Dylan Cleaver: Referee witch trials we can do without

Marius Jonker. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The media having access to referees - great in theory, potentially disastrous in practice.

In keeping with the credo outlined by Sanzar for this year's Super 14, let's start with the positive.

Accountability is marvellous. Too often the viewers' interpretation of decisions is coloured by the men behind the mic. If they say it is a bad decision, the viewer accepts it.

Allowing the referee to explain what he saw and his interpretation of the event will add a dimension of transparency too often lacking in rugby. The referee becomes less of the shadowy figure with free rein to ruin or validate campaigns by the strength of his Acme Thunderer.

The referees have, according to sources, accepted they need to be held more accountable for game-changing decisions. The example most often held up to the glare is Marius Jonker's decision to twice ignore assistant referee Chris Pollock's call for offside as the Sharks launched a game-winning offensive against the Blues last year. Perhaps Jonker would have welcomed the chance to explain his actions, to shed a bit of light on the murk.

But it is a huge leap of faith to assume this inquisition will be conducted in a responsible manner. It is far more likely you will have six or seven Salem witch trials per week.

In every press box there are still "reporters" whose motivations are driven by parochialism rather than objectivity. To them, and you can tell them by the way they punch their arm in the air when "their" team scores a try, every missed forward pass is an unforgivable transgression.

Honestly, what good can come of allowing them access to referees after the game?

"We've all acknowledged this is probably an important step. It brings us into line with the coaches and the players, who also have to do this," referees' boss Lyndon Bray said. It's an admirable sentiment, but upon closer examination it also provides the perfect reason for this step to be avoided.

Rugby is, after all, about the players and, to a lesser extent, the coaches. It should never be about the ref.

Do we really want every radio bulletin to start thus: "Referee Bryce Lawrence has defended his decision to sin bin ..."?