London Wasps went to play Sale Sharks at Edgeley Park in Stockport on 27 November 2009 in a Premiership match. London Wasps said the pitch was dangerous and refused to play.

Sale Sharks thought the pitch playable  and the referee, experienced David Rose, said that the pitch was playable, but Wasps refused to play. Ten minutes before the scheduled kick-off the crowd of 8 000 was told there would be no match. There was disappointment and anger.

Wasps were charged with breaching rules but claimed that  they "did not actually refuse" to play the game and were cleared by a disciplinary committee convened to examine the case. They found that the referee was to blame for not being clear enough because there was some sort of conflict between the Laws of the Game as formulated by the International Rugby Board and the RFU's regulations.

Law 1.6 OBJECTIONS TO THE GROUND
(a) If either team has objections about the ground or the way it is marked out they must tell the referee before the match starts.
(b) The referee will attempt to resolve the issues but must not start a match if any part of the ground is considered to be dangerous.

That is what the IRB's laws say. There was an objection from wasps, presumably Rose tried to resolve the issue. In his view there was no reason to stop the game. By implication he was then obligated to start the match. If Wasps then do not want to start the match, they are in the wrong.

Then there is a Premiership regulation which states that no club should fail to fulfil a fixture "without just cause" and that the referee has the final say as to whether a game goes ahead.

Rose should have insisted that the game go ahead. He was found remiss in not insisting, stating clearly to Wasps that the decision the decision for the match to go ahead was his alone and that he had decided that the match should go ahead. And so Wasps got off.

The disciplinary committee stated: "Had the referee's decision about the fitness of the pitch and/or its communication to Wasps been clearer, Wasps would have been in breach of the regulations as alleged, if they had then refused to play the fixture."

The committee also blamed the RFU: "The referee could have been given clearer guidance about the relevant regulations and their application by officials from the RFU and the referee could have been given more explicit training and guidance in advance of the fixture.

"We hope that obvious lessons will now be learned from this incident and that no similar incident will be allowed to recur."

Sale decided not to take the matter further and the RFU came out with a statement of confidence in referee Rose.

What a silly howdido! This is the danger of rulings and regulations. It would be better to have clearly stated laws which can be adhered to. The matter of the ground and the referee's jurisdiction could easily be stated clearly enough not to need additional regulations.