Judging from this weeks nuclear refereeing fallout, it would seem as if it’s about time the IRB seek new sponsorship with one of the major cotton wool manufacturers, because at the rate that they keep wrapping their referees in a cotton wool protective cocoon, it might become expensive.

This whole debacle with the state of refereeing in this year’s competition is reaching boiling point after the latest incident involving Steve Walsh’s refereeing display during round 11 of the 2010 Super 14, in the game between the Waratahs and the Brumbies.

For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past few days, the whole issue revolves around the Brumbies being extremely dissatisfied with the way in which Steve Walsh refereed the match between the two Australian franchises, in which the Brumbies lost.

The Brumbies were particularly unhappy about Steve Walsh not awarding a try  to Adam Ashley-Cooper, in which Walsh ruled there was a double movement.

Referees make these types of calls on a game to game basis, sometimes they are questionable, sometimes spot on. In the case of the questionable decisions, sometimes they will be for you, sometimes against. The law of averages might suggest that these for/against calls will balance out in the end and that should be the end of it.

But in a competition as closely contested as this year’s Super 14, where about 10 of the 14 teams still have at least an outside chance of making the playoffs, one questionable decision could mean the end of the season for you.

Adam Ashley-Cooper’s disalowed try: [s14twentyten]

I thought it was clear as daylight, but you be the judge?

One could also take into consideration the substantial financial implications in making the playoffs vs not making the playoffs, probably something that is impossible to calculate, but you get the point.

This is bullsh*t, he was KAK man...

Where the whole debate flared up though, was when Brumbies and Wallaby #10, Matt Giteau publicly bemoaned Walsh’s refereeing display in a post match interview, where, when asked about how he felt about the incident and whether he was hoping Walsh would be relegated he said:

“I think everyone is,” Giteau commented. “Mate, I don’t know if we will turn up, what’s the point?”

He continued by airing his feeling about the disallowed try,

“Like anyone that knows rugby, that was a try,” he said

The IRB has since fined Giteau $5000.00 for the public criticism of Walsh, after Giteau pleaded guilty to a code of conduct breach, in line with SANZAR’s proclaimed zero tolerance policy in terms of criticism of referees. There is a clause in players’ contracts which states that they may not publicly criticise a referee or an assistant referee’s handling of a match.

Accountability VS Sweet-blow-all:

This isn’t the first time that the IRB has wrapped their referees in cotton wool, there is a growing trend of sub-standard refereeing here, and with the amount of sub-standard refereeing displays in 2010, it’s becoming something of a worrying point.

Walsh is not the first referee to be stood down this year, in fact he is the third referee stood down/moved this season. Paul Marks of Australia and Pro Legoete of South Africa were both stood down earlier in the season. There have also been two assistant referees stood down, Garratt Williamson and Josh Noonan, both of New Zealand.

The assistant referees have had a short-term absence from the game but both Marks and Legoete have yet to make their comeback as referees in the Super 14, though they have acted as assistant referees, which is something that baffles me.

The IRB claim that the process of standing down is not a suspension or demotion but seen as an opportunity for an out-of-form referee to regain form.

My argument is this, a referee is a professional, and as with any other professionals, be they doctors, lawyers, whatever, should be held accountable for their professional performances. Now I do agree that this should be handled in the correct manner, and I do realise that it is the nature of sport that there will always be one side that is unhappy, and the way in which Matt Giteau went about it is not the correct manner, but what do you do when there is clearly something wrong and the governing body controlling it is doing nothing to rectify the situation, especially when, which is the case for the players involved, your career is at stake week-in and week-out?

In a recent Exclusive Q&A sesh with Jonathan Kaplan, we posed this very question to him. Here is what JK had to say:

• Dooley: I’m the 1st to scream at the ref during a game, but also the 1st to appreciate what a difficult job you guys do, and admit I couldn’t do it better. Do you think ref’s should be evaluated on their individual performances and the results made public?

JK: Referees are assessed after every game, in minute detail. (also by teams who can contribute to the assessment). It is tough to get everything right but we do aim for zero defect! I do not believe it is in the interests of the game to make these results public as the public are often not qualified to make judgments on referees whose positions are already under huge pressure and scrutiny. Some things are better left unknown to the public, eg. nuclear secrets!

I understand Kaplan’s point too, and like I said, I will be the first to admit that I probably couldn’t do much better. What I do want to know though, is that if the IRB and SANZAR want to dictate all that is allowed and all that is not, in this game that we all love, what are they going to do to fix this problem, and it is clear now that there is a problem?

What do you think about this whole situation? Should Giteau have been fined? What about fining Walsh for a sub-standard performance? Have a Castle lite, it’ll make you feel better…