Two sides of an argument as wide as the English Channel.

Another round of European rugby has reopened the gaping wound of contention. Should the RFU use the World Cup to activate the exceptional circumstances clause, bringing exiled players back from France? This time around, Steffon Armitage and Nick Abendanon have been the names thrown in the centre of the debate. We have our own opinions on this. I know mine, but more on that later. For the sake of balance, in the world of the BBC, I will briefly outline the pros and cons, the arguments raised for and against the motion. 

In the "for" column, the major argument is that the best players are needed for the World Cup. Short and sweet. The fact it's a home World Cup makes it all the pertinent that we select the best, and only the best. I can understand this, we want to win. And surely, it's further to travel from Newcastle than it is from Toulon to an England camp.

Right, the now much longer "against" side of the argument. There are a few different points that have been thrown around, including ones from Tom Youngs and Conor O'Shea. The view from players seems to be that those who signed abroad knew the deal before they went overseas. Dylan Hartley, Youngs main rival, spurned a high figure salary in France in favour of a deal to stay at the Gardens, and Youngs would've been annoyed if, when 2019 came around, Hartley was parachuted back into the squad. And it would be the same for any other player displaced by the return of the exiled. For Abendanon and Armitage to play in a starting England shirt, Lancaster would need to drop one of his favourites, Mike Brown, and either the powerful Billy Vunipola, the devastating Ben Morgan, or his captain, Chris Robshaw. How would that sit with the team? My guess? Probably not well. I'm not the biggest Robshaw fan, but he is still pivotal to the harmony in the squad.

From the perspective of the DOR, imagine if you spend time growing a plant. You nurture it, you style it, you make it the best plant you can. A bonsai tree, or cherry blossom. And then some French guy comes along with a bundle of cash and your plant goes over to France. Ok, the analogy kinda faded here. It's part and parcel of the professional era, the plants... players, want to earn as much as they can in their twilight years. Which is fine, we expect this. But imagine you have a host of saplings, young English saplings, who have contested for positions in the England team. They hear that the clause has been broken, and they think "maybe I can earn some decent money. I have a long career ahead of me, and there's still the opportunity to play for England." Pretty soon, your forest is growing over the channel with virtually no influence from the English training camps. And suddenly, these trees don't get a Saxons or early England cap, and they start playing for France. The worry for the DOR's is that they have to try and match the salaries to keep the English in England, bankrupting the clubs and giving a small squad in the process. Pretty soon, the Premiership suffers and falls the way of the Top 14, full of foreign players and the downfall of the national side. Soon enough, the trees aren't worth a whole lot. 

I think I've stretched the metaphor as far as I can now. But the point is, as I'm sure you'll agree, opening that particular floodgate of selection abroad would cause a tsunami of players leaving the Premiership and heading abroad. Which was the point of the policy being set up in the first place. Ireland select only home based players, with the exception of Jonny Sexton, and even he is returning to Leinster this year. New Zealand and Australia only select home players. South Africa and Wales do select abroad but out of necessity, one suspects. The Welsh are trying to emulate the Irish though, using Gatland's law and duel contracts to entice players home. Do the RFU need to consider duel contracts? That is a debate for another time. I'm afraid I can't see the wood for the trees.

Consistent Inconsistency - An Explanation

A few weeks ago, I asked a question. "What would people be interested in knowing?" @RugbyEng Stephen answered my question with "why are referees so inconsistent?"

It's an interesting question, and I've taken a long while to think of the words that are best used to make my point without dropping myself in deep water. Now I feel the need to say these are my opinions. You can agree or not, but this is my view for what it's worth. Which I suppose is why you're reading this. I also should say I have never refereed at the top level, but I have the sympathy for these men and women who blow the whistle. My favourite piece of rugby memorabilia is my first referee shirt from when I was 14. It's special to no one, except me, but I had it enchanted by asking Dylan Hartley and Wayne Barnes to sign opposite sides. Such a shame the shirt is yellow, and not red... The point is, I respect the referee in this game. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him. I was rather irritated to see a video released after the Wales/Ireland match suggesting that Barnes cheated. Search it on YouTube. Aside from one or two decisions, I had no issue with that game. But I digress.

It's hard to say why referees are so inconsistent. This is going to sound more like a thesis, full of theories, some evidence supported by personal experience, but my great theory of why referees are inconsistent is because people are inconsistent. 

A harsh truth, but a fair one. Barnes is one of the top referees in the world, but watch his 150th Premiership game (Bath v Sale) and compare with the Wales v Ireland game. A very different refereeing stand point, and this is due to the very changeable nature of the game. Every game of rugby is a very different affair, a different set of players, a different history. Northampton vs Newcastle is a wildly different beast to when the Saints play Leicester, different again to England against Wales. Not only that, but the referees focus changes each match and as each play happens. 

I refer to Bath v Sale again. Barnes was very hot on targeting players who went beyond the ball and placed their hands on the ground. The intent of the move is to scoop the ball when the counter ruck occurs, allowing the defending team to turn over possession. A completely illegal tactic, and it was interesting to see Barnes pick up on this so much. I'm not privy to the pre- and post-match development conversations between referees and their accessors, but to me, this was something Barnes was asked to look at. My last assessor told me to look at improving the signalling, and when I saw him again there was improvement. At all levels, we're told to work on different aspects of the game. And different assessors say different things, as they have a different perspective and piece together information differently.

And it's not fair to say that it's all the referees fault. If we as referees are liable to get confused or change our minds, or do something different, the players are just as bad. If not, worse. The differences from scrum to scrum is phenomenal. The sixteen players who make up the scrum change their binds, their angles of attack, their mentality. Their input varies depending on what move they've decided to do, if they are trying to force the penalty, if they are defending on the halfway line or the 5m line, and as the game goes on, they get tired, or new props come on. 

Rugby is an inconsistent sport, it will vary massively over the eighty minutes. The referees have a hard job of it as it is, but the way the sport evolves in a match makes it very difficult. We try for consistency, but realistically, it's very difficult to do the same each game we referee. We have different angles to watch, different conditions, different teams. It's a magical sport that is never the same game twice. This is why we love it. It's also why it's so damn hard to referee. So when the Shed , and increasingly other grounds, including Franklins Gardens, scream out "You Don't Know What You're Doing," it really annoys me. Aside from one of the key core values of rugby being "respect," it's inherently wrong. Of course they know what's going on. We as an audience are the ones who don't know what's in the referees head. Who remembers the short lived ref cam that was head mounted? It briefly debuted in the sevens series last season, and was replaced by the chest mounted model. Which is useless. Most referees turn their head to look around, I've never seen one with a rotating chest like an owls head. But I am a huge fan of Ref Link. Listening to what he's saying is one of the great joys, particularly the gems from Nigel Owens. If we supplied the fans with a ref link each, even one between two, synchronised across every ground, we could all leave a little wiser. The call "You Don't Know What You're Doing" should be scrapped in favour of a different chant. Say it with me now: "eh? What was that, sir? We don't know what you're doing!"