Referee Matt Carley will not meet Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus and All Black coach Dave Rennie ahead of the first Rugby’s Greatest Rivalry test match at Ellis Park on Saturday, despite all the mind games being played in the lead-up to the test.
The All Blacks have spread the narrative over the past fortnight that there is only one way to play the game - a fast, multi-phased approach that suits their skillset.
They have claimed - through captain Codie Taylor - that they do the game “justice” by playing this way while both Rennie and Tana Umaga have tried to convince the rest of the world that the Springboks slow the ball down, and that there is deliberate time-wasting waiting to happen by the World Champions in Saturday’s test in Johannesburg.
While none of this is surprising and there was always likely to be a war of words going into the first test, the co-ordinated movement by Rennie and his charges has been interesting to watch, especially as it goes against protocols established at last year’s State of the Game conference where he was not present.
Rennie wasn’t All Black coach at the time, and would, understandably, have tried to push back at some of the calls made by World Rugby after consultation with various nations.
For one - as Jaco Peyper pointed out - the game is one for all shapes and sizes, and should not be dictated to by one nation.
PUSHBACK
Part of it was a pushback by teams like South Africa and France against moves to move Rugby Union closer to League and the threat that both New Zealand and Australia have from NRL in their countries.
That includes protocols on time-wasting, ball in play and several other factors regarding setpieces.
Teams that drive through, pull players back in mauls and lift legs were supposed to be penalised by the new maul law, but this has not been happening on this tour.
What has happened since that conference has been that World Rugby has established new refereeing protocols, which limit the number of clips being sent in after a game, and state that coaches can’t meet with the referee unless the other coach is present.
Rennie announced on Monday that Erasmus had not agreed to a meeting with the referee, as it would have served no purpose.
Asked whether he was going to meet the referee, Rennie said he actually felt the same way about the ref meeting.
“No. For us to do that, we both have to agree. And they sent out an email last week just to have a chat around maybe four key areas, and one of them was around the time-wasting. So Rassie didn't feel there's any need to meet — I feel the same way, to be honest. We've had conversations via email and we've got a summary sent to us this morning, so we're pretty clear,” Rennie said.
MEETING WOULD HAVE LITTLE VALUE
But the reason why the Boks didn’t want to meet the referees was precisely because they felt it had little value.
Rennie has had drinks with the referees - who are staying in the same hotels as the All Blacks - and interacted with them several times during the tour.
As Erasmus points out, there would hardly be something positive that could come out of the meeting.
He agreed that the only option now was to voice concerns in the media, a subtle dig at Rennie’s seemingly orchestrated campaign on speeding the game up.
“I think there's definitely frustration from coaches that you can't have meetings with a referee unless both teams agree. It's got to a stage where you almost expect both teams' coaches to always agree to a pre-match meeting. This week I myself said no, we don't need one, because it doesn't help now, after they've played four games — we can’t sort things out in three training sessions.”
“I don't think it's a tactic — I think it's the obvious thing: if you want to get something out, you have to get it out here, because you can't really talk to the referee. Sometimes the small things which a normal referee meeting would let you alert the referee to — 'just be aware of that, know the law around that' — now you can't, because you'd have to have the meeting with the other coach present.
“You can't say, 'listen, you might be doing a front-pull in the line-out, maybe don't stand there' — because you might not want them to see that obstruction, or not. So teeing up referees with things you want them to look out for is very difficult now.
GENUINE CONCERNS
“And I totally understand why the All Blacks voice some of their concerns — if they genuinely believe we're slowing down the game, they can't say it in a meeting with us present and have us arguing back that we're not. So it's a very natural thing to do in the media now, because the protocol is very clear about what you must and can't do — it's in place and we understand it's there, I don't understand why it's not used more. But yes, I think there's definitely a gap now between coaches and referees on small tactical things — so you voice your opinion in the media instead. That's the only option.”
But that is the problem. World Rugby have made it quite clear that referees are Royal Game and coaches cannot interact with them like they used to.
Erasmus has spoken out about it in the past, while Italian coach Gonzalo Quesada copped a ban for speaking out about refereeing decisions.
That is why the game narrative has been more intense and heightened irritation across the board more. Coaches don’t feel like they can interact with referees like they did before and after a game, and while nobody wants a repeat of Erasmus’s video from the Lions series a few years ago, it must be remembered that also came out of frustration.
NO CONSULTATION
The protocols were also designed outside the State of the Game conference and teams were surprised when they came into play, as they were not discussed, only handed down by World Rugby under the auspices of former New Zealand Rugby Union CEO Mark Robinson.
“It wasn't something we were consulted on at the shape-of-the-game meeting, so we were as surprised as everyone else. They've given us their reasons, we've given our input, and I don't think we should relitigate that here — I think we should let the process play out,” Peyper said yesterday.
“We know exactly what the protocol is for this series, and we're going to comply with it and respect it, and let the referees prepare for the matches. From a personal point of view, if I were reffing a match this big, I'd want to look the captain or the coach in the eye beforehand and let them ask their questions — not to be influenced, but to understand what's coming.
“If a team's planning a specific move at a game-defining moment, how am I supposed to read that with the best judgement without that context? That's a personal view, not a criticism — other referees may feel differently, and it's their reasons. We're workshopping it in the background and will probably revisit it after this series, maybe adjust it slightly by the end of the year — or maybe not. But for now, we know exactly what it is, so we'll comply.”
REFS IN ALL BLACK HOTELS
Peyper did add that while the Boks weren’t concerned about reports of Rennie inviting referees out for drinks and staying in the same hotel as the officials, especially as the new referees protocol from World Rugby didn’t allow the interaction unless the opposing coach was around, it did place referees in a difficult position.
“Look, I've been in this position many times. We fully trust the blokes that referee the game — as professionals, they have to handle themselves, that's the first thing. There's also a risk in that: that team can pick up on some issues, but the referees also know exactly what they're doing, better than the other teams — so there's wins and losses there,” Peyper said
“The main thing is these referees — I've actually spoken to the referee coach who prepares the referees internationally at the moment, and that's the blueprint they use, just like he prepares the team, they prepare the referees.
“The first thing they look at is safety — if the game's not safe, there's no use looking at anything else. Once it's safe, they look at equity — they call it equity, we used to call it fairness — that's where the law comes in.
“Once the law's in place, then the referees look at the contribution. Those little chats and that relationship — you can't contribute to those before it's safe and before it's fair. So if you defend a maul in a certain way, or defend the breakdown in a certain way, or attack the scrum in a certain way and it's illegal, it will not get to the contribution stage.
“These referees on this tour are so well-schooled in getting it safe and getting it fair before they contribute. Sometimes we make mistakes there too, especially in Super Rugby, where there's pressure for high-octane, high-intensity rugby — showing off to the spectacle and rushing the play, it becomes unsafe, or you let a few things go and at the end of the game you're seen as imbalanced.
“So that relationship with the team can work for them and can also work against them. I think the tough thing for referees now, because of the new protocols — in the past, referees could say 'let's go for a beer quickly' and have a chat. Now, unless both coaches are there, that's not allowed. I think David [Rennie] has experienced the same thing. So I do think that's a tough spot — you don't want to say no to a coach either, so it's difficult to handle.”
It is clear that the All Blacks are pushing the narrative to try and get into the referee’s heads about parts of the game that have already been settled by World Rugby.
It isn’t surprising, but neither is the irritation on the Springboks’ side about it.