by And so it goes on. First, England captain Owen Farrell has stepped away from international rugby and now referee Tom Foley, television manager of the match in the World Cup final, has done the same. Both have cited online abuse and criticism as a factor in their decisions, and both have expressed a desire to reduce pressure and scrutiny on themselves and their families.
First, this column sends its sincerest wishes to both the Farrells and the Foleys. All the high-profile rugby events in the world clearly count for nothing when compared to the wellbeing and mental health of the people involved and those closest to them. Let’s hope they both meet again on an international field sooner rather than later.
It would also be wonderful to think that this week marks a significant turning point. That the molten fury of social media is beginning to cool slightly and that, before booing the match officials or the high-profile faces on the big screens, people pause to reflect on the human being inside every family name. It’s not just English rugby that needs to stop and reflect on where the sport is heading.
Related: Wayne Barnes: ‘It has gone to the next level of abuse in the last 12 months, directed at my family’
Something has to change before the situation starts to get out of control. Farrell’s World Cup teammate Kyle Sinckler has already told BBC Sport that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if more international players looked to take a break, saying “it’s just the beginning.” In Sinckler’s eyes, there is a growing need to help players navigate the modern realities of their profession. “I don’t think it has anything to do with the fans,” Sinckler suggested, wondering aloud if enough is being done within the team environment to alleviate the pressure. “I just think the support for the players, if I’m frank and brutally honest, could be a lot better.”
It’s an increasingly important debate, with the bonds of society increasingly strained and Internet vitriol growing louder. If there’s a big difference between someone criticizing your scrum or decisions in the morning newspaper and receiving abuse and death threats from anonymous accounts around the world, clearly there are problems for media companies too. If few online users care about the broader implications of what they say or write, ruder public discourse will inevitably result.
Not only does the internet need more vigilant policing, but attitudes also need to be reviewed. Respect and courtesy are increasingly in danger of being seen as outdated constructs rather than the grease that keeps the wheels of society turning. Which brings us back, among other things, to sports writing. The relationship between players, coaches, referees and journalists, the preservation of fair and balanced information and, ultimately, the shaping of public perceptions. Listening to Saracens director of rugby Mark McCall specifically blame elements of “the mainstream media” for provoking the clash that has now caused Farrell to step back, it becomes depressingly clear that mistrust is rife.
This gets to the heart of the dynamic of the professional critic and the professional athlete. Some of us have always taken the view that rugby players, more than most, deserve respect simply for going out on the field. The physical and mental demands at the highest level are enormous. Coaches do a difficult job, referees almost impossible. Good and bad days can happen to anyone. Reviews, as in theater, should be as honest and accurate as possible without becoming personal or gratuitous.
At the same time, the media whirlwind spins faster and faster. The nuances are more difficult, the headlines are more forceful, and the clicks need to be added. The measured columns in the newspaper are less striking than the 15 seconds of a pale-faced coach immediately after a big loss. Newcastle Director of Rugby Alex Codling was a perfect case study on the weekend: the price of your league accepting a fat television contract is having a microphone in front of your nose in your darkest hour.
So what’s next? For some the answer will be obvious. Fewer interviews, fewer intrusions, banish horrible hacks. Mistaken. If anything, rugby needs to do the opposite and speak more openly more often. And here’s why. If Farrell and Foley had felt more able to voice their concerns six months ago and develop more open channels of communication with their employers, the media and, by extension, the public, perhaps things wouldn’t have fallen apart as much as they have. .
Hopefully, amid the fallout, there will be a re-evaluation of the way individuals, clubs and unions deal with the media. The more access and openness, the better. Get rid of the internal content and give them nothing policies and think again. Mike pulls up the captains (Cardiff’s Ellis Jenkins was excellent to listen to the other day) and referees as a matter of routine and makes each member of each team available for interviews, upon request, for an hour each week. Suddenly there will be authenticity and insight where, for too long, there has been disdain and suspicion. Instead of pointing the finger at the “mainstream media”, invite rugby correspondents over for a coffee and discuss how things can be improved, collectively.
Rugby, in particular, needs to find more ways to project its human side. The camaraderie and humor, the hopes and fears, the skill and good judgment. Because if the public only sees a fraction of the real story, misperceptions and accusations become harder to avoid. Shooting the messenger is not the way to go either. Better pastoral care aside, the best way to ease the pressure on Farrell, Foley and others is to inform and educate. Or failing that, disconnect the internet.
Do you have any opinions on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, click here.
