Quick question. Do you know where Angus Gardner is from?
A small hint: listen to how he says “No.” If you caught the France versus All Blacks Test, you probably heard it a dozen times. That sharp Aussie bark, “No! No!”, rang out every time a breakdown got messy. If it felt familiar, it should. It sounded exactly like a Super Rugby match.
And that got me thinking. Should Test matches be refereed like Super Rugby games?
Super Rugby has made a conscious push to tweak the laws (or at least how they are interpreted) to improve the product. Speed up the game. Cut the stoppages. Make it entertaining. In that sense, it is not all that different to what the NRL has done with the six-again rule.
It is part of a broader trend in modern sport: less whistle, more ball-in-play time.One of the most noticeable shifts in Super Rugby has been in referee communication. Rather than instantly punishing minor infringements, referees will coach players through the game. “Roll away!” “Stay on your feet!” “No!” These are not just reactions; they are preventative tools.
By managing the breakdown with their voice, referees keep the game flowing without constantly blowing the whistle.
It works in Super Rugby. It makes the product faster and more open, which suits the style and the audience. But should that same philosophy apply to Test rugby? I do not think so.
Referee Angus Gardner talks to Cam Roigard of the Hurricanes during the round three Super Rugby Pacific match between Hurricanes and Blues at Sky Stadium, on March 01, 2025, in Wellington, New Zealand. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Test matches are different. Representing your country is the absolute peak. Everything is on the line, and that means the laws should be enforced to the letter. Cynical behaviour, even when subtle, should be punished. There should not be second warnings or soft coaching calls. Players know the rules. If they push the limits, they should pay the price.
Sure, that might disrupt the flow of the game a little. But it also brings clarity. The referee sets a clear standard early. Then, if players break that standard, the consequences are immediate. It puts responsibility back on the players to stay disciplined. And, just as importantly, it helps fans understand what is going on.
One of the biggest complaints after any close Test is the inconsistency of officiating. A player gets pinged for something that was let go five minutes earlier. A side pushes the boundaries at the ruck and gets away with it. Fans are left fuming. And let’s be honest, when it comes to post-match discourse, nothing sours the tone quicker than a refereeing controversy.
If referees enforced the laws more strictly and consistently across all Tests, it would reduce the grey area. It would reduce the controversy. And yes, it might even reduce the abuse.
But there’s another benefit, and it might seem counterintuitive. Stricter officiating could make Tests faster.
Right now, some teams use low-level infringements (especially at the breakdown) to slow things down. They kill momentum. They take the edge off an attacking sequence. If referees stamped out that behaviour early, the game would move quicker, not slower. The pace would lift. The contest would open up. And fans would get what they came to see: high-quality, high-intensity Test rugby.
So maybe it’s time we stop expecting referees to manage Test matches like they are Saturday night Super Rugby games. The stakes are higher. The margins are smaller. The consequences are bigger.
Referees do not need to yell “No!” ten times a half. Just blow the whistle. Set the tone. Let the players adjust.
And if they cannot? Then they probably should not be out there in the first place.
