Watchers watched - then what?

We have seen what the referees watch and who watches the referee. What happens after that?

The referees referee and their performance is evaluated. For top referees this evaluation comprises five written reports. These written reports go to the International Rugby Board's manager, the local bodies responsible for the referee and to the referee himself. Written reports are accompanied by a DVD.

Let's talk about the top me, for they are the ones most scrutinised and most criticised.

That performance package goes to the IRB's selection panel. - David Pickering (chairman), Bob Francis, Michel Lamoulie, Steve Hilditch, Tappe Henning, Kevin Bowring and Paddy O'Brien. Their job is to see as many of the top referees as they can, including those on the brink of breaking into their merit panel and to study reports on and recommendations of referees. They also try to pay attention to referees outside of great eight. It is a big job, but it does mean that the sifting process is careful.

Their concern is not just the 16  referees who make the merit panel. The IRB relies on the countries and the countries rely on local society to develop referees and present them to the higher body for their possible promotion. The IRB has several tournaments which it uses to find new talent - Sevens tournaments, the European Cup of Nations, Americas Cup, the Asian 5 Nations, the Pacific Nations Cup, the Churchill Cup, the Anglo-Irish competition, the Under-20 World Championship, the Under-20 World Championship and competitions such as the Super 14, the European Cups, the Top 14, the Magners League, the Guinness Premiership, the Currie Cup and the Air New Zealand Cup. It is a huge job, demanding lots of energy and expertise.

Having studied matches and reports of matches, the selectors will promote or demote referees, mindful that the referees are their precious resource, part of rugby assets. Like all companies they treasure their assets.

There is a belief in some quarters that referees are inviolable. Things get said, like: Players have a bad game and get dropped, coaches make a mess and are sacked but referees go on regardless.

Are players, who are the major part of the game's assets, really dropped after one bad match or two bad matches or even after several errors? A succession of bad matches may well see them replaced by players their selectors believe can do better.

When they are dropped, are there banner headlines saying that they have been dropped? No, those who are interested will merely notice that they are no longer in the team. On finding that they are not injured it is assumed that they are dropped.

No coach does not make mistakes. Like players they err, sometimes seriously but they are not necessarily dropped immediately. If they were coaches would become whirling dervishes going from team to team.

The same is true of referees. Under the grand Charles Durand, French referees would be tested on five matches before being demoted. Yes, but are referees demoted?

Yes, they are. There is no great announcement that a referee has been demoted. They are just not appointed to matches they would be expected to be appointed to, and those who are interested will realise that they have been dropped. It has happen bed to several of the world's best referees. They have not been selected for World Cups, not appointed to Six nations matches or November Tests or June Tests where one would have expected to have seen them, and the quality of the match appointed to may also tell a tale of the referee's standing. Some demoted referees make it back - much to the delight of the selectors whose job it is to build, not destroy.

There is, of course, a guillotine brigade - those who would chop referees' heads off, get rid of them immediately. The other day a few of us went down the top 16 referees and listed the countries or top teams who would like to get rid of them. We ended with one referee out of 16! He could not referee all matches. That would mean we would have to go to the next level of referees to find 15 referees to take their place, 15 men regarded as not as good as the 15 we have excised. A little thought would suggest that this is ridiculous.

Then there is the brigade that would like their reports made known. People would soon tire of that but what business/profession would  make known in public critical assessments of their best employees/achievers? It does not happen, and if there are errors building up is probably more valuable than breaking down.

There are a lot of people who were hard through constantly refined structures to produce the best referee for the best teams.

Human nature there will always be. In fact sport is possible only because of human weakness. If perfect played perfect, there would be no game, not even chess.

These are practical considerations, not more philosophical ones which would also be worth considering.

We have now seen what the referees watch, who watches the referees and what happens when they have been watched. It may help to understand refereeing and its systems.