participants, the Blues and Hurricanes, are not exactly known for their discipline.

Secondly, I seriously doubt that 25 penalties (yes, that’s how many Dickinson gave out, some of us were counting) is “one of the highest penalty counts in Super rugby history.” Just a quick look at some of the other games from this round, Craig Joubert also dished out 25 penalties, while Keith Brown gave out 23 and Jaco Peyper blew 21, yet somehow I don’t see Brooke Sabin doing a story about a record number of penalties being given in the opening round.

Sabin then asks the viewer if Dickinson was refereeing a game of rugby, or trying out for an orchestra followed by a montage of Dickinson blowing his whistle. Another element carefully chosen to portray Dickinson in a poor light.

The claim of blowing his whistle more than 30 times baffles me a little, we know there were 25 penalties, so were there only a few scrums and lineouts in that game, or did Sabin pick “blowing his whistle” as an expression in an attempt to have the view believe that the penalty count was higher than it was (25).

But once again, I come back to my old adage that if the players don’t infringe, the referee won’t blow his whistle. Even Dickinson himself said, “I don’t like blowing a lot of penalties but if it has to be done, it has to be done.”

Referee Dickinson set his standards early on in the game as to what he expected at the tackle, as the referees have been asked to do by the coaches themselves, but the players failed to adjust, yet TV 3 decide to run this thinly veiled hit piece on the referee rather than asking the coaches and players why they did not heed the warning.

Fortunately other media outlets were a little more restrained in their coverage, with Sportal noting that the tackle ball interpretations were known to all Super 14 teams and players would need time to adjust to the way it was being refereed.

So TV 3 and Brook Sabin, you win the first ever Sports After Dark yellow journalism award for intentionally fueling the perception that Dickinson performed poorly, and was to entirely to blame for the somewhat high penalty count on Friday. Perhaps a review of the facts before putting that sort of story to air could be in order…

UPDATE: Having checked up on this story further, it appears TV 3 trimmed a quote from Blues’ coach Pat Lam to suit their agenda on this story.

TV 3 quoted Lam as saying, “I know there were some frustrations on behalf of the players on some of the calls made.” He did say this but added in the same sentence: “but we’ve got to take responsibility. At the end of the day 27 points [from penalties] and an intercept try speaks for itself.”

Disgusting

When All Blacks centre Conrad Smith crashed over the line in the 62nd minute against Wales he seemed certain that he scored, but referee Craig Joubert decided to have the decision checked by the TMO. The decision came back as held up over the line, although the video evidence was decidedly inconclusive.

The man himself said after the game, “Yeah I thought I grounded the ball but who knows? I got up thinking they’d called a forward pass because that’s all the Welsh fellas were telling me, so I didn’t celebrate then they went upstairs… I’m not a fan of the video ref.”

“I’d love refs just to make the call. That’s a big part of rugby. But there’s a fair argument if they’re big calls in test matches and video refs can help them, maybe there’s a case for that but it’s out of my hands.”

Scraping the TMO is not really an option anymore, fans, players and coaches demand that the right decisions are made with regards to scoring and rightly so. However the current IRB protocol for how questions are phrased to the TMO and how the TMO responds to the referee are a bit lacking.

Smith’s non-try was an excellent example. It had all the initial appearances of a try from the body language of both teams but with doubt in the referee’s mind it was referred upstairs. Due to the sheer number of bodies around the ball, there was no clear grounding of the ball so the TMO was unable to give a decision.

So what’s a better protocol for TMO decisions? Personally I like the NFL system where referees make a decision on the field, then check the tapes for “irrefutable video evidence” for overruling their original decision.

This protocol sort of exists within the IRB’s frame work under the question, “Is there any reason I cannot award a try?” but this is only used when the referee is almost certain of a try.

Perhaps the IRB should trial an NFL style of system where referees will instead say, “I believe that a try has been scored, can you rule this out?” or, “I believe the players foot was in touch before the ball was grounded, can you confirm this?”

Of course no system is perfect, but surely the existing one could use a little tweaking.

“Can anyone tell me what the penalty count was?” Deans asked a packed press conference, more accustomed to asking the questions than fielding them. The answer was 13-9 in favour of the Wallabies, but that wasn’t the point Deans wanted to get across.

“I know of the first six penalties, four were in the red zone, and there probably should have been a couple of others when the ball was lifted out of rucks one metre short of the line,” he added. “That’s frustrating from our perspective, particularly when you play a fixture in Tokyo when we’re trying to promote the game… I don’t think it contributed well to the game today.”

The point that Deans was attempting to get across is that the All Blacks seemed to kill the ball almost every time they came under pressure. The video evidence is fairly damning, on the very first Wallaby incursion into the All Blacks’ 22, Adam Thompson flops over the ruck and kills ball, leading to Australia’s first points of the night.

Throughout the night Thompson and Rodney So’oialo spent more time flopping around on the ground than beached whales, frequently giving away penalties but effectively denying the Wallabies scoring opportunities. Only Thompson earned the ire of referee Mark Lawrence but after a brief admonishment, it was back to business as usual.

While this turned out to be a good tactic, and went a long way to securing the win, it is a high risk approach to the game. In a game controlled by a referee less lenient than Lawrence, Thompson and So’oialo could easily have been on the receiving end of yellow cards.

Perhaps most worrisome is the defence of this tactic by All Blacks’ assistant coach Steven Hansen. “It was a very contestable game at the breakdown and when you get games like that you’re going to get penalties, and get people off their feet,” Hansen said, “Both sides were guilty of it, as the penalties on the scoreboard showed.”

That may be the case, but referees will pick up on this and should Craig Joubert police this area more strictly that Lawrence this weekend, yellow cards could hold the key to Wales’ first win over the All Blacks in 56 years.

The most worrying aspect of the All Blacks in the wake of the Durban debacle is the chorus of denial coming out of the camp.Richie McCaw and Graham Henry think the game plan was fine? Steve Hansen doesn’t want to call in a specialist to help with the lineouts? Wayne Smith believes long kicks are a waste of time?

Publicly the coaches are putting on a brave face, privately I’m hoping they are taking a good look at themselves and what they can do to improve. Then again, this is the same group who couldn’t figure out what went wrong against France in 2007.

It has the same delusional tone as comments this season on the form of wing Joe Rokocoko and the “international class” of first-five Stephen Donald.

Simply put Rokocoko has to go. Coach Henry threw Liam Messam under the bus for making some errors against Italy and needs to do the same thing to Joe. Stephen Donald is rapidly running out of chances to prove he is anything but a good Super 14 level first five. Personally I think the NZRU brought back the wrong player when they got Luke McAlister back, they should have got Nick Evans.

The All Blacks need to swallow their pride and admit they got it wrong in South Africa.

If it looks like a dog and sounds like a dog, it probably is a dog and the All Blacks’ tactics in Durban were definitely of the four-legged variety.

Ouch! But right on the button.

To invest in trying to score tries from 70 metres out at test level is suicide. Henry says his side created several try-scoring opportunities. He’s right, but he misses the point.

Those opportunities were low percentage ones because they were launched from so deep. Rugby is a game of territory because it’s easier to score points when you are in the opposition’s half. To deny such tenets of the game is dangerous.

By contrast, the Springboks’ game plan was simple, get territory and kick penalty goals, which won them the game.

Previous All Black teams have sought a perfect game where the ball is kept in hand, pressure applied and tries scored. This side has not earned the right to chase such lofty ambitions, yet. Without Dan Carter there are no players of Christian Cullen’s ilk among the current crop yet, although Sitiveni Sivivatu has rare class.

Looking up and down the current 15, there are few who could be considered game breakers in the mould of Carter or Cullen. Perhaps Ma’a Nonu, but he needs good ball inside him and good wingers to finish his breaks, something he isn’t getting right now.

But to simply paw over the All Blacks’ twin losses will achieve little. There is no shame in losing to a South African side at the top of its game.

Exactly, learn from your mistakes.

However, the All Blacks must address their shortcomings before facing the Wallabies in Sydney, and there are three major areas.

The first is the lack of a credible kicking game, their game plan is an admission of that shortfall. It is easy to fix.

Hansen says rushing Carter back would be “panicky”. The truth is it is essential.

Donald has his strengths, but his kicking game is neither long enough nor accurate enough for test rugby. If Carter’s not ready Luke McAlister’s bigger, more accurate boot should be given the nod.

There is of course the worry that McAlister may not be able to run the back line as well as Donald, but on recent outing it’s a punt that the coaches should look to take.

Second, McCaw needs help at the breakdown. The All Blacks were outgunned by the Springboks’ physicality at the tackle and need to beef up their presence over the ball.

They have struggled with the new rule that allows players to hold on to the ball at the breakdown. Pesky opponents are proving difficult to legally remove. McCaw gets his hands on the pill, but too often the cavalry is too late to capitalise.

He’s unlikely to get a look-in but Karl Lowe’s huge match for Hawke’s Bay on Saturday provided further evidence of his destructive power and ability to steal turnovers.

Yes and no. Yes McCaw needs help at the breakdown but Lowe is not the answer. I think Toby’s pro Hurricanes streak may be showing through here, personally I think Adam Thomson would be a better choice at number six to help McCaw and So’oialo at the breakdown.

The third big issue is the lineout. The obsession with winning ball at the back of the lineout needs to stop. If the All Blacks cannot back themselves to win ball at the front or middle then they have the wrong locks.

Against arguably the best lineout in the world they struggled, but they have struggled all year regardless of opposition. There’s nothing wrong with the lock pairing, what is needed is better tactics and someone who can throw accurately. It also highlights what we lost when Carl Hayman went overseas as lifters are equally important in the modern game.

Rokocoko’s chances on the wing must have run out. Wellington’s Hosea Gear or Cory Jane are the obvious options.

Can’t argue with that, I thought Jane was unlucky to miss out after getting almost no ball against Australia.

The question now is whether the All Blacks will see their problems in time to address them. Perhaps the long flight back from the republic will clear their thinking.

But one wonders if they need an outside voice? Sometimes it is hard to see clearly when you are so close to your subject.

I vote yes! The coaching staff have been together for six years now and seem to have either run out of ideas or lost perspective entirely.

At the top level of sport there is no room for bloody- mindedness or blind loyalty.

In the short term it will mean a long and frustrating Tri- Nations and, more concerning, in the long term will damage New Zealand’s hopes of winning the 2011 World Cup.

That World Cup is only two years away and I don’t yet see anyone putting up their hands to plug those problem areas. What is needed now is a good hard look at the players and coaches, get rid of those who are coasting by on reputation and replace them with those who are showing potential. Sure some of them, such as Gear or Lowe, who might now be ready yet but surely they can’t do much worse than what we saw on Sunday morning.

If Graham Henry is to retain any credibility in the wake of arguably the worst back-to-back All Black performances in the professional era, then the coach has to bring out the selection axe ahead of Bledisloe II in Sydney.It’s as simple as that.

Henry has a fortnight to ponder personnel changes ahead of the Wallabies rematch, but make them he must as he searches for his team’s missing mojo. To prevaricate now will see the coach lose the last vestiges of support he has from a wavering public.

Actually I’m not sure if Henry has any support left outside of the cheerleaders who would support the All Blacks even after a loss to Pakistan.

The coach simply can’t afford not to react to the South African shambles. It wasn’t that the All Blacks lost those twin matches in the Republic, but how they lost them. Between the schoolboy errors, the braindead rugby and the complete absence of poise under pressure, the once-mighty New Zealanders resembled a rugby version of Michael Campbell.

This is a particularly salient point, we can handle All Black losses but when the manner of those losses is so dreadful, that’s when the New Zealand rugby public gets upset.

Where had their game gone? Had aliens invaded their bodies too?

As good a theory as any.

So, accepting that Henry has to make some changes as he searches for a spark to reignite his side’s season, the question is where do they come?

Wing Joe Rokocoko surely tops the endangered All Blacks list after a performance which confirms his complete lack of form, but he’s got some company.

I think everybody’s figured this out by now. So you can be almost certain Rokocoko will be in the team to take on the Wallabies.

Henry and his lieutenants must also be taking a pretty close look at hooker, loose forward, halfback and first five, while tighthead prop will also come under the microscope when a fit-again Neemia Tialata comes back into the mix.

There are issues at all these positions, so far Donald seems to be the best of a bad bunch at first five, Andrew Hore seems to be the only option at hooker after the injuries to Keven Mealamu and Corey Flynn, while I remain unconvinced that Jerome Kaino is the answer on the side of the scrum.

First things first. Rokocoko must go. That surely is a no-brainer.

Yeah but who said the coaching staff have a brain between them. It’s been obvious that Rokocoko has not been up to it for a while now and they’ve continued to pick him.

In should come Hosea Gear, who deserves his chance, though some consideration could also be given to Cory Jane who didn’t exactly disgrace himself against the Wallabies in Auckland. Lelia Masaga would be a left-field callup if it was decided to go the Extreme Makeover route.

They couldn’t do much worse. In fact I think Jane was remarkably unlucky to be dropped after the Wallabies game.

Halfback has also become a conundrum. Supposedly the All Blacks were spoiled for choice there with their three-headed monster.

Instead they now have three No 9s simply struggling for form, with no one appearing too happy either with their lot, the game plan or what the heck they’re supposed to deliver out there on the field.

Brendon Leonard is out of sorts, and his sporadic opportunities are not allowing him to build form. Jimmy Cowan appeared baffled by his instructions last weekend, and may also be struggling to accept a role that’s been whittled down to 40-45 minutes.

And Piri Weepu, the supposed impact man off the bench, has looked out of sorts in that role the last fortnight.

Exactly, the half back wine has turned into vinegar and we’re all stuck drinking it.

What to do then? They could start Weepu and give him his chance, but that would involve a major back-flip in thinking which is something these coaches are reluctant to do. How often have you heard them admit they’ve got something wrong?

They couldn’t admit they got it wrong against France in 2007, they’re not going to start now.

First five must come into the equation, if only because you have a player of Dan Carter’s class hovering on the fringes now.

My initial thoughts prior to the Durban disaster were that Donald should be left to carry on his progress in the test arena and Carter given more time to rebuild his fitness and confidence in the provincial game.

But the weekend has changed my thinking. Donald continues to look so uncertain at times in his backline direction, that Carter must now be all but a certainty to return.

Carter needs at least one if not two more Air New Zealand Cup outings before he could be considered for the call up, and he’s going to get those against Auckland and Waikato in the next couple of weeks. Then the selectors will need to reassess the situation.

Lastly comes the loose forward mix. Richie McCaw is safe, that’s a given, even if he was outplayed by Boks comer Heinrich Brussow at the weekend.

But his mates are not so assured in an area where the All Blacks badly need some impact. Rodney So’oialo has been struggling at No 8 and consideration must be given to starting Kieran Read there.

And as solid as Jerome Kaino has been on defence at blindside, a fit-again Adam Thomson would surely offer much more attacking spark in his best position against the Wallabies.

Looks like I’m not alone in my thinking here. Kieran Read will make an excellent number eight, doing the hard grafting work that Reuben Thorne used to do, allowing flashy players like McCaw and Thomson to do what they do best. I actually think this couple be a formidable loose forward trio if they ever get the chance to take the field.

MARC HINTON’S ALL BLACKS SQUAD: 15 Mils Muliaina, 14 Hosea Gear, 13 Conrad Smith, 12 Ma’a Nonu, 11 Sititveni Sivivatu, 10 Dan Carter, 9 Piri Weepu; 8 Kieran Read, 7 Richie McCaw (capt), 6 Adam Thomson, 5 Isaac Ross, 4 Brad Thorn, 3 Owen Franks, 2 Andrew Hore, 1 Tony Woodcock. Reserves: Aled de Malmanche, Neemia Tialata, Jason Eaton, Rodney So’oialo, Jimmy Cowan, Luke McAlister, Cory Jane.

Glad to see someone putting their neck out and picking a team. It’s hard to argue with any of the selection there really, although I would swap Jane and Gear simply because I think Jane offers more under the high ball, an area we a sadly lacking, and provides a second option for kicking from the back, assuming the All Blacks take up kicking to relieve pressure again.

Marc Hinton at Rugby Heaven was particularly harsh

This was so bad it was almost embarrassing. We awaited the All Black response in Durban this morning, but instead all we got was more of the same muddling mess that has marked their last fortnight in South Africa.If ever there was a vivid example of a team badly out of form and confidence it was the 80 abysmal minutes put in by Graham Henry’s All Blacks at Durban’s King’s Park this morning.

They gifted this win to a very, very good Springboks side that needs no such favours. Too many mistakes; too many bad decisions; too much indiscipline.

All Blacks fans must have been tearing their hair out watching this. Where were the promised improvements? Where was the response from Bloemfontein’s disappointment a week earlier?

Instead it was just more of the same old rubbish.

Indeed, it looked like a continuation of the Bloemfontein outing.

David Leggat at the NZ Herald laments the perceived lack of effort and accuracy:

It wasn’t so long ago that the All Blacks were a byword for rugby efficiency.

They might not necessarily have been the most scintillating team in the international game, did not routinely produce the eye-catching sort of rugby to make the soul soar or lift the fans out of their seats.

But they didn’t lose often, mistakes could be counted on one hand and they possessed huge mental resilience, which could get them out of the occasional jam. Home or away, they were the most daunting proposition in the game.

The days of near total dominance are long gone. But even so, it is legitimate to question when the last time was that a full-strength All Black team produced rugby of the dire quality of Durban yesterday.

Duncan Johnstone points out that the All Blacks need a major salvage operation in the next few games if they are to defend their Tri-Nations crown.

The All Blacks’ ears will be burning on their long flight back from a disastrous two weeks in South Africa.The public and the media finally appear unanimous – that was a very ordinary All Blacks effort overnight in Durban. It was astonishingly inept in so many ways.

In fact for most of the match Graham Henry’s team hardly resembled an All Blacks team. It was the most un-All Blacks like performance since Henry’s 2004 side copped consecutive and comprehensive losses in Australia and South Africa.

There’s something of a theme to these articles, that this recent All Black team aren’t actually playing like All Black team should.

Daniel Gilhooly comments about how the All Blacks poor discipline has cost them in their last two outing and how they seem to get on the wrong side of the referee.

The All Blacks endured an uncomfortable relationship with Welsh referee Nigel Owens but can only blame themselves for not capitalising on a numerical advantage during yesterday’s 31-19 test rugby loss to South Africa.

For the second successive test, the All Blacks paid dearly for indiscipline.

They were caned 13-7 by Owens in the penalty count, which follows the 12-7 tally against them when Ireland’s Alain Rolland controlled last week’s test in Bloemfontein.

Northern Hemisphere rugby writer Peter Bills points out that even though there are positive signs from Dan Carter, it will take more than his return to right the good ship All Blacks

If New Zealanders believe a single lifeboat named The Daniel W. Carter can rescue their floundering All Blacks ship, then they need to think again.

Not even Carter with a magic wand could transform this shambles of a side into a coherent force. Some major surgery and a significant rethink will clearly be required to do that.

The question is, are there other players in New Zealand able to make the step-up to test match rugby? Is what we are seeing pretty much what there is and no more? If so, 2009 looks like turning into Graham Henry’s “annus horribilis”.

Looks like this could be a very long year for Graham Henry and a bumper year for opinion columnists.

Loyal Wellington rugby fans have the chance to win free tickets and a free ride on a special Team Bus to watch their team defend the Ranfurly Shield against Otago in week one of the Air New Zealand Cup.

The New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) is this week launching the Team Bus competition, an initiative to reward the grass roots supporters of Air New Zealand Cup rugby across New Zealand for their commitment to their local rugby.

“This is a great opportunity for those loyal grass roots rugby fans who want to come out and support their favourite Air New Zealand Cup team,” said NZRU Commercial Manager Paul Dalton.

“We want to recognise and acknowledge those die-hard supporters who, by stubbornly supporting their favourite team, continue to add the kind of colour and vibrance that makes the Air New Zealand Cup such a dynamic and exciting competition.”

Each week of the series, a feature game will be chosen either from nominations by fans in local communities, or from the pool of matches. For the community that is chosen, 100 local fans will get to go to the game for free.

“This really is a hunt for those die-hard fans who would love the chance to win free game tickets, free transport, and have a great time while supporting their provincial team,” says Mr Dalton.

The fans win tickets and travel to the game on the Team Bus, preceded by a pre-game experience with food, fun and fan oriented activities such as face painting, creating signs and decorating the Bus in their team colours.

Successful fans and their families arrive at a local rugby club an hour and a half before the game, where they will be greeted by a local rugby hero who will spend time with them and ride with them to the game on the Team Bus.

A free BBQ at the clubrooms will give the fans energy to scream for their team with entertainment provided by partner radio station Classic Hits.

The Team Bus for the Wellington vs Otago match will leave from Norths Rugby Club at Cannons Creek, Porirua.

To register to be on the Team Bus, or to nominate your community for the Team Bus experience to come to your area, visit the Team Bus web site www.teambus.co.nz

Honestly, they want to give 100 fans from a local rugby club the chance to get along and support their team in the Air New Zealand Cup in the spirit of fun and rugby and I say bloody good on them.

Premier grade referee Grant Sinclair said he had had enough of constant criticism from players and coaches, some of which had become personal.

Sinclair told the Marlborough Express newspaper he wasn’t prepared to put up with the grief anymore, giving up his free time to be abused.

This has long been a bug bear of mine on the rugby field. People seem to forget two things on the rugby field, firstly that the referees are human and will make mistakes out there and secondly that referees are volunteers who are giving up their own free time to be out there.

Now I’m all for holding players and officials to account for errors they make out on the field, but shouting abuse from the sideline is not the way to go about it. What happens to a player who makes too many errors? He gets dropped, same thing happens to referees. Matt Goddard was stood down for a week in the Super 14 after displaying some awful man management and is perhaps a better referee for it.

“I don’t think the coaches are playing a big enough role in disciplining their players to respect the referee’s decision,” Sinclair said.

Actually I’ve found the players usually aren’t the worst offenders out there, and referees can deal with players either through the captain or directly. It’s generally parents, supporters and sometime coaches who cause the biggest problems for referees, and their behaviour often incites poor on field behaviour from the players.

The New Zealand Rugby Union said referees citing sideline abuse as their main reason for resigning was a rare event.

Bollocks. From what I’ve learned in my time as a referee abuse is the second most common reason for referees giving up behind petty politics within the referees’ association.

NZRU community and provincial union general manager Brent Anderson said there had been about 50 reported cases of referee abuse this year, below the average of 80 such incidents, from 70,000 games of rugby.

Notice the key word in that quote? That’s because most abuse of referees goes unreported, it’s almost accepted by referees as going with the territory, and I’m not talking about groans of “Aw ref!’ from the sideline.

I once had a parent walk onto the field behind me as I watched a lineout and tell me that a player has to be in front of the number eight’s feet to be offside at a scrum, referring to a penalty I had given about 30 seconds earlier. The parent then walked off the field, leaving me absolutely stunned wondering what had just happened. Is this acceptable behaviour? No! Does this sort of thing happen most weekends, yes.

And for the record, the player was a mile offside when I gave that penalty, plus there was no number 8 as the opposing number 8 was in the sin bin.

The other example I would like to offer comes from my first ever final I controlled. About half way through the first half I realised that every time I blew my whistle it was met with cheers from one sideline and disappointment from the other, depending on which team my decision went in favour of. In essence, every decision I made was thought to be wrong by half the supporters and right by the other half based on which way my arm pointed, does any referee really get half the decisions wrong?

So I suppose my impassioned plea is cut the referees some slack out there. And no matter how bad you think their performance is, hurling abuse from the sideline or confronting the referee later, and that does happen, is completely unacceptable.