Nigel Owens: Nonsense rule makes a mockery of rugby and Mack Hansen was out of order
Just like that, the Six Nations is here again with a feast of rugby action set to be served up for us all to enjoy.
Well, let’s certainly hope so, with news law brought in and the focus on getting the game fast and flowing, with high ball in play time added to the mix.
Having spent the autumn sat alongside Warren Gatland and his coaching team, I will be back to my duties with the BBC, covering Wales and Scotland’s home games, analysing refereeing decisions and explaining why they have been made for those watching at home.
READ MORE: Stunning Ospreys blow away Benetton in huge win
READ MORE: Today's rugby news as Warren Gatland sweats over nine players
It’s a role I do enjoy and it’s an important one too, not just so that viewers understand but also so referees have a platform for their decisions to be explained. I remember during the World Cup in 2019, the referees had a meeting and wanted such a platform to be created so that the public could know why they made certain decisions.
That’s actually how my other role doing World Rugby’s Whistle Watch series came about. I was one of the senior referees at the time and as I was planning on retiring after the World Cup at some point, World Rugby asked me if I’d do it on my farm at home. I’ll be providing the same sort of analysis with the BBC, albeit with a little more of my own opinion thrown in.
While quite often the decisions you’ve made as a referee will be right, there will be a time where you get one wrong, and unless you hold your hand up and admit that mistake, you will lose credibility.
It’s not about me calling out refereeing decisions, it’s about explaining why they were made, whether the ref was right or wrong. There is so much grey in rugby the ref is neither wrong or right!
Ahead of the Six Nations, refereeing decisions have been in the spotlight again due to the recent incident between Ireland international Mack Hansen and referee Chris Busby. After Hansen’s Connacht side lost to Leinster in the URC last month, he said it felt like they were playing against “16 men”. The remark saw him handed a three-match ban.
There is already a system in place where the coaches can feed back to the referee manager and referee and say they are not happy with the performance, or question why they were penalised for a certain matter. But for players to come out with comments like that after the match is not acceptable.
I refereed games where I got things wrong and if people criticised me, I had no issues with it. It’s nice to take the plaudits when you’re doing well, but you’re always going to get comments when you have a bad game. That’s just the way refereeing is and that’s not going to change.
I didn’t watch the game in question, so I can’t judge Busby’s performance, but I know for a player like Hansen to come out after the full time whistle and criticise the referee in that kind of fashion is not doing anybody any good.
While I can understand that players get frustrated, those sort of comments harm the recruitment and retention of referees. It is certainly not the right way to go about things.
Yes, of course, if a referee’s performance is not up to standard, then should not be above being questioned. There is a review and selection process in place which will deal with below par performances, which will affect your future appointments. But the open abuse of referees in press conferences after games is not the way to go about it.
One thing that really frustrates me about the whole situation is that Hansen was banned for six weeks, with three weeks suspended if he apologised to the referee and undertook an appropriate course related to match officiating.
I’m not commenting on how long a ban should have been given in the first place, but I am getting fed up with seeing so many suspensions halved or at least reduced due to a player saying sorry. If it’s an offence worthy of a six week suspension, it should be a six week suspension.
I’m not saying this is the case with Hansen at all, but it’s true that players can just say sorry and not mean it, just to get their ban reduced. It’s a joke, if you ask me. Those involved really need to look at the judiciary process and the consistency in citing, as well as the consistencies of these sorts of bans.
If someone makes an illegal, dangerous or reckless tackle in a game and they later admit guilt, they have a week or two knocked off their ban. If they then agree to attend tackle school, that’s another week off. It’s nonsense.
If you know that the offence is worth a six week or 12 week suspension, then I’m sorry, but that’s exactly what the player in question should be getting. If they want to change player behaviour, then do that - because knocking off weeks as they currently do doesn’t help the game one bit.
Quite simply, it’s making a mockery of the game. A player can be back on the field in no time, and there will be a few at the Six Nations who received initial suspensions that would have ruled them out of at least one game at the tournament before they were reduced.
Playing in the Six Nations is one of the greatest honours a player can have at Test level, but if they commit an offence that carries a lengthy ban just before the tournament, then that is just tough luck.
It’s something that really bugs me, and I hope we see a firmer stance being taken soon. If you can’t do the time, as they say, then don’t do the crime.
I’m sure there will be plenty of refereeing moments to dissect and analyse over the coming weeks, with several law trials and innovations set to be included in this year’s Six Nations.
I’ve made my feelings clear on 20-minute red cards in this column before, so I will be interested to see how they go down as they are used at the tournament for the first time.
What will happen remains to be seen, of course, but as we all know, the Six Nations is never short of drama! Here's to another great championship.
