Because it seems that prior to this incident, the SANZAR code of conduct forbade coaches etc, "intimidating, abusing, threatening etc" referees or other officials. As this incident did not fit that description, there was no breach of the code of conduct.
SANZAR have now (wisely) decided that they want to extend that to coaches approaching referees at half time. So that everyone became aware of this change they have written to all teams warning them of the addtion to the code of conduct.
That is the truth of it. Trying to turn a short, polite and entirely unremarkable conversation into a grand conspiracy is what is ridiculous.
The breach has nothing to do with the manner or the conduct of the conversation. The breach is that the conversation happened at all!
The Code of Conduct apparently says:
"All persons ... shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a match."
Whether it was intimidating, abusive or threatening has no bearing at all and is irrelevant.
I haven't said that there is a grand conspiracy but the events that took place and the manner in which they did give a lot of air anyone looking for a conspiracy and could easily impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of that match.
If someone had substantial dollars on the result and were so inclined, I wonder if they would have a case for an independent investigation or inquiry into the game?
I want to confirm one point in this that the half time restriction is a competition rule not a Law of the Game which means it is not Peyper's responsibility to enforce. It is SANZAR's role to enforce and Peyper's and Cheika's resonsibility to abide by it.
Having said that, referees hope to have professional working relationships with coaches. This enables good discussion, feedback and learning for both sides which should lead to better outcomes. Peyper would hope that he could discuss elements of the game with Cheika during the week.
If a referee has a good working relationship with a coach and they regularly discuss issues, it is not much fun nor great for the relationship to dismiss a coach and say "sorry, not now" particularly if it is likely to be a quick calm conversation that provides clarity on a situation. Nonetheless it is what is required but sometimes it's easier to answer a quick question than create confrontation by dismissing him.
Law 6.A.7 talks about who a ref may consult with during a match. A coach is not one of them and the Law finishes by saying "the referee must not consult with any other persons."
How many coaches have ever gone down to the refs room at halftime to discuss their interpretations with them? Is this a common occurrence? Is it an accepted practice? You would have to say 'NO' given what has come out of this interaction and the fact that SANZAR issued both men with a warning. And a reminder notice to all other coaches that this is a strict no go area.
Referees can have a good working relationship with coaches and regularly discuss issues - just not at half-time of the match they are both involved in.
