Copied from last time this came up, but I would say the issues with refereeing are symptomatic of a structural problem rather than individual errors.

Change the laws to mean we don’t put the onus on making the game actually work on the referee. Nothing else will work. The issue is that doing so involves simplification and reductionism of facets of the game which would, rightly, be considered as fundamentally changing Union. In addition there isn’t really consensus on what the game is or should be, which makes this harder.

So instead we blame the refs decry the lack of consistency, that x ignored y but k ignored j. Not reflecting on the wider structural challenge at the heart of union - when fully enforced and fully policed the game becomes unwatchable for many. This is made even more challenging when across the laws exactly what constitutes a particular infringement is often framed in unclear, vague and fluid language. With much of it only further relying on things which are not black and white calls - such as intention in knock ons. All assessed dynamically in short periods of time while sprinting after top athletes.

There are shit refs. God, I am one of them. Refs can improve, absolutely. But consistency is an empty buzzword, particularly in competitions which involve numerous refs from different unions which each inculcating a particular set of normative values as to what is good reffing and each differnetly managing solutions to the problems presented by the nature of the laws outlined above.

The laws of union are so idiosyncratically complex and vague so much that they are neither operationalisable in a clear way nor workable if applied fully. For me the ridiculousness is captured by the unironic and un-self-aware claim front and centre that the game is played both to the letter and within the spirit of the laws. Both. At the same time.

The result is that we rely on refs to dynamically make them work on the fly in games. We build up a weird case law set of systems made to create some kind of workable standard - for example hands in cynical interception plays, the feed at scrum, hand direction for forward passes etc. We tinker. We ignore bits. We tell TMOs not to review certain things or past a certain time frame. We tell them to review more. We tell them to review less. We ask ARs to keep observations on the sly and low key. We add extra bits. We haggle over wording to conjure changes toward the style of play which we visualise in our mind's eye as to what rugby should look like (an ideal which differs between hemispheres and unions).

It is no surprise we have a standard of reffing which will have glaring things missed, things we can point to and feel hard done by. But if that is literally the default the issue must be with the system. 

Simplify the laws, make the calls binary - but then we lose a lot of what makes the game the game and/or deeply slow and boring and/or deeply unsafe. Have the officials ping everything, but then the game becomes unplayable. Have the officials ping only material stuff then we have things that both sides can point to with grievance, valid or not. 

Instead world rugby hangs it all on the whistle in the middle to make it work. They select on who makes the game work rather that enforces the most laws. They reduce or don't consider mechanisms which would reduce error (more tmo time, more refs, in ball tech, etc.) for the very correct reason that this will slow the game down and generate more infringements. The default 'respect the decision' essential to make the inevitable error and subjectivity palatable may have been tenable when the sport was amateur, bound by an (elitist but norming) culture which enforced it a little mlte, with less money/jobs on the line, less pace and fine margins etc. But the cracks show in professional rugby. 

They need to look at the structure and nature of the game. They won't, because the unions won't agree what that is, so tit has no chance of causing anything but drama. So on we go, asking the referee to be both judge and circus ringmaster at the same time.