Alan Watkins: Referees' decisions have never been under greater scrutiny

Just over 10 years ago, England were playing France in Paris and won the match, partly through a penalty try. This was the result of a scrum on the French line. Watching on television, I had noticed that Dewi Morris, the England scrum-half, had side-booted the ball back into the England scrum: an illegality which should have been the cause of a penalty for France, so enabling them to clear their line.

I was recording the match, and watched the episode several times before putting pen to paper in this space. The burden of the column was that, if France had not exactly been robbed, they had certainly been hard done by, on account not only of this decision but of others which the referee had made.

These were the days when the rivalry between France and England was even more intense than it is now: partly because of the presence of Brian Moore in the England team, and partly because France possessed a front row whose aggression made Moore look like a leading member of the Society of Friends.

I have never believed that the merit of any article is to be judged by the number of letters it attracts. Sometimes a bad piece will arouse a sackful of correspondence, while on other occasions a good one will pass virtually unnoticed. This one attracted a lot of letters. It was even reprinted in the French press.

My own correspondents divided along national lines. The French, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh thought I had made a shrewd point; whereas the English said I could not bear to see a successful England team, whom I was determined to belittle on all occasions.

Chris Rea then entered the argument. He was at that time rugby correspondent and columnist of the Independent on Sunday (he is now an official of the International Rugby Board). He wrote that if we were going to question the decisions of referees by watching video recordings – I remember his words – "we might as well all pack up and go home.'' Whether those words were directed at me, I do not know. If they were, it would not have affected the warm regard in which I held, as I still hold, him. He was, after all, expressing his honest opinion.

Even so, the game has gone more my way than it has his. Referees' decisions are forever being questioned, not only by journalists replaying videos but – as hard cash has increasingly come to depend on those decisions – by players, coaches, managers, national unions, international boards and other referees. This may be a good thing, or it may be a bad thing, but it is undoubtedly the way things have gone, and are going still.

The dispute about the effect on the result of replacement props in the Powergen Cup is a case in point. It could – though I do not think it will – result in Gloucester's being deprived of their win over Leicester on Saturday.

Leicester made a front-row replacement. Gloucester made several changes, of some complexity. For example, Rodrigo Roncero changed sides, and then came off. Olivier Azam, the Gloucester hooker, refused to play at tight-head, saying (entirely reasonably) that, while he could play loose-head if necessary, it was a different position on the other side of the scrum. The consequence was that scrums became uncontested by order of the referee, Steve Lander.

One regulation of the Rugby Football Union says that if a team cannot provide a player capable of playing in the front row, they will be "deemed'' to have lost the match. This might give the match to Leicester. The next regulation says that if a team put on three front-row replacements, the score at that point will be "deemed'' to be the final result. This might give the match to Gloucester.

I hate deeming. But all the replacements, by both sides, were in fact front-row specialists. What they were not were specialists in the front-row positions which they were required to fill.

There was a comparable episode in the England v France match. Jason Leonard went off injured in the first half to be replaced by another loose-head, Graham Rowntree. Then Rowntree went off. The England management tried to put on Danny Grewcock in his place. The referee, Paul Honiss, said he wanted a front-row specialist instead. So Mark Regan, a hooker, came on. Unless I misheard him, Honiss nevertheless ordered uncontested scrums. But the scrums clearly were contested, very much so.

It may be (no one has mentioned this till now) that this was what was behind the dispute between Honiss and the French hooker Raphael Ibanez, where no less an authority than Brian Moore was on Ibanez's side. The present mess has been brought about by contradictory rules; by front row forwards who will not or cannot play out of their specialist positions; and by the referees' more or less unfettered discretion to order uncontested scrums. One way out would be to give the side with the put-in a tap penalty instead.