Well the ref initiated the conversation. When JdP wont listen he simply ends it. Hard to see a problem. Good to see them trying to talk props out of penalties rather than just blowing the scrums up for reasons the front rowers don't understand.
I also think its great that the referee talks to the players about things, but here's where things get messy:
If the referee warns a player for not binding, but never actually penalises the player for doing so, and subsequently allows said player to lecture him on the dark arts in a most heated fashion and the fails to penalise that player afterwards for that which he was warned, it creates a bad look.
If the referee penalises and speaks to one player about committing one high tackle and then completely ignores one committed by the other team, but instead finds another penalty to call that gives the home team some points, it creates a bad look.
If the referee continually dismisses the captain and vice captain of the visiting teams, but allows any of the home team players to talk at length about anything (and even admonish him), it does not create a good look.
If the referee gives a warning to the visiting team after being told off by the home team for something that the referee has not seen fit to penalise (nor speak about) all game, and then immediately penalises and sends off a visiting team player for that same infringement, it does not create a good look.
If the referee penalises the visiting team 50% more than the home team for technical infringements in the ruck and offside whilst the home team do not get penalised for the same infringements even though they are committing them, it does not create a good look.
Any one of the above doesn't create a good look.
Considering that all of the above took place in one game and it is perhaps not hard to see why the reds management and players (reportedly) feel a little out of sorts with how the game was handled. In the heat of the game, I really don't know what reds players must have been thinking.
To my eyes (and knowing the outcome prior to watching the match), I was rekatively dispassionate about the game, and thought that the referee was mostly pretty ok throughout. But the referee is not managing a lazy prick sitting on a couch the following morning, he is managing guys that maybe are starting to see a red mist - and he needs to be wary of how things might appear to them.
Did any of that cause the reds to lose? No. Dropping that ball when the try line was open lost the reds the game.
On the back of a previous game where two of the three opposition tries were scored off the back of blatant offside and forward passes as well as conversion kicks allowed when they went underneath the crossbar, and I think its fair for reds fans to have a little bit of a vent.
Clearly the reds have been penalised a lot this season, and they are getting a name for it. How much will that affect the upcoming games? Referees are human too, and surely they will now be on the lookout for reds infringements - and therein lies the problem. You don't have to look hard at all to find infringements in rugby and if you are concentrating on one team you are going to miss a lot of infringements by the other team.
