FRENCH NOTES:The IRB has a set of workable laws, however they are not being implemented because of the system of officiating insisted upon by the IRB

I recently read, with some dismay, that the Vatican had attempted to silence two Irish Redemptorist priests, Fr Tony Flannery and Fr Gerard Moloney, for their writings.

Firstly as a basic human right, no citizen of a democratic country, who is expressing peaceful and non-violent ideas should be silenced because of their thoughts. Secondly, if that individual is calling for the laws of the organisation, as laid down by its agreed legislators, to be implemented by the ruling administration, then the writings are not only a human right but also an essential element of the organisations integrity.

The Irish priests are calling for the legislation made by Pope John XXIII, at his Second Vatican Council, the law making institution of the church, to be implemented.

It is an inconvenient truth for the current administrators in Rome that the legislation created at Vatican II exists. The Redemptorists are justly pointing out the fact that the ‘governing body’ is in denial about its own legislation.

Society is based on legislators defining laws and a judicial system that up holds the laws created by the legislature.

In reality the powerful protect their territory, firstly by denial, then by the suppression and the exile of those that challenge them. Parishes on the edge of the west coast of Ireland are not the Russian gulags, but they are the fate of those priests who dissent from the Vatican’s ‘iron fist’ in Ireland. In rugby the problem is slightly different.

The IRB has a set of workable laws, however they are not being implemented because of the system of officiating insisted upon by the IRB. The current system allows teams that break the laws of rugby to score tries and win matches unjustly.

Only two weeks ago at the Stade de France, Toulouse were awarded a match-winning try against Stade Francais. Television replays revealed blatant obstruction to the defending players. The TMO could see the infringement but the IRB do not allow him to communicate this with the referee. The TMO could not tell the referee of the obstruction. The TMO, the TV audience and the crowd in the stadium all knew the try was illegal and should not stand.

However, rugby will not allow the TMO to rule on incidents that occur in the field of play. The only person who did not know and the only one that really counted was the referee. He awarded the try.

Rugby League have permitted the TMO to rule on actions in the field of play for years. If the rugby league system, was in use for this match, it would have resulted in Toulouse being penalised for obstruction and Stade, justly would have won. As it stands, justice was not done and Stade may well miss out on the semis and entry into next year’s Heineken Cup because of the injustice of the system.

Stade’s situation is not unusual. This column does not allow me to list the vast number of matches that have been won by cheating teams because the TMO cannot rule on illegal play in the field of play.

During the Tri-Nations of 2011, dissenting TMO official, Johann Meuwesen, in the South Africa verses New Zealand match, told referee George Clancy, that there was a forward pass prior to a New Zealand try being scored. His judgment was correct. Millions on TV saw he was correct, 80,000 at the ground saw he was correct. Justice was done for both teams. However, he broke the official rugby TMO system by telling the referee the truth. He was condemned to the refereeing equivalent of a parish on the far west coast of Ireland. The refereeing gulags. His crime? He told the truth and rugby justice was done.

The IRB condemned his actions as those of a heretic. He dared to rule on the area that is solely for the referee. What a bloody farce.

Such a system cannot morally stand. The game of rugby claims its ethics sets it apart from other sports. I agree with that statement in general. However, I can only speculate as to why the refereeing body of the IRB resist implementing systems that would empower teams who comply with the law instead of the current system that is heavily weighed in favour of teams who break the law.

It smacks of an internal IRB system that fears change no matter what the consequences. This philosophy was out of date in the late 20th century and today it is simply immoral. Rugby officiating also needs to bring a second referee onto the field.

For several years Rugby League has used two referees on the field. The main referee stands at the ruck and a secondary referee, officiates the defensive line. This officiating system gives the attacking team more space as the defenders are on side. It has led to a significant decrease in penalties and a massive reduction in players attempting to break the law, because they know they cannot get away with it. Currently at almost every ruck the attacking team is setting up the defensive line at least half a metre offside.

At almost every ruck the defenders are offside, because the referee cannot watch the tackle, the ruck and the offside line with accuracy. By necessity the referee has to spend most of his time looking at the ball. The players know this, so they cheat. It is human nature. Just watch where people park when the clampers are on strike.

With strong communication from the officials and the ‘extra police presence’ as a deterrent, more space will be created between the attack and the defence, as well as reducing the number of penalties. By definition this would increase the amount of time the ball is in play.

To implement these two new aspects to rugby officiating would require no change in the laws of the game, only a change in how the IRB administer the implementation of the laws.

I am not criticising individual referees. It is a hugely difficult task. However, the officiating systems have not kept pace with the advances in both the playing and coaching of the game.

To me, the current system does not support our referees. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The rugby community is not seeing justice done by its officials.

To me, the system of officiating is like the Vatican. It is out of touch with its community. Instead of serving the rugby community as an agent for justice, it has become a structure that serves itself and has lost the purpose of its mission. The mission for rugby officiating is to deliver matches that are within the laws and spirit of the game. Simple and pure.

The evidence is overwhelming that the current system for officiating does not deliver match results that are within the laws of rugby. It rewards cheats.