Brendan Venter's venting of his wrath on referees will no doubt earn the Saracens director of rugby a fine and a dressing down from Twickenham, but when someone is punished, or forced to apologise, for telling the truth, a sport puts itself on the sick list.
In the wake of his side's defeat by Leicester Venter blamed refereeing, particularly at the breakdown, for the risk-free rugby that has become the Premiership's staple fare. "Everyone wants to know why the game is dying," he said. "I am not accusing referees of being dishonest but the confusion is almost total and it seems pointless to prepare teams," he added, claiming the problem was worse in England than elsewhere.
He had clearly not watched the Magners League Welsh derby between Ospreys and Cardiff Blues the day before, a study in bewilderment, but more is the pity that he did not make his remarks after his side had won – the September meeting with Gloucester, for instance, after the Vicarage Road crowd had expressed its disgust at a glut of tedious kicking out of hand on a sunny afternoon.
The Rugby Football Union's response to Venter's remarks was predictable and it asked its legal officer to investigate whether there was a case to answer for bringing the game into disrepute. Where is the repute when teams are afraid of the consequences of keeping the ball in hand is a question the governing body should ask itself. What is the value of saying nothing while the game decays?
Who said after the autumn internationals: "I am very concerned that attendances will start to decline unless changes [to the laws] are made. I think we're seeing it already. You just have to talk to people in the game, including some of the coaches who have said they're turning the TV off themselves when they're watching matches. There is a concern within the game that you're better off without the ball than with it, which isn't what rugby should strive for. The risk in keeping the ball in hand is too large."
It was Rob Andrew, the RFU's elite director of rugby, the same Rob Andrew who yesterday criticised Venter for opening his mouth, saying: "It is part of all our professional responsibilities, including those of directors of rugby, to be positive role models for our clubs, players and supporters." Andrew may have complained about the laws, while Venter focused on those who applied them, but he was hardly being positive.
If Andrew is that concerned about supporters, those who pay to watch rugby, he should explain why the RFU is especially displeased that Venter revealed discussions he had had last week about the referee who controlled the match between London Irish and Saracens last month and made, claimed Venter, 26 errors by the count of the Union's own refereeing department. Spectators are entitled to know what happens when referees do not come up to the mark.
That said, there is something self-serving about Venter's comments. Defenders may now have too much latitude at the breakdown, but there is an innate coaching conservatism in the Premiership and it is the mixture of law application and a negative mindset that is making so many Premiership matches unappetising until risks have to be taken in the latter stages.
Referees, like players, are rigidly controlled from the centre. Coaches are constantly barking into microphones during matches and so instant is the reaction at times to their instructions that the suspicion lurks they have direct contact to players on the field.
Referees may not be miked up to their assessors but they are judged by their application of the laws and just as a player will find himself on the outside if he countermands the orders of his head coach, so a referee will fade from view if he controls a game by the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law. Gone are the days when a referee such as Clive Norling controlled a game by gauging the mood of the players: if they were intent on attack, he would whistle infrequently; if they wanted a scrap, he would blow long and often.
Norling argued that the laws were so numerous and complex that he could blow at every set-piece and breakdown and that officials had to be subjective. A problem for referees is that they are constantly given directives by the International Rugby Board; as professionals, they cannot ignore them. What stuffed the experimental law variations in Europe last season was the directive that accompanied them which insisted that referees took a close look at what attacking teams got up to at the breakdown.
So just as coaches hold a firm grip on their players, and how depressing it was again at the weekend to see so many playmakers sitting on a bench, only to be used if their side was playing catch-up in the last 15 minutes, so referees are shackled by those above them. Venter makes a point, but he is also part of the problem.
