Dave Craven: Time to give referees opportunity to explain their actions

It is fair to say there was certainly some cheered journalists when the Leeds Rhinos man had his rant about the official in his post-match blast at Elland Road. It lifted the gloom slightly after the Australians had inflicted more misery in Leeds.

Not just because it obviously made good copy – Senior's diatribe following Silverwood's performance in the World Club Challenge was heaven-sent for the tabloid rugby league writers – but also because here was a sportsman saying how he felt. Honestly.

It was refreshing to hear in an age where players' voices – more so in football but on the rise in rugby league – are becoming increasingly bland, generic and monotonous.

Those supporters in their thousands who watched as Leeds's attacking potential was reduced to a struggle in the mud, slowed down continually by canny Melbourne operators who knew exactly how far they could test Silverwood's patience in the tackle area, would have perfectly understood Senior's frustrations.

But was he right to launch such a verbal bashing of the referee calling into question the official's integrity? Probably not.

Should players be able to speak so freely and escape any punishment? Again, probably not.

However, is it time that referees were made to start explaining their own actions? Why not?

Any game of rugby league involves and generally requires three main parties – the players, coaches and officials.

Two of those have to face the media afterwards. Coaches must speak to journalists at a press conference. Win, lose or draw they have to perform this duty. They can be questioned on the decisions they made, their team's level of performance and accused of anything a reporter sees fit. All this just minutes after a game has finished.

Players invariably are asked for their thoughts as they leave the dressing room, as happened with Senior. They do not have to conduct interviews but more often than not will oblige, being far more accessible and approachable than your average Premier League footballer.

But the third group – the referees – are never put in the firing line. They are under no obligations to field questions from the press, explain their own decision-making, how they saw an incident or why they reacted as they did.

They are safe from scrutiny when, realistically, especially given what happened on Sunday night, hearing their views – whether right or wrong – would help explain so many issues.

Almost every man in the game bar Silverwood has been asked their thoughts about the "wrestling" techniques of Melbourne and whether what they did was legal or illegal, fair or unfair. How refreshing it would have been for Silverwood to have emerged to dissect the game and give his interpretations of what happened to the waiting media, clearing up any grey areas which have since been left to conjecture.

It will never happen. The RFL's match officials director Stuart Cummings would never allow such a process to occur as he rightly tries to protect the people under his command.

But it would help iron out some of the fault lines and, undoubtedly, would see players gain more respect for the man in the middle.

Whether or not Senior believes Silverwood is "arrogant" or not, he will have to explain his words after being charged with a breach of the RFL's operational rules.

He did go too far. Leeds coach Brian McClennan resisted the temptation. He bit his lip and picked his words carefully.

Silverwood did not have to worry about any of that as he did not have to open his mouth. Maybe that is what needs to change.