Since the Rugby World Cup
many people have commented on the behaviour of rugby players,
compared with that of footballers. Listening to the radio last
week I was surprised to hear Sunday Telegraph football writer,
Patrick Barclay, repeat that tired old cliché that it was
because rugby is a 'toffs' game played by Public School boys. I
played rugby at school and my old school, Alfred Sutton Central,
could not remotely be classed as a public school. My third son
played rugby for his school and he went to what, one government
spokesperson referred to as, a 'bog standard comprehensive'. I
wonder too, how many of the present England squad are ex-public
school boys.
It might not be generally
known that Public Schools also play football. I have refereed
many Public School games and will do so again in the new year.
Public Schools tend to play rugby before Christmas and football
afterwards, what they call the Lent term. And of course it
should be remembered that both codes of football, rugby and
soccer, evolved from British Public Schools. One of the first
set of laws for soccer was the Harrow rules in 1860. Perhaps one
of the reasons rugby has maintained its original values of
sportsmanship, and gentlemanly conduct, is that it has grown
slower than football and, where it has gone beyond these shores,
it has taken its spirit with it. In football, countries, even
continents, have developed almost separately, and they don't all
adhere to what might be called 'Corinthian values'.
What football supporters
watching the Rugby would have noticed more than anything is the
difference in the relationship between players and the referee.
Rugby referees are wired for sound and not only can you hear
what the referee says to the players, but also what the players
say to the referee. There is no obscene language and you quite
often hear the players call the referee 'sir'. The players
might ask what the decision was for, but seldom do they show
dissent.
Sir Bobby Robson, the
Newcastle Manager, may have the answer when recently he compared
the two sports. 'Discipline' he said 'is ingrained in rugby
players, whereas in our game it is always argumentative and
questionable'. Sir Bobby does have one suggestion he believes
would stop a lot of this. 'I don't think that our referees use
the 10 yard rule for indiscipline, as much as they should but in
rugby they use it all the time'.
The rule he was referring to,
is where if players dispute a decision or deliberately delay the
kick, it can be moved ten yards nearer their goal line. This
rule in football is still an experiment, although it has been
going on some years, and only applies to certain competitions
including the Premiership and Nationwide Football League. You
won't find it in use in local leagues. FIFA, in this years
instruction sheet, said that this is the final season for the
experiment. Next year it will be either scrapped or introduced
for all football.
Sir Bobby is right, it is not
used as much as it should be and I think the reason for this is
that it must always be accompanied by a yellow card. Referees
would love to see it introduced universally, for we believe that
it can be a great deterrent if we are allowed to take the ball
forward, without also having to issue a caution. Without a doubt
that has dissuaded referees from using it. Used in the way it is
in rugby, would have a dramatic affect on dissent. It would be
good for the game and might help retain referees. The biggest
reason for new referees dropping out of refereeing is abuse by
players. We might not get called 'sir' like rugby referees, but
it's introduction could easily stop us getting called other
names when we make a decision.
Dick Sawdon Smith