Anyone who has played in a team that I have refereed will tell you that I am a shouter. My shouting starts at the beginning when I blow for the toss-up, for I also shout 'captains please'. Some of my colleagues have criticised this as entirely unnecessary, but I always think that it makes it clear what the whistle is for.
Shouting is simply a way of communicating. I shout at players who mess about after a free kick has been given, not withdrawing the full ten yards. I shout at players who commit particularly silly fouls telling them to 'cut it out'. To a degree we are encouraged to shout. When playing advantage we are told it is not good enough just to give the signal with the arms. We must also shout 'play on, advantage'. It communicates that we have seen the foul but are not stopping play.
I mention this because Rugby Union referees, at international level at least, are now equipped with microphones which pick up everything they shout to players. I knew that this had been done for some time and had been used for training up-and-coming rugby referees. It enables them to hear how the top men control their games.
However, at last week's England v Australia international, spectators were also able to purchase receivers, costing I think five pounds, which meant that they could also listen in to the referee's comments. Apparently it is a 'nice little earner'
too for the rugby union authorities.
Quite what spectators get out of this I'm not sure, but they could have heard the referee telling players why he was penalising them, something I suppose many soccer referees do. Certainly I will shout at players things like 'you jumped at the player and not the ball'. However, rugby referees tell players things
that soccer referees would never do.
Rugby referees spend a great deal of time warning players that they are offside, reminding them of rules that they might be about to infringe, and generally acting as a source of information. In football it is not the duty of the referee to try and warn any player that he is about to commit an offence, although personally I do often have a quiet word, rather than a shout, with players who I think are getting agitated.
It doesn't always work of course. For example, I refereed a cup game in which one team was getting beaten seven-two. No trouble there you might think, but I could see that one player on the losing side, probably their best player, was getting frustrated. I ran alongside and suggested that he calm down before he did something rash. All to no avail. A few minutes later he kicked an opponent up in the air.
The main difference I think between the two codes is the relationship between the referees and the players. At Twickenham even the team captains often referred to the referee as 'sir' or at the worst as 'mate'. All this could be heard by spectators on their walkmans. How football referees would long for that!
Football has copied a number of ideas from rugby in recent years, although as one rugby referee told a meeting of the Reading Referees' Association last month, they have only adopted them half-heartedly. Could they now wire up referees, say at Premiership matches, for spectators to hear what is being said out there in the middle?
If they ever did so, I think that the receivers would have to be sold with an 'A' or even an 'X' certificate. You can often lip read the comments of players to referees when decisions go against them. Imagine getting it in full stereo.
Dick Sawdon Smith