Mark, you were one of many scribes who found nothing wrong with Wayne Barnes in the 2007 RWC or subsequently so clearly your understanding of the laws of the game needs work. Still suprising though you haven’t mentioned his demotion from the panel. He was biased, incompetent and blind so this is long overdue. You won’t hear any Kiwis defending Walsh or Lawrence – we know how bad they are because we’ve seen it time and time again in our own backyard. You are wrong to take particular aim at NZ refs when the reality is there a very very few decent Test standard referees anywhere to choose from. Typically the NH ones are much more pedantic and seem to take particular delight in stopping a game as much as possible.

What a petty article. You don’t like Steve Walsh because you think he’s a peacock ref? Please outline what you think is problematic about Walsh’s performance and not his hairstyle. I think Walsh is a good referee and I’d have him over many other referees currently in the game.

Fair enough the other posters, but I have watched countless England games with Walsh refereeing and seen him ruin them. He is, in the opinion of pretty much every NH supporter, a dreadful ref.

Barnes being dropped is probably fair enough after a few pretty dire games, but I honestly wonder at how the IRB think Walsh is in anyway a decent choice to ref England games when he has openly admitted to hating the English. It smacks of double standards to me.

How does he ruin them? It would be good if you could point to some particular examples. I thought Walsh’s refereeing of France vs Tonga in 2011 was magnificent. It was one of the standout performances to me in the RWC. As an aside, I have the misfortune to be in the Northern Hemisphere and have to listen to the BBC commentators who I think are appalling. They get calls wrong, seem to have some chip on their shoulder that refs are anti-England and their criticism of referees is far worse than I’ve heard in any other country. Quite frankly, I think this is part of the problem and there should be some form of censure available for commentators who openly bag referees on television. I’d say Walsh is one of the better referees around at the moment. If Reason thinks he’s particularly anti-English and wants special treatment for England then I think all countries should be allowed the opportunity to put up the refs they think are impartial toward them. I know NZ would put up Wayne Barnes. Wales – Rollaind. France – Joubert. South Africa – Lawrence and the list goes on etc. Reason offers nothing, but an anti Walsh article that is based on little bit whispered rumours and a sense of English entitlement. Just saying.

He’s not saying England should have special treatment – he’s saying Walsh shouldn’t be classed as an international referee at all.

I do agree that the BBC Commentators are useless, and you’ll find most of us actually agree with you there, although careful about sounding too bitchy about the NH – why are you here if you label it as a ‘misfortune’?

Of course most refs make wrong calls, they’re human after all, and everyone always thinks that the ref is out to get them but Walsh makes the game all about himself. It’s obvious that he struggles with his own discipline considering he was banned in 2009 and suspended for 4 months in 2007 for verbally abusing Shane Horgan in 2007.

Fair enough he’s picked himself up, but how is he considered a viable option for an international referee when he clearly has no respect for the NH. This article isn’t about ‘English entitlement’, but about equality in refereeing, so I don’t quite understand the hostility in your post.

I know what he’s written. I’ve read it and the title of this piece is “England’s fate should not be in Steve Walsh’s hands”. This is asking for England to have preferential treatment and having referees that Reason has decided isn’t up to standard (without any evidence or pointing to particular examples, rather than hairstyles and whispers). I disagree with him and think that Walsh is a good referee. England and Reason might not like him, but that isn’t good enough to lambast Walsh in a petty article light on factual information. My misfortune in being in the NH is to do with having to listen to the BBC commentators. As an aside: I have a passport and will travel wherever I’m allowed to go. Apart from the atrocious BBC rugby commentators, I have no problem with the NH and I think your warning about criticising the NH (when none was intended apart from the terrible BBC commentary) is a bit of a stretch. You’ve taken offense where none was intended. The BBC commentary, in my view, is part of the reason why articles like this get published. Anti-refereeing comments, especially when calls go against England pass as authoritative rugby commentary on your television screens. As many of your commentators don’t appear to be up with rule changes, some referees are badly maligned and it is unwarranted. If Walsh isn’t up to international standards (which I don’t agree with) then I expect many referees to hand in their whistles and the games to be refereed by people like Reason.

I agree the BBC commentators are terrible, the worst I’ve ever had the misfortune to listen to. Granted I’m not the target audience by after this season I’ve sworn to never watch them again. Inverdale is a pompous twat, Moore is a moaning cry baby, Butler is a dullard bore. That woman whoever she is doesn’t know anything about the game and shouldn’t be there. Not being sexist just stating a fact.

Fair enough, obviously I missed your point about being in the NH – and like I said, pretty much everyone here hates the BBC commentary: most of them come across as fans with microphones and the only one with any kind of respect is Keith Wood. Guscott, Davies and Inverdale routinely get slated. Please don’t call it ‘authoratative commentary’ when no one actually takes what they say seriously. If we had our way, they would have gone years ago.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree, because I don’t understand how Walsh can be classed as international class. But then there have been some truely appalling reffing performances of late and I’m struggling to see how Joubert and Rolland made the cut as well: Rolland especially.

I would think the headline is as it is because Walsh has had more run-ins with the English than anywhere else, although the Irish have as much cause to object as anyone else with his treatment of Horgan.

James Marshall – fair point, but Davies is just as bad. Whining when Wales lose, and unbearable when they win. He is literally just a fan with a microphone and basically talks out of his arse.

@ James Marshall – About the only one we think is any good is Jonathan Davies. He should be the go to guy for the BBC. He’s funny, insightful and pretty fair. He has a real feel for the game when he’s commentating live and I enjoy his analysis. The rest: I agree with you. They-are-mud. They don’t try to educate anyone on the game and just seem to give a description of the game as it’s happening without any sort of rugby awareness about what the teams are trying to achieve in their game plans.

I’m not sure about that. I think that England and their supporters think that Walsh has it in for them (maybe he does and maybe he doesn’t), but after listening to the BBC commentators whine when any call goes against them, I suspect people are judging on past history and not what’s happening now. If you think Walsh isn’t of international referee standard, I suggest you go review his performance with France vs Tonga. He was excellent.

Jessica, Anna – I forgot to mention Davies! Each to his own but I’m not a fan of his commentary either but admired him greatly as a player. The ITV coverage of the RWC was also pretty dire. Joel Stransky and the team in SA are excellent and Kearnsie and the guys in OZ are good fun. Generally speaking I think the rugby media serves us really badly as fans. Most of us are lucky enough to see what is happening for ourselves so it would be nice to get proper insight into tactics etc that a casual observer wouldn’t otherwise be aware of. Lest I’m accussed of an anti NH bias the quality of NZ Herald rugby writing is the pits – 99% of it is poorly written sensationalist garbage. I’m well off the original topic I know but just wanted to add that this website is a really welcome addition, a place to learn off the experts and to have friendly disagreements.

@ James – yeah, Stransky is a great commentator. I really like listening to him. Pienaar is good too. The Oz commentators always make me laugh. I even laugh when “Kearnsey” starts whining because Aus is losing (hahaha). At least he’s funny when he does it. Also agree with you on the Herald. They made me ashamed during the RWC, especially with the stuff they wrote about France. Cringe-inducing-bad.

James – I totally agree. Again, most of us hate the ITV coverage not just because of the shocking coverage, but also because of the commentary (Vickery should never be allowed anywhere near a microphone again)

We get good quality reporting in The Rugby Paper here, and I have to say I’m not familiar with the coverage in the SH press, although we all know what the British media is like.

I have heard some SH commentary whilst watching S15 games, and it does seem pretty good, but then some of our domestic commentary over here is good as well. It just seems to be terrestrial TV where the bar falls completely flat.

I do agree that there does seem to be a dearth of talent with regards to rugby reporting and commentary though.

why is it that certain things are passed on from father to son etc???? Your dad never liked NZ or the AB’s….now you are carrying on that tradition!! Now you have taken it a step further and taken aim at the NZ refs. What a real pity !

Try an write a possitive article if that is at all possible!

I think a bigger issue that this article could have dealt with is the obvious divide between NH and SH refs and their interpretation of the rules! It is so frustrating to watch games played under 2 separate set of rules!!

One game one set of rules I say…

1 other suggestion here instead of attacking the individuals that do this job why don’t we setup a panel to police them, have them play their way into and out of their spots much as the players do? One person from each of the top 11 nations on the panel one vote each, rank your top x refs from a pool of 30? and put in the top 11 performers from that list. Every year review the list?

@ Gordon Trotter – that’s a seriously good idea.

“The man inside the hair”? Oh come on Mark, that’s not “the voice of reason”. That’s just sad and, I’d venture to suggest, a little desperate. And raking up mouldy old bones from 2003 … history is history and Walsh has refereed England internationals many times since then. How many player indiscretions are we still talking about from nine years ago? None. We forget them within months, if not weeks or days. Dave Reddin got suspended too, I remember, along with England being fined. That never gets mentioned. No one reaches the top flight of an incredibly challenging public profession once, never mind twice, without phenomenal strength of character and dedication. Steve Walsh had a major fall from grace which he’s dealt with honestly and yes, with real humility. There are interviews out there to illustrate that if you choose to read them, one in particular for the New Zealand Drug Foundation from last May. And no one reaches the top through being biased, either, whatever fans’ perceptions. We can all disagree with a ref’s decisions if they don’t go our team’s way on the day – don’t get me started on Sam Warburton being red-carded in the World Cup – but they call it as they see it in an often heated moment, without the benefit of TV cameras and very few of us would do the job in their place. I watched the Blues vs Hurricanes match too and saw Walsh apologise instantly because he’d blown the whistle too early. It’s not the first time I’ve seen him do it, either. That just tells me the man has huge respect for the game and the players and he wants to get it right. England’s fate is in their own hands, not the referee’s.

i wouldn’t know if he is bias or not, but if he is, he’s only human and like all refs from everywhere in the world he’s not perfect, but he is definitely no worse than anyone else in the position he’s in. The southern hemisphere plays and sees the game different to the north so we are bound to differ on opinion. Walsh has one great thing on his side. He’s transparent in his decision making and communication as a ref and always readily apologises. You hear him say “sorry guys…” during matches on camera all the time. I agree with Anna sutton, James Marshall and Jan Bird. Their posts by far makes sense. This article & the other posters do not. Lastly, it is good teams who have a great work ethic that win games with reasonable consistency, irrespective of who the referee is.

meant to say Anna, James & Jan make perfect sense on here and some of the other posters have great points & suggestions also. Clearly the writer of this article is as blind as he is bias and more experienced with hairstyles than rugby. That would be fair enough except he’s advertising himself as too often writing for the wrong column.

Reason. Spot on: Walsh is rubbish. Hes obviously anti English and his hair is a big issue too. As for doing a good job on Tonga V France… Sometimes the team you want to lose doesn’t need any assistance. France didn’t turn up so Walsh kept quiet. Also he saves his dodgyness for the English and has to do some good games to get there. Brian Moore tries so hard to be impartial he is anti English for the first 60 minutes but then he swings. Fair enough. NH blaming the ref… When was the last time ABs lost and did not blame it on the ref missing a forward pass or some such offence hes previously allowed the ABs also get away with. They even have pubs in NZ named “the dodgy ref”.

Are we now at the point that we blame referees? Players should learn to respect and abide by the laws. Simple

I am amazed that Steve Walsh remains an international rugby referee in view of his past controversial record. Having faithfully watched the Six Nations, Rugby World Cups and other international matches I have never yet managed to watch England ever win a rugby international refereed by Steve Walsh who based on my past viewing experiences it is not unreasonable to suspect as being strongly anti-England. The shock news that he will now be the referee for England’s final match of the 2013 Six Nations is a devastating blow to England’s hopes of the Grand Slam. Please, please can he be replaced by any other international referee?

What a great idea! Why don’t all teams ‘choose’ their own referee? Why should England be privileged and entitled to pick their ref? All teams should be able to do that and soon we’d have no referees at all.

My earlier comment has been misread and misunderstood. I am not advocating that any team should select their own referee – that is absurd! I am requesting the replacement of Steve Walsh with ANY other referee. Steve Walsh’s past career record and conduct is well documented and accordingly it not unreasonable to query (a) his competence (b) impartiality and © current employment as an international referee.

It amounts to the same thing – England getting to pick refs (in this case, ones they don’t want). In that case, all teams should get a veto. I wonder how referees will feel about that? Steve Walsh’s past career record and conduct is just that – past. England needs to get over it. If Walsh is being held to account for his past and impartiality, I’d like to see Wayne Barnes removed from international refereeing immediately and nominate him for veto to never referee the All Blacks again.

I am only referring to ONE referee and most employees are assessed by their past employment record. Please try not to misread and misinterpret my comments and please research the documented employment history of Steve Walsh as an international referee in which case you may appreciate my concerns as to his suitability – in which I doubt I am alone!

I’m extending your argument, so England isn’t the only team that gets to scrutinise one ref. So, let’s see: France will veto Craig Joubert. ABs Wayne Barnes. Manu Samoa Nigel Owen. England Steve Walsh. South Africa: Bryce Lawrence. Most of the Australian refs scare teams. So who else have I left off?

Wales won’t want Alain Rolland. Ireland are lucky Paddy O’Brien has retired (as are France and Fiji too).

To quote your own earlier words – “What a great idea! Why don’t all teams ‘choose’ their own referee?”

And? Your point is? My facetious post was pointing out the obvious flaw in your desire for England to veto a ref they don’t like. Why should England only get that privilege? Why wouldn’t it be extended to all other teams? I know why: because every team has a ref they don’t like and soon there will be no refs. England need to get over and suck it up. Everyone else has to. Why do you think your team is so special?

I am flattered that you attribute my comments and opinion to the England team. You are in error. These are purely my personal comments and opinion based on historically documented facts. Furthermore I personally do not want to have to watch another international refereed by Steve Walsh as he has consistently spoiled my personal enjoyment of past matches that I have watched where he has been the referee. Enjoy your rugby! Over and out!

It’s nice you’re flattered, but I realised (quite early on actually) that you weren’t a representative of England’s national rugby team. I’m interested in why you think your team is entitled to choose or veto a ref and why this privilege shouldn’t be extended to other teams? P.S. I always enjoy my rugby.

On a point of English. Tony says: “Please, please can he be replaced by any other international referee?” Not “can we replace him”. It’s passive. Asking the decision makers, God, who ever. Wishful. Wanting to remove such a bad ref is quite a reasonable desire/request. Because he’s rubbish. It’s no worse than someone saying we should get rid of Kidney. The response to that should not be… “Well if fans start removing coaches where will we all be.” Why did I get sucked in?!

He’s not rubbish. He’s no more “rubbish” than the other refs that have been named. At the last 2011 RWC, I thought Walsh had one of the best games around. He was superb in France vs Tonga. It doesn’t matter if it’s a passive or strident request. The request is still the same: England want special treatment about people who officiate their games and on the basis that their ‘fans’ don’t like one particular ref. As I’ve pointed out quite clearly, many fans of differing nations have problems with refs. If England want to veto one ref – then everyone should get that right. And … it’s not the same as saying “get rid of Kidney”. Kidney is a coach. He’s never going to coach or officiate a game between rival NATIONS is he?

“England” does not want special treatment. You talk nonsense and don’t understand what Tony, one specific individual, was meaning. Your problem.

Let’s rephrase it, so you don’t have to waste any more of your or my time with pedantry. Tony, a fan of England, wants special treatment for his team (I clarified that above, but oh well). You, also, support Tony in having Steve Walsh scrutinised at a level that other refs aren’t. Why? Because you think he’s “rubbish”, even though he is better (or at the very least, no worse) than other refs out there. And … to be clear: it’s not my problem. I’m not asking for ‘special treatment’ (even as a fan). I’m asking why one fan thinks his/her team deserves special treatment and what would happen if said special treatment (i.e. veto) was extended to other teams. Pretty simple really. It would not be good.

Thank you Manuka for your correct reading and interpretation of my comments but I am afraid that we are both wasting out time here as Anna is clearly in denial of the facts. Fact 1 is that Steve Walsh has an appalling documented career record as an international rugby referee unlike any other international rugby referee. Fact 2 The England team are obviously not seeking any special treatment. Fact 3 I would personally like Steve Walsh removed from the referee stage for ALL international rugby matches also including England matches. Anna will clearly seek to re-phrase my comments to her liking. I see no point in trying to continue any further dialogue with Anna.

“I have never yet managed to watch England ever win a rugby international refereed by Steve Walsh”. Tony, you clearly don’t remember France v England in the Six Nations in Feb 2008. France 13-England 24. Referee – Steve Walsh. A "devastating blow to England is a tad melodramatic. If England are that worried about the ref – which I doubt – then they seriously need to refocus and just get on with playing the game.

@ Tony Bell – Unfortunately, you’ve mistaken “fact” for “opinion” (as Jan clearly points out). You are correct, however, England isn’t asking for special treatment. You are asking for it on their behalf (uninvited of course).

What is is that you do not understand by the word “watch”? Come on! – How can I possibly be “asking for it” on behalf of the England team? I thought that I had made it perfectly clear that my comments are my own personal opinion (thankfully we still have freedom of speech in the UK) based, not unreasonably, on the fully documented FACTUAL history of a certain (thankfully unique!) international rugby referee who has a particularly controversial track record in an unusual percentage of past England rugby internationals. “A devastating blow”? I sincerely hope not! All I ask for is a level playing field not tarnished by a controversial referee’s decisions. In my opinion the likelihood of such a level playing field is compromised by the presence of a referee with such a controversial track record as Steve Welsh. I sincerely hope that I am proved wrong!

Do you seriously think your “opinion” on Steve Walsh is fact? You’re not asking for a level playing field. You’re asking for YOUR team to have an international ref removed because you don’t like him. As pointed out to you time and time again, your OPINION is highly selective. Every rugby fan of different teams could nominate different refs and ask for them not to be in charge of a game for THEIR team on equally dubious grounds. What seems to underpin your original and subsequent posts is that you feel your team are victims. They’re not. They’re no more victims (in fact I’d argue they’re less victims) than other teams. Some times you get the rub of the green and sometimes you don’t. I think it’s unjust that you want to malign a ref for his past and because you think your team is unduly affected by his officiating. It’s quite simply not true. You don’t like him. It’s emotional and not factual.

Which “particularly controversial” incidents are you talking about, Tony? One comes to mind in 2003, where England fielded an illegal number of players, and another in 2005 against the British Lions. Steve Walsh paid for both of those. Are we really raking up stuff as old as that? There is a level playing field, and there’s no disadvantage to England because of this referee, or any other. If they play to the rules, and play well, they’ll win.

Tony. You’re inferring that England lose whenever Walsh referees them because of some perceived anti-English bias on his part. Aside from that obviously not being the case, you’re effectively accusing the man of cheating and of favouring any side that plays England. You accuse him of “tarnishing” games. That’s an insult to his integrity as a international official who is, like his colleagues, constantly monitored. If he or any other referee showed constant bias (and why would they?) it would be picked up. Why do England fans jump so quickly to blame the ref when they lose? Perhaps it’s just because they weren’t good enough on the day.

lets cut to the chase here. How many times has Walsh refereed England and how many of those games have England won? He seems to have an unhappy knack of being appointed for important games so the article is right to question the process of appointment. Also think he did Ireland no favours against France with a doubtful French try and some bewildering momentum changing decisions. It is a 15 a side game and having a numerical advantage is a big help.

It’s a real shame. Funny thing is for those that argue Walsh should ref Englands games because he is neutral… Then there is no problem with replacing him with an equally neutral ref through neutral appointment. It’s no benefit if you think he is neutral. Other team could reject the first alternative if they wish. That’s fair. We have to get a better selection process so we can get around the daft argument that England want preferential treatment from those choosing to misunderstand the thread. Greater neutrality is all anyone is asking for. I don’t get why Walsh gets given these key games? It’s highly suspicious. Match fixing? It happens in cricket.

Thankfully, it isn’t down to England, or their fans, or to any other international side to decide who gets to ref them. It’s down to the IRB and that’s how it should stay.

Anna Sutton, are you Steve Walsh in disguise ? just flicking down through this string of comments you seem to be in a very small minority defending a guy who is a shocking ref with a Messiah complex. give it a rest Anna – he is a disaster.

Walsh, arriving at a refereeing conference, drunk, may give an indication about the man and his judgement!

Old news, Jeff.

Or Walsh pushing over Conrad Smith in a game 2 weeks before the Wales game . That’s not old news. Sadly with Walsh there is always some new news about his inappropriate & wayward behaviour. Going back to him trying to pick a fist fight with the England physio, trying to pick a fight with the Lions winger whilst being a touch judge. The guy has anger management issues, and an ego the size of a planet. Walsh shouldn’t be reff’ing. Personally I think the best refs are often Welsh. the Welsh seem to have such an incredibly high regard for the game that their refs seem to see themselves as guardians of the faith & are very impartial. As an England fan I’d be much happier having a Welsh ref in charge of an England Wales game than Walsh.

Conrad Smith was right in Walsh’s face, complaining. Is this soccer? No. Smith got in the way, he stayed on his feet and he got an immediate apology. It should be end of story but because it’s Walsh it won’t be.

Conrad Smith was talking to Walsh when Walsh shoulder barged him. Smith was not acting in a rude or aggressive way, nor was he acting like some football yob, only Walsh was. If a player did that to a ref he would get a very long ban. Walsh brings the game into disrepute, and his continued weird behaviour shows that this is not “old news” as you suggested, but part of a long established and continuing pattern of behaviour.

I see Walsh has been upto his tricks again – this time referring every single try to the TMO in a game between the Blues & the Highlanders, each referral was at the request of the players – mainly the Highlanders who lost the game. He even drew the ire of the SANZAR ref’s panel – which is amazing. How does this guy get senior games ? he just isn’t up to officiating in senior matches.