On reading this article your scribe is minded of the exchange between Rangers great Jim Baxter and referee Tiny Wharton
Mr Wharton that was never a penalty
Mr Baxter when you read the Sunday papers you will see that it was


The Scotsman reports

Allan Massie: Cheating is nothing new, amateurs just called it by another name

Published Date: 01 May 2010
JOHN Beattie devoted his BBC blog the other day to what he sees as the greater prevalence of cheating in rugby.
It's not a word most of us like to use – particularly where our own team is concerned. Pushing the laws to the limit or even bending the law are more acceptable terms. Often indeed this is fair enough. We don't, I suppose, think of the flanker who
flirts, or does more than flirt, with the offside line as a cheat, and not only because this has always happened and some of our favourite players – John Jeffrey and Finlay Calder, for example – have been masters of this practice. I'm not sure if we even think of the scrum-half who doesn't put the ball into the scrum straight as a cheat – if only because there isn't a single scrum-half who regularly abides by the law.

It should also be said that in many respects the professional game is much cleaner than the old amateur game used to be – if only because the presence of cameras and video evidence enforces some degree of self-discipline. Moreover the introduction of yellow and red cards has meant that ill-discipline and law-breaking receive harsher punishment than used to be the case. Referees are far more willing to dismiss players for the rest of the match than they used to be. Finally, I doubt whether the really nasty practices like eye-gouging are any more common than they used to be – quite possibly less common if, again, only because less likely to go undetected.

Beattie complained about the practice of props feigning injury before a set-scrum to give their side time to regroup. There is again nothing new in this. One of the truly dreadful Calcutta Cup matches – in 1988 – was distinguished by the way in which an England player would require medical attention whenever Scotland seemed to have gained any momentum. This was so obvious the IRB decreed the game should continue while a player was receiving such attention unless the referee thought this dangerous. This is why nowadays it will nearly always be a front-row forward who requires attention before a scrum – since the game can't continue without him.

Then there is the tackler who doesn't roll away after the tackle but lies there holding out his arms to persuade the referee that he is not interfering with play but is merely stuck on the wrong side of the ball and can't extricate himself. Nothing new here either. Players have always tried to slow up delivery of the ball to the opposition. The only difference is when real rucking was permitted they suffered for it, and were on the receiving end of what was euphemistically called "a shoeing".

Time-wasting is a practice that certainly comes very close to cheating. It's noticeable that when a team has a player in the sin-bin forwards will take an unduly long time to make their way slowly to a line-out or scrum. The same thing happens when a team is defending a narrow lead near the end of the match.

This surely is something that referees can deal with very easily: a word to the captain and the threat that if there is any more time-wasting he will find himself in the sin-bin.

The most disquieting and disagreeable development Beattie drew attention to is the increasingly common practice of players either trying to influence the referee, while play is in progress, by calling his attention to alleged fouls or misdemeanours by their opponents, or crowding round him at a stoppage protesting about this or that. Neither practice was unknown in the amateur game, but both seem more frequent now.

Again, however, it surely requires only firm action from referees to eradicate these practices. "I'm refereeing this match not you: penalty against you" would put a stop to the first; ten metres back, and, if protests continue, another ten, to the second. It's legitimate of course for a captain to ask why a penalty has been given against his side; it's not legitimate for him to do anything more than put the question.

It is an essential thing in any sport worth the name that the decision of the referee – or umpire – is unquestioned. It must certainly be unquestioned on the field and must be accepted, however reluctantly, by coaches and players off it, after the game is over. Of course those of us who stand on touchlines or sit in the stand will often question it like fury. But this doesn't matter. We are not part of the action, only spectators, and usually biased ones.

The players are in a different case, because if they once start disputing decisions or mobbing the referee, the game itself is diminished. It is diminished also of course if they cheat, and it is diminished if we, the spectators, approve or applaud cheating. What is, however, vital in any sport is that the participants accept the authority of referee or umpire whether he is right, as he usually will be, or wrong, as he often is.

This article was originally posted on 1-May-2010, 06:53 by Hugh Barrow.
Last updated by Hugh Barrow on 1-May-2010, 06:58.