Referee-bashing a dangerous new trend

On Rugby: Okay, let's pretend for a moment that the shoe was on the other foot; that Ireland had lost 19-13 to England at Twickenham and that all Jonathan Kaplan's decisions had been reversed; that he had disallowed two Irish tries, the penalty count had gone 10-4 (or 12-5 including indirect frees) to England, and all the marginal forward passes or knock-ons had gone to England etc etc. Yep, we'd probably be a bit peeved all right.

All that said and done, rugby is in danger of going down a dangerous road if the IRB don't draw lines beyond which players and especially coaches cannot go in their post-match utterings. One only has to look at soccer to see the pitfalls, where open season on referees on the pitch, in post-match interviews on television punditry permeates all the way down to underage football.

Andy Robinson never stooped to the language used by Matt Williams following Scotland's opening defeat to France - which went beyond the bounds - and it's perhaps no coincidence that the two under-fire coaches in direst need of wins were the ones to grumble the loudest about match officials; perhaps as much for public consumption and to deflect attention from themselves. The odd "bringing the game into disrepute" charge and accompanying fines would quickly stymie this trend at source.

Reviewing the Martin Corry try England were awarded, and discussing it with two referees, doesn't alter the initial perception that Danny Grewcock took out Ronan O'Gara ahead of the ruck and that therefore, by the laws of the game, it should have been a penalty to Ireland for obstruction.

The bottom line with the two English tries that weren't on Sunday is that even if video evidence had been called into play at the time, in neither instance could it have proved that scores had been legitimate. The TMO (video official), who on Sunday was Hugh Watkins of Wales, cannot adjudicate on recipients being onside or otherwise for crosskicks, although Robinson has a valid point for claiming they should be. Indeed, their whole remit should be expanded like rugby league.

However, even if he did, none of the camera angles available at Lansdowne Road showed Mark Cueto in the same frame as Charlie Hodgson when the outhalf struck his perfectly weighted kick to the in-goal area.

If one was to trust one's first instincts then, yes, it appeared a lucky reprieve for Ireland, although Kaplan himself is known to have said he was "100 per cent certain" that Cueto was in front of Hodgson. Cueto maintained otherwise but then, as Mandy Rice-Davies once observed, he would say that, wouldn't he? Certainly Robinson cannot be as certain as he claimed to be on the evidence of all available camera angles.

As regards the English lineout maul that drove the ball-carrying Josh Lewsey over the line in the 75th minute, it certainly was a surprise and a relief at the time that Kaplan didn't take recourse to the TMO. But even had he done so, again the camera angles actually wouldn't have provided conclusive proof that Moody had grounded the ball.

As for Kaplan awarding Ireland a scrum, this was on the basis that Johnny O'Connor had driven man and ball back over the line from the in-goal area and into play again. Again, on that basis, the defending team is awarded the ensuing put-in on the "use it or lose it" law.

Then, and ultimately, outstanding defence won Sunday's game as much as anything else. Like much else in the win, it was a tribute to the collective effort of every single player and the back-up staff, especially Eddie O'Sullivan and Mike Ford.

Ronan O'Gara led the line up well and they defended either the straight runners or drifted out to protect the flanks - helped as they were by English forwards getting in the way and complicating what should have been swifter transfers along the line and not painstakingly through every pair of hands.

To concede only four penalties and three line breaks while making 106 tackles and conceding so much possession was remarkably disciplined as well as heroic. They double-tackled diligently too, limiting English offloads to just four. They also learned from Murrayfield with a vastly improved kick-and-chase game, pushing up numerously and tightly to give the counter-attacking Jason Robinson (who could slide through the crack in a door) no daylight.

The one passage of brilliance, involving Ireland's three gamebreakers, was beyond the remit of England but, indicative of what have been three slightly patchy displays to date, it wasn't - as O'Sullivan conceded - a perfect performance and they'll need to produce a more complete effort against France.

Certainly, if the dynamic, hard-running, quick-tempo French of last Saturday turn up, a midfield rejuvenated by Yannick Jauzion, with Dimitri Yachvili and Yann Delaigue unveiling their box of tricks, Damien Traille exploding on to the ball and Aurelien Rougerie doing his Jonah Lomu thing on the wing, they will ask far more questions of Ireland than England did with a similar supply of ball. Plus, they've a stronger scrum and maul than either Wales or England.

Ireland will need to win more ball than they did on Sunday. For example, it was a surprise that they didn't use the athleticism of Malcolm O'Kelly, Paul O'Connell and Simon Easterby to apply more pressure on the Steve Thompson throw after early inroads.

And when they have possession, Ireland will need to be a bit more precise in their use of it. One thinks of right-to-left first-half moves which weren't executed accurately. They'll possibly regret not playing a bit more for territory, in the first half especially, and may have over-used Shane Horgan in midfield especially to the exclusion of the under-used Denis Hickie.

Going to Cardiff for a winner-takes-all shoot-out might actually be up Ireland's street in many ways, as it might be easier to impose their game on the Welsh. It's still on and it's still possible. But France, depending as ever on which France turns up and what way the first 10 or 15 minutes go, might yet be the more difficult match.