Andrew Alderson: Refs have enough help

Alain Rolland. Photo / Getty Images

Special qualities are required to be an international rugby referee: Clark Kent's X-ray vision to monitor the breakdown, MacGyver's geometric wizardry to calculate split-second angles on tip tackles and the hide of a politician to withstand barrages of criticism, regardless of the decision.

Look at the cross-section of whistling victims from the World Cup. Alain Rolland was castigated for sending off Welsh flanker Sam Warburton for a tip tackle in their semifinal; Nigel Owens was accused of being racist and biased on Twitter by Samoa's Eliota Sapolu-Fuimaono; Bryce Lawrence had a Facebook hate page devoted to him by Springbok fans after South Africa's defeat by the Wallabies in the quarter-finals. Who would be a ref, even if you were getting paid to travel the world following rugby?

Hence International Rugby Board (IRB) referees boss Paddy O'Brien's idea to conduct an experiment enabling referees to access more video technology in at least one Northern and one Southern Hemisphere competition. Paranoia with the constant flak means referees are looking to pass on more responsibility to the television match official (TMO).

O'Brien's initiative means the TMO would be entitled to monitor footage more closely and for a longer period leading to tries. It is a frustrating move but understandable given the recent wild reactions of players, officials, coaches and fans adversely affected.

Why wouldn't a referee take as much evidence as possible into account when making big calls to avoid the imminent backlash?

The problem is no limit has yet been established as to how far back in a movement a referee could go. Should it be restricted to inside the opposition 22, from halfway onwards or completely open - which means you could incite TMO fatigue at the prospect of checking incidents 20-plus phases back? This could be a tedious exercise trawling back up the field to prove why someone hasn't scored a try rather than relying on the referee or touch judge to provide the intervention they're already paid for.

Changes are expected within a month once IRB staff settle back into Dublin. O'Brien's argument is simple: they want referees to have the same opportunity and access to footage as the viewer. Prolonged minutes on the broadcasting clock are inevitable but if it stems the vitriol, who can blame them?

The desire for accuracy has value but surely - with the current levels of technology - there is already sufficient video evidence to reinforce decisions. Baying fans appear to be holding sway. Referees should be able to rely on the tools they already have.

Take the examples mentioned. The laws gave scope for Rolland to draw the red card. There might have been mitigating factors as Warburton looked to pull out of the tackle on French winger Vincent Clerc but Rolland was within his rights, even if hindsight suggests he could have gone to the TMO and his touch judges for a second opinion.

The prevalence of social media enabled Twitter devotee Sapolu-Fuimaono to air his views on Owens in a public forum when once they would have been restricted to the confines of a dressing-room or a post-match beer. Instead such thoughts now go viral immediately; the resulting support can be vehement and vicious.

That's where Lawrence faced a roasting too, via Facebook. At last report, over 83,000 people signed a petition for him to never referee again. People love conflict when they can stand on the sidelines without having to get involved directly.

O'Brien is now faced with trying to soften and ultimately prevent the blows referees receive. Yet there were only a handful of matches where decisions were questioned.

Most of the 48 games showed whistle blowers in a decent light under what can be trying laws. More technology may give referees a more reassuring safety net but further disrupt the game's flow.

Paddy, please don't go to too much trouble; disgruntled fans will complain regardless.