Honesty, punishable by death

In a certain IRB 7's Series Final there was an incident which by the letter of the law warranted a red card. This is all history now, however I've stumbled across something that leaves a sour taste. A welsh referee by the name of Hugh Watkins posted "Sorry that's a shocker. Had to be red no other option. We need referees to be consistent in this." via Twitter during the match. The WRU stated that he had breached the code of conduct for referees and sought to punish him. However Hugh resigned before the disciplinary hearing.

The WRU code of conduct for referees states that: A match official shall not make any public criticism in any medium (including via social networking websites) of any Club or any match official, team manager, Club official or Player or any other Person.

I must say I agree with Hugh and I don't see the criticism in what he posted, just the harsh facts and a reinstatement of the rugby law. Do you believe the WRU were correct in their actions?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22207141

WRU in Frak someone over shocker...

WRU in 20 years service spit in face shocker...

Watkins bringing the game in disripute

Watkins spit in the face of referee's

Pick a headline. The WRU do this at every opportunity, the head honcho's can get away with whatever they like but the loyals on the ground can't make a single mistake withoout getting the book thrown at them!!!

Worst
Run
Union

I agree he should of been banned, but not for 12 weeks but for 12 years.

The last thing rugby needs is pedantic referees that enforce the "Tip tackle" law to the very letter of the law, especially the red card sanction.

Rugby was doing just fine for well over a hundred years, and then some fools decided to invent the stupid "tip Tackle " law up, and its been a disaster for concerned ever since.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby was doing just fine for well over a hundred years, and then some fools decided to invent the stupid "tip Tackle " law up, and its been a disaster for concerned ever since.

It highlights more inconsistencies with the rule then. I've seen so many incidents since 2011 and it's become a joke. But for now, it's the law. So where was Watkins incorrect?

Its Watkins' attitude thats incorrect.

No ruling for that unfortunately. Never mind. If some developer like Samoa does it it's all fine down in your hemisphere.

Dont understand!! Whats Samoa got to do with it?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I agree he should of been banned, but not for 12 weeks but for 12 years.

The last thing rugby needs is pedantic referees that enforce the "Tip tackle" law to the very letter of the law, especially the red card sanction.

Rugby was doing just fine for well over a hundred years, and then some fools decided to invent the stupid "tip Tackle " law up, and its been a disaster for concerned ever since.

NZ 'fan' in support of spear tackle shocker!

I never saw a spear tackle...

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I never saw a spear tackle...

Quite.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I never saw a spear tackle...

Quite.

Because there was no spear tackle there to be seen.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I never saw a spear tackle...

Quite.

Because there was no spear tackle there to be seen.

Your card has already been marked

Whether he was wrong or not, Watkins did publicly criticise the ref via social network media. Watkins said the other ref was wrong and inconsistent. How is that not being critical (again being right or wrong is irrelevant).

This is quite clearly against the WRU rules and therefore he had a case to answer.

It would be inconsistent of the WRU, who have asked others to explain their words on Twitter, not to ask him in to explain. As Watkins is so keen on consistency, surely he should want it applied to himself as well.

mikey_philVIII wrote:

The WRU code of conduct for referees states that: A match official shall not make any public criticism in any medium (including via social networking websites) of any Club or any match official, team manager, Club official or Player or any other Person.

Big Bother? A Match Official must not be human.... even when talking about actors, politicians, musicians etc...........

Somene should scan these 'precise codes' 'cause some of them wouldn't hold much water in court.

LondonTiger wrote:Whether he was wrong or not, Watkins did publicly criticise the ref via social network media. Watkins said the other ref was wrong and inconsistent. How is that not being critical (again being right or wrong is irrelevant).

This is quite clearly against the WRU rules and therefore he had a case to answer.

It would be inconsistent of the WRU, who have asked others to explain their words on Twitter, not to ask him in to explain. As Watkins is so keen on consistency, surely he should want it applied to himself as well.

I absolutely agree with this. He should not have posted it. It's a good rule and there for a reason. The WRU were right to pick him up on it and he should have at the very least been publicly censured for breaching the rules.

Watkins resigning is his own business. His choice to spit out the dummy. He was wrong, and was rightly going to be punished. Twitter is not the forum to express those sorts of concerns. He should have been more professional.

He didn't spit out a dummy, he spoke his mind. And then he wasn't going to hang around as the Headmasters came around to spank him.

We here on 606 tear into anything that moves on a rugby field...players, coaches, ballboys, and most especially refs..................... we say it all here, with much richer language and put downs than the guy used on his tweet.

This is a public forum... referees and players can read our insults and ridicule...it's much more fruity than any mainstream media

...but somehow, we think what we do is harmless in respect to 'bringing the game into disrepute' and yet you can be certain organisations now make some decisions based in part on what gets said on social media...the hiring and the firing.

We're so precious on these forums about the rights and wrongs of someone else being given the privilege of having an opinion.
Players give opinion, Coaches give opinions - refs, yeah, they should be allowed give opinions. If they say the hate a particular player or don't like a particular team then they forfeit a job they like - they've talked themselves out of a job. But to meditate on an aspect of the game, yeah, they're human; reasonable opinions through the game will make it better.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Dont understand!! Whats Samoa got to do with it?

Because thinking back to a certain autumn series you Kiwi's were fine with a number of inconsistencies then, particulary during a game involving Samoa. But that's "just the way they do it" on their island.

Straightforward to me - this is this person's job not a hobby that he is free to comment on.

Part of that job is not to criticise other referees in a public manner. This will be a part of his contract.

This type of thing is common in many jobs in all industries - you can face a slap on the knuckles for making public comments regarding your opinion on your boss, your company, your umbrella organisations etc.

I've read about people in other industries who weren't hired or were fired about things they wrote on Twitter or Facebook.

Would Watkins have made that announcement to the newspapers? Probably not and it shows how foolish people are when it comes to social media.

SecretFly wrote:He didn't spit out a dummy, he spoke his mind.

I was referring to his decision to quit his job, rather than be reprimanded for breaking the rules that apply to his profession.

I love how you equate our opinions with those of a professional referee! It is unprofessional to criticise your colleagues in public, it undermines your colleagues. That is why there are rules in place to stop referees criticising each other in public. He knew those rules, broke those rules and then resigned rather than accept the punishment for breaking those rules.

I'm not entirely sure what the WRU has done wrong here.

red_stag wrote:Straightforward to me - this is this person's job not a hobby that he is free to comment on.

Part of that job is not to criticise other referees in a public manner. This will be a part of his contract.

This type of thing is common in many jobs in all industries - you can face a slap on the knuckles for making public comments regarding your opinion on your boss, your company, your umbrella organisations etc.

I've read about people in other industries who weren't hired or were fired about things they wrote on Twitter or Facebook.

Would Watkins have made that announcement to the newspapers? Probably not and it shows how foolish people are when it comes to social media.

That's the madness of our allegedly increasingly 'free' but increasingly controlled society...where what you say as a skinny teen, trying to impress your peer group, get's used against you ten years down the line as you look for a reponsible job having developed into a responsible humanbeing.

Big Brother. And the people who are beginning now, and certainly will do in the future, to suffer the consequences of what they waffle about on social media are the same ones who champion the tightening and tightening of the requirements to 'keep your mouth shut' on it?

Freedom of speech is much greater than any rugby game, code or sport. What should really happen is that companies and organisations that can be proven to have looked up social media to get a fix on their employee's personality should be fined heavily. That's the way the social media revolution should be going. More privacy legally protected through social media intercourse than the other way round.

To Exiled...oh they're the rules. Agree with you there. I'm saying I don't agree with them to an extent, the extent that they should be modified. And I certainly say social media should be legally changed to 'private discourse' and prying professional eyes should be sanctioned for using them to spy.

Just different ways of looking at an increasingly electronic communication world.

Hugh chose his words carefully there, it doesn't seem he was singling out just a ref in particular. And if they aren't consistent in the ruling (which they haven't been, all apart from Rolland) then it makes the rules a mockery. WRU probably should have had words but I don't think they should have banned him. But if this sets the precedent then I only hope the WRU are consistent with it!

How do we know he was going to get a ban or.sanction? All we know was he was facing a discussion from WRU.

red_stag wrote:How do we know he was going to get a ban or.sanction? All we know was he was facing a discussion from WRU.

Read the article. The WRU went ahead with the hearing without Watkins and it was worth a 12 week ban.

mikey_philVIII wrote:

red_stag wrote:How do we know he was going to get a ban or.sanction? All we know was he was facing a discussion from WRU.

Read the article. The WRU went ahead with the hearing without Watkins and it was worth a 12 week ban.

Thanks Mick. Didn't see that.

A 12 week ban is hardly akin to death...

The Bourne Identity has the line something along the lines of never question a judgement made in the heat of battle. The circumstances are different when you are caught up in the action.

There are different ways of breaching a subject without directly calling out somebody. Any ref is going to be sensitive about some of the decisions they made. It's only natural. They have too much to look at. We all want consistency but given the framework in which they operate, how consistent can consistency be when the laws you rule on are open to interpretation?

12 weeks is harsh but he had to expect something just as a player criticising a ref should expect the same as well.

In my line of work; like most others every decision is encouraged to be as transparent as possible. Therefore; IMO it's healthy for that referee to make those comments .It's only by encouraging that open culture and accepting that we all get it wrong sometimes that we are going to have better refereeing and more tolerance from the fans.

You think a referee criticising the performance of another referee in public is going to increase tolerance from the fans?

You think referees will improve knowing that their colleagues (i.e. their professional rivals) are permitted to slate their performances publicly?

Strongly disagree.

funnyExiledScot wrote:You think a referee criticising the performance of another referee in public is going to increase tolerance from the fans?

You think referees will improve knowing that their colleagues (i.e. their professional rivals) are permitted to slate their performances publicly?

Strongly disagree.

Happy to disagree

I'm all to happy to disagree as well Ruby. You can have all the transparency you like but ultimately it's up to a few individuals to decide. Look at the mess with bans. Plenty of transparency on that front but spitting is seen as more serious than stomping or gouging and good behaviour can get lengthy bans downgraded to lenient ones. Plenty of criticism about that but not a lot of consistency shown.

RubyGuby wrote:In my line of work; like most others every decision is encouraged to be as transparent as possible. Therefore; IMO it's healthy for that referee to make those comments .It's only by encouraging that open culture and accepting that we all get it wrong sometimes that we are going to have better refereeing and more tolerance from the fans.

I think youve got this round the wrong way, Maybe the open culture would see Van der Vesthazen (Spelling??) give some transparent advice to the Welshman, He has been the stand out newcomer on the International sevens referees panel this year. Promising new referees should be encouraged and supported not abused/criticised via social media.

If nothing else watkins was a fool to post it and having done so, a fool to fall on his sword. he should have had the courage of his convictions and fought his case. Had he done so he would have had a forum and the ears of many fed up with WRU omnipotence, by quitting he has just shown he has no b@lls and this makes his original comment appear ridiculous.

SecretFly wrote:He didn't spit out a dummy, he spoke his mind. And then he wasn't going to hang around as the Headmasters came around to spank him.

We here on 606 tear into anything that moves on a rugby field...players, coaches, ballboys, and most especially refs..................... we say it all here, with much richer language and put downs than the guy used on his tweet.

This is a public forum... referees and players can read our insults and ridicule...it's much more fruity than any mainstream media

What we say is anonymous- if you have a position within the game you have a responsibility to be careful with your words. Out of respect for your colleagues if nothing else. And for referees it's very clearly defined in a code of conduct which Watkins would/should have been aware of. Seems like Watkins still would have only got a slap on the wrist if he turned up and ate the biscuits.

Not only does he breach the code of conduct he previously agreed to follow, he refuses to even engage with the disciplinary process. He can't complain about the suspension when he doesn't even attend the hearing. If he goes and they give him 12 weeks I think it's ridiculous. If he apologises and withdraws the comment he should only get a very minor slap on the wrist. But he refuses to even go along and explain. If your asked to appear in court and you ignore that summons, how do you think thats gonna play out for you? This isn't much different.

He was in the wrong. Ironically, this draws much more attention to his comments than otherwise would have happened. No-one looks good. He's spoken as a fan when he needs to be cogniscant of the fact he's representing himself as a referee and representing the WRU whenever he tweets or posts online. People engage on twitter in much the same way as they would in a pub and this is a classic example of someone forgetting how public twitter is. But I have little sympathy for him; it's not a pub. It's a public forum where your views and conversations can be viewed by anyone with an internet connection. Watkins needed to bear that in mind- as well as the code of conduct he took on when he took on the job.

And I think that the protocol on referees not criticising each other is a good idea. But this is a very Welsh affair. Both parties have overreacted massively. WRU have come down on him like a ton of bricks and he's made a rod for his own back by completely refusing to admit his wrongdoing or engage with the process.

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:He didn't spit out a dummy, he spoke his mind. And then he wasn't going to hang around as the Headmasters came around to spank him.

We here on 606 tear into anything that moves on a rugby field...players, coaches, ballboys, and most especially refs..................... we say it all here, with much richer language and put downs than the guy used on his tweet.

This is a public forum... referees and players can read our insults and ridicule...it's much more fruity than any mainstream media

What we say is anonymous- if you have a position within the game you have a responsibility to be careful with your words.

One law for us in our public chattering bile forums, another law for the people in high places who have to mind their manners and keep their mouths shut as they face the torrents of abuse from the no-name Net warriors.

He was careful with his words, Notch. Twitter doesn't give you a whole lot of time or words for elaboration. He was careful. He didn't verbally attack anyone... he questioned a decision.
Wrong to do so by the letter of the contract of his employment.
Not a blessed thing wrong with what he said though. A Twitter opinion. Nobody is going to jump over a cliff under the stress of what he said. The rugby world isn't going to crumble with shock. Yeah, you're right - overcooked reaction - from authority.

Oh well. I guess we all have entrenched views though. I'm just relieved Adam Jones agrees with me because otherwise it seems to be just me and Ruby .
Note to Employers - stay away from social media. It's voyeuristic, cheap and quite simply tacky (your interest in it, that is). Twitter should have the same rights attached to it as that pub you speak about. The world has moved on. It's actually the 'forward technology thinkers' who have the backward views on how technology should now be controlled.

Twitter IS the pub. People must have the rights to exchange views and opinions in a 'private' capacity using modern methods. The genie won't be going back in the box. More and more of a person's private life is going to be stored in public spaces not by choice but out of necessity. The laws of privacy should be re-written to cater to that new reality.

On the apology thing. I assume that's why he resigned. He felt an 'apology' demand coming and wasn't about to lie to protect 'integrity'.

Me and you Fly The voices of reason in the neurotic world of cyberspace where transparency is strangely a naughty word. Don't worry, in time they will all come round to the fact that we are right. I commend that chap for both his reserved and rational comments and the way he left the clowns to find something else to frown on. In the wake of it all however a very very dangerous tackle that could have had dire consequences for the young lad is the last thing that people want to discuss. Well done ref, you had the courage to speak out when someone in your position needed to

Utterly ridiculous Ruby,

The issue has nothing to do with free speech, transparency etc. no one is trying to deprive him of free speech either (he had other alternatives). It is a rugby sevens issue and refereeing.

What annoys me more however is those that adopt moral high ground over others on here yet they dont look at the actual incident and treat it for what it actually was, and then look to blame the referee because their team (wales) suffered some imaginery disadvantage because their team lost.
I dare say that Marius Van der Westhuizen offers a lot more to rugby than Mr Watkins ever did or will.

Auckland - My discussions have no bearing on the outcome of this match; in fact I don't think that is an issue here; although you rambling on about it may reveal where you are really coming from. Irrespective of the nations involved I am glad and somewhat reassured that someone in authority has the cahoonas to speak up. I would actually argue that he has a responsibility to speak up when seeing an incident like that. I would like to see refs asked to review footage of some of their decisions and ask them in the cold light of day if they feel they got it right. This should not be done in a patronising or toxic patriarchal manner but in a manner that allows them to look and reflect. I would see it as part of their professional development as referees. I think players respond well when a ref has the baxxs to say; I got that wrong, sorry. Then we can all move forward. I see no problem with that. We all get it wrong sometimes. With a dangerous tackle of that nature maybe a TMO would be best placed to review it as the ref doesn't have 10 pairs of eyes.

And by the way; this post is not about Wales so don't turn it into something it isn't; it's about protecting players and referees

What made this incident have bit of a whiff about it was the hoopla surrounding the match,a big Fiji/Serevi party was in full swing.Would not want a Fiji defeat to spoil the party now would we?

The ref was unprofessional and shouldn't have used Twitter to voice his concerns. Will people never learn about how social media works in terms of professional conduct affecting a job role?

The WRU did the right thing.

No idea why the OP decided that this is 'punishable by death'.

Taffineastbourne wrote:What made this incident have bit of a whiff about it was the hoopla surrounding the match,a big Fiji/Serevi party was in full swing.Would not want a Fiji defeat to spoil the party now would we?

Hang on, you aren't suggesting that Wales only lost a game because of the referee are you??

What about injuries? Presumably Wales had some of those as well?

Moral victory to Wales I think.

SecretFly wrote:

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:He didn't spit out a dummy, he spoke his mind. And then he wasn't going to hang around as the Headmasters came around to spank him.

We here on 606 tear into anything that moves on a rugby field...players, coaches, ballboys, and most especially refs..................... we say it all here, with much richer language and put downs than the guy used on his tweet.

This is a public forum... referees and players can read our insults and ridicule...it's much more fruity than any mainstream media

What we say is anonymous- if you have a position within the game you have a responsibility to be careful with your words.

One law for us in our public chattering bile forums, another law for the people in high places who have to mind their manners and keep their mouths shut as they face the torrents of abuse from the no-name Net warriors.

...

At the moment Fly us on the Admin team consider we've had a good week if we haven't heard from lawyers and or the police over stuff that's been posted on v2 .

Those contacts have been on sections other than rugby admittedly but ...


I personally have some sympathy for Watkins. That said, if I went on twitter and criticised a work colleague for something they'd done that I disagreed with I'd expect to hear from my manager about it. And odds are it'd see my annual bonus trimmed a bit. But (unless I had another job lined up ) I wouldn't resign over the telling off.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:What made this incident have bit of a whiff about it was the hoopla surrounding the match,a big Fiji/Serevi party was in full swing.Would not want a Fiji defeat to spoil the party now would we?

Hang on, you aren't suggesting that Wales only lost a game because of the referee are you??

What about injuries? Presumably Wales had some of those as well?

Moral victory to Wales I think.

Wales were ahead,Fiji's best player should have been sent off reducing themto 6 for over half the Final.If I were a betting man.......
You watch the incident and make your own mind up.

Watkins was right in what he said but paid the price (ultimately) for writing what he did.

Wales was robbed for sure in that match. They were all over Fiji and that tackle was absolutely atrocious! Couldn't believe the Fijian guy didn't get a Red card.

However, I can see both sides of this debate. I know this guy (Watkins) probably should have kept within his IRU contractual obligations and refrained from making a 'public comment' on Twitter but then again - it was also a correct and objective remark... and also rather harmless, imo. Someone had to say it but unfortunately - it should have been anyone but him.

Respect for referees is an integral part of rugby. If we allow any erosion of the current standing you will have a soccer type situation where the regions/clubs/provinces management are bolting straight to the media and unleashing a vitriolic attack on the man with the whistle and the players will feel justified in jostling the ref if any deciscion goes against them.

Given that Union is a more complex sport and the referee has more input, we could easily see each game descending to a series of reset scrums and pushing/shoving matches with back row forwards gesticulating in the refs face after every ruck.

I agree with freedom of speech - however once you are part of an organisation you sign up to follow their rules. If any serving ref wants to unleash criticism on their fellows (in the full knowledge that there is an existing process for the evaluation of referees) the decent thing would be to resign - then twit, tweet or whatever the hell they do - basically it's internet gossiping - and no penalties will come their way.

If this ref had been an ordinary Joe his comments would have attracted no interest, if he had been commenting on an incident in snooker/soccer/darts or cricket he would have been ignored, however it was because of his standing within rugby that his comments were given more wieght than the ordinary Joe, abuse of his position in my eyes.

Linebreaker wrote:Watkins was right in what he said but paid the price (ultimately) for writing what he did.

Wales was robbed for sure in that match. They were all over Fiji and that tackle was absolutely atrocious! Couldn't believe the Fijian guy didn't get a Red card.

However, I can see both sides of this debate. I know this guy (Watkins) probably should have kept within his IRU contractual obligations and refrained from making a 'public comment' on Twitter but then again - it was also a correct and objective remark... and also rather harmless, imo. Someone had to say it but unfortunately - it should have been anyone but him.

+ 1

Not quite anyone but him LB. Not Nigel Owens neither Steve Walsh et al
. Why? Because contractually obliged not to make public comments. That is the only issue here. I could morally be applauded by some for slapping a fat person in a cut off t shirt but I'd still be up for assault even though common sense should prevail and I be given a medal for my civic duty.
If he had been smart he would have got a friend to make the tweet and quoted him. As it stands he knew the price and he paid for it. Sounds like he wanted to go back to sleeping in on the weekends.

Oh yeah, Kia. All other IRU refs too. They did the 'right' thing.

Good idea about getting a ghost writer to do it. Of course, he would have to make sure he covered his electronic tracks thoroughly.

Don't all 'celeb' Twitterdimwits use ghost writers anyway?

"Luv @ll Mi fans diz mornin'!!!!! - Wat a Lyfe!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

He should have said his 'ghost writer' did it without his consent. It wouldn't exactly be an unknown occurrence.

He's way too honest for that obviously, Fly.

Agree, it might have been a good 'defence' and then someone else could have taken up the batten as a secondary attack. Things like this (the original error on the field) just can't continue to happen - in any game, amateur & professional - and especially in a Final.