In a quiet corner to the west of Baku, Azerbaijan’s bustling capital, stands the Alley of Honor. Here, amidst the calm, rests a black marble headstone marking the resting place of Tofiq Bahramov. Though the name might not resonate with many outside of Azerbaijan, the legacy of Bahramov is etched into the heart of the city. The Tofiq Bahramov Republican Stadium, a grand structure seating 31,200, stands as a testament to his influence, having replaced the former Vladimir Lenin stadium in 1993. But why is this man, who passed away the same year, so revered?

The answer lies in the annals of football history. Tofiq Bahramov was the linesman during the iconic 1966 World Cup final between England and West Germany. Often mislabelled as the “Russian linesman,” Bahramov played a pivotal role in one of the most debated moments in sports history.

The scene: 11 minutes into extra-time, the score tied 2-2. England’s Geoff Hurst fires a shot. The ball ricochets off the crossbar, bounces sharply downwards, and then retreats from the goal. A pause. Hesitation from the referee, Gottfried Dienst, until he spots Bahramov signalling fervently. After a prolonged discussion, Dienst awards England the goal, propelling them to an eventual 4-2 victory.

Even today, the question lingers: did the ball truly cross the line? In an era without video replays or advanced communication systems, Bahramov had only his eyes to rely on. Yet, with his decision, he forever altered the course of football history for two teams, tens of thousands in the stadium, and millions watching worldwide.

Caught in a bunker

In the realm of sports officiating, making accurate calls on technical, attacking and defensive violations is paramount. As the Rugby World Cup enters its third week, the limelight isn’t just on the players, but significantly on the decision-making of the referees, assistant referees, Television Match Officials, and the newly introduced “bunker” system.

The weight of a referee’s call can drastically sway the game’s trajectory, emphasising the critical need for their decisions to be impeccable. This demands not only a deep understanding of the game’s laws but also the physical fitness to keep pace with the game’s intense dynamics.

However, controversy isn’t far behind. Social media was abuzz post the Wales versus Fiji match, mainly due to Matthew Carley’s officiating. The refereeing in that particular match was sharply criticised, with a TV presenter even branding it as “grotesque” and “appalling”. There are strong sentiments suggesting that such officiating is overshadowing the essence of the World Cup itself.

Coaches and fans alike sometimes require a gentle nudge towards the research in rugby. Research indicates that penalty accuracy rates hover between 54 per cent to 80 per cent. Interestingly, these figures can dip due to the referee’s mental and physical fatigue as the game progresses.

It’s effortless for spectators to sit back and critique a referee’s every move. Yet, these officials navigate the high-pressure cauldron of professional sports, with packed stadiums and the intense scrutiny of a global audience. A revealing study from the University of Leeds, examining the 2019 Rugby World Cup, highlighted that a staggering 37.9 per cent of all breakdown events featured at least one infringement. Alarmingly, a whopping 79.9 per cent of these went unsanctioned by officials.

In the intricate world of rugby officiating, even seasoned referees can miss a beat. A study by a research colleague, Professor Wilber Kraak from the Department of Sports Science at Stellenbosch University, highlights this challenge. He discovered that a staggering 93 per cent of illegal ruck clearouts in Super Rugby went unnoticed by the referees.

A vivid example of the challenges officials face unfolded during last week’s match in Saint-Étienne. Midway through the first half, with Fiji leading 9-3, a controversial sequence of events began. Fiji seemed to fumble the ball, an observation shared by the on-field Irish referee, Andrew Brace. Capitalising on this, Nic White sent a brilliant 50:22 kick downfield. Nawaqanitawase, quick on his feet, retrieved the ball, surprising Fiji with a swift throw to inside centre Samu Kerevi. Kerevi dashed, offloaded, and Nawaqanitawase, having looped around, collected and scored seamlessly.

Yet, replays raised eyebrows. Richie Arnold, Australia’s second-row player, seemed to have interfered with the ball while on the ground before White’s kick.

Furthermore, questions arose about the validity of the quick lineout’s distance and its legitimacy, given the ball’s contact with the side-line advertising hoarding. Such oversights, met with audible discontent from fans, coaches, and ex-players, underscore the immense pressure officials face. Analysing these moments post-match, it’s evident that multiple laws might have been overlooked, illustrating the monumental task of officiating at such high stakes.

The initial two rounds of the Rugby World Cup have been marked by a distinct trend. Of the 16 matches played, only in two games (Wales vs. Fiji, New Zealand v Namibia) has a team emerged victorious despite conceding more penalties than its rival. Winning teams are averaging just over eight penalties per game, while losing teams are averaging nearly 13 penalties per game. The team in defence is penalised significantly more than the attacking team but these figures are closer than previous World Cups.

Four red cards have been shown - one apiece to England, New Zealand, Namibia, and Portugal. Intriguingly, none of these game-altering decisions were made by the on-field match referee. Instead, the onus of these decisions was shifted away from the match referee, the TMO, and the assistant referees, and placed in the hands of the "bunker" system. This system, located on the outskirts of Bois de Boulogne at the Roland-Garros tennis centre, has taken precedence. Notably, we have yet to see a referee take the initiative, relying solely on their judgment, to issue a red card.

Analysing the data from the first 16 matches, it's evident that the officiating dynamics have evolved. The figures not only provide a captivating insight but also underscore the significant impact match officials are exerting on the outcomes of these games.

Referee bias is often described as systematic favouritism towards certain teams, especially home or established "big" teams, and is perceived as unjust. The latest Rugby World Cup data, however, counters the claim that there's a prevalent bias against tier 2 teams in this World Cup. Evaluating the penalties given in matches between Tier 1 and Tier 2 teams, there's no notable disparity in the penalties awarded to either side. Moreover, out of the three red cards doled out in the tournament, Tier 1 nations have been on the receiving end of two.

Yet, when we delve deeper into the appointment of officials for this tournament, an imbalance emerges. The list boasts four referees from England, two each from Australia and New Zealand, and one each from Ireland, South Africa, and France. Notably, only one referee from a Tier 2 nation, Nika Amashukeli of Georgia, has been appointed. The disparity extends further with the absence of Tier 2 representation among the seven assistant referees and the seven TMOs.

While logistical constraints may play a part in the development of top-tier referees, World Rugby must prioritise the enhancement of match-official training on a global scale. This ensures diverse representation and upholds the integrity of the sport.

The high-octane nature of rugby demands split-second decisions from referees, which, at times, can lead to inadvertent errors. While such mistakes can impartially impact any side, certain external factors might habitually tip the scale in favour of specific teams. Past studies suggest that factors like crowds or the involvement of marquee teams can inadvertently influence referees. Even with an innate desire for neutrality, referees might unintentionally sidestep decisions that could elicit negative reactions from spectators or the media.

Referee analysis has become a strategic cornerstone for teams in this World Cup. Top-tier teams are investing heavily in understanding the tendencies and patterns of the referees officiating their upcoming matches. There's a concerted effort to decipher their unique scrum calling sequences, with some teams even integrating audio recordings of referees' voices into their training sessions. This deep dive extends to understanding how referees oversee lineouts, breakdowns, their response to in-game queries, and their general positioning on the field.

Tonight, the spotlight will be on New Zealander Ben O'Keeffe as he officiates what promises to be a nail-biter between the world's top two teams. In such closely contested matches, the outcome can hinge on a single decision by the referee or the strategy teams employ to influence his judgment. O'Keeffe's recent officiating in the France versus Uruguay match offers some intriguing insights.

Among the 16 games, he's awarded the highest number of penalties, with a startling one-third of them being at scrum time - significantly more than his counterparts. This statistic is of particular concern for Ireland, especially coupled with the fact that under O'Keeffe's watch, the match showcased the lowest ball-in-play time. Ireland, aiming to capitalise on their agility against the formidable South African forward pack, will be vying for extended ball-in-play durations.

While O'Keeffe's influence on tonight's match might not reach the iconic stature of Tofiq Bahramov's football history though his application of rugby laws could very well sway the result. Here's hoping his officiating provides an edge akin to the one England football enjoyed in 1966, possibly giving Ireland a subtle advantage in a match where the interpretation of crucial decisions by the referee and his team might just be the deciding factor.

The Currency’s coverage of the Rugby World Cup is sponsored by Interpath Advisory.

Interpath Advisory supports businesses, their investors, and stakeholders with critical financial advisory and restructuring services.  Enhanced by technology, Interpath’s purpose is to create, defend, preserve, sustain, and grow value. Interpath in Ireland operates across 3 offices in Dublin, Cork, and Belfast.