Yahoo Sport 
Nigel Owens: My new job with Wales and the Fiji decision I questioned
This month, I had been expecting to work as a pundit with S4C for Wales’ autumn internationals - but as I’m sure you’ve all seen by now, there was a slight change of plan.
A couple of weeks ago, Warren Gatland spoke to me and asked if I would be willing to come in on a matchday and help the squad and coaching staff out in an advisory role. Of course, I said yes and was there with them last weekend for the Fiji match.
It’s not really a new idea. When I was refereeing, I was in with the Wales squad myself, during their training sessions, refereeing the contact area and passing on any information on what World Rugby were expecting or clamping down on.
READ MORE: Jamie Roberts names Wales' unlikely Lions bolter who nobody's talking about
Obviously, I’m not refereeing anymore so Craig Evans is in with the squad now, he’s been in there with them this week.
As far as my new role goes, it is slightly different to what I did with Wales in the past. Essentially, it’s the same role that I was offered to do with South Africa during the World Cup - which I turned down only due to circumstances at the time which were not favourable - and what Jaco Peyper has been doing with them since. Romain Poite has also done something similar with Toulon and Jérôme Garcès does it with the French national side as well.
My role is a bit different to Garcès and Peyper’s in that I’m only there on match days, rather than being in with the squad all the time. I’m there to help them, really, if the referee says in the changing rooms before the game that there is something they’re particularly looking out for or if anyone has any questions they want to ask. I’m there to provide some clarity and make sure everyone is on the same page.
During the game, I’m there to identify trends and see whether the discipline needs to be addressed. Coaches will have questions about decisions and I’m able to advise on whether a call is harsh or they got it right, and provide feedback at the end of the game. That’s my role really, just to help in any way I can, particularly around the technicalities of the law.
I’m just there during the autumn internationals, what will happen after that I don’t know. We’ll see what they envision the role as being beyond the autumn campaign and whether that is something they want from me and whether I’d be happy with it too.
I did enjoy my first game in the role, despite the obviously disappointing result. I was in the changing rooms prior to kick-off and then up in the coaching box during the game, where I was answering questions and advising on anything that could help Wales.
I think what most people don’t realise is that the game is so technical these days. There were 26 penalties during Wales v Fiji and quite a few Test matches now have penalty counts in the mid-to-late 20s, if not the early 30s.
When I was refereeing, it was usually around 16 or 17 in my games, so that’s a big jump. A penalty can make a huge difference when it comes to winning or losing matches and with the game being so technical, every decision is scrutinised so they’ve become a lot more common.
The game has become too technical, in my opinion. It’s becoming impossible for the referee on the field, in one sense. At the weekend, we saw a penalty try given via the TMO, we saw a try disallowed by the TMO.
This refereeing role is something that players and coaches are finding useful because of how technical the game is. Unfortunately, the referee can have a huge influence on the game now, wrongly or rightly, and their decisions are a huge part of the game.
Where I think officials need to be really careful is with the 20-minute red card, which we saw in action at the weekend as Fiji’s Semi Radradra became the first player this autumn to be sent off under the new trial measure.
It was a shoulder-to-head hit from Radradra and he didn’t make any attempt to wrap, and he has now been banned for three weeks as a result. Now, I’m not saying the referee was wrong at the weekend, but the process was certainly wrong.
My understanding of the reason they brought in the 20-minute red card is that it’s for the player who tries to do everything right but gets it wrong. Look at Tommy Reffell’s yellow card, he was doing everything legally, he just didn’t get his height down in time for the tackle and he was too upright when the contact occurred.
Those are the sort of incidents the card has been brought in to deal with - where the laws of the game are forcing you to send someone off but their actions have been more accidental than outrightly reckless. You don’t want the team to be punished for something that is technical.
But if you feel that a player’s actions are reckless and were always illegal, like they were leading with the shoulder and flying into an opponent’s head, then that should not be a 20-minute red card. The player should be off for the rest of the game and not replaced.
I’m not a big fan of the 20-minute red card but I would be happy to accept it in accidental or unlucky situations - although, as I have previously said, these types of accidental actions should not be a red card in the first place.
However, recklessness and thuggery should always result in a permanent red card, full stop. If they can make that distinction clear, then I think it could be a positive thing for rugby. But it will certainly be a challenge to do so.
