June madness - Part Two

Of cards and other matters

Consistency and uniformity are virtues devoutly to be wished of refereeing sport. That's what central lawmakers - in rugby's case the International Rugby Board (IRB) - hope to achieve. That's what the body that runs the referees hopes to achieve.

That's why the IRB has seminars and meetings and exchanges of referees and assessors.

Whilst consistency and uniformity are the ideal, they are not the reality. The ideal never is the reality in human endeavour, but the maxim of perfection remains. Anything less and we are plunged into mediocrity or worse.

The 'ideal' in rugby would be off-field organisation and on-field application/management that provide both consistency and uniformity.

That's general chat, but it is relevant to some of the things which have happened recently. In Part Two this week - with two more parts to come  - we discuss aspects of the laws from the weekend's matches and then deal with readers questions.

Consistency and uniformity should produce fairness, not disparity.

To do this a cool head is required. The reaction above all to the sending off of Simon Shaw has been ghastly, emotional and unreasonable. Sport which should be a vehicle for friendship and fun becomes a vehicle for venom and xenophobia. It's no good. It's not the rugby way.

Many things were not the rugby way. Some will remember when a captain would plead with a referee not to send off an opponent who had lost his rag and misbehaved. Now the captains are urging the referees to dish out yellow cards because they fancy their chances of victory are greater against fewer opponents.

Victory is all. And the victor takes all. Vae victis, as the Romans used to say - to hell with those we've beaten.

Let's look at some aspects - calmly if we can.

Nigel Williams, the referee, was a remarkably calm man in the cauldron of the Auckland match. It could not have been easy but even in that heat he maintained the even tenor of his ways.

The incident: New Zealand have the ball and are going through phases - left, right, left.

Prop Carl Hayman of New Zealand charges and is tackled by Richard Hill of England with some help from Mark Regan. Other players gather, amongst them New Zealand lock Keith Robinson. Robinson lies athwart the tackled area, parallel to the goal-lines.

Julian White of England lifts a boot and brings it down on Robinsons back, on his number. Simon Shaw of England lifts his right knee and knees Robinson up near his neck. He repeats the action with less vigour.

This is on the right as England look at the tackle area.

Carlos Spencer of New Zealand is on the side of the action where Shaw is, and pushes Shaw away. Lawrence Dallaglio, Englands captain, darts forward and pushes Spencer down onto the players on the ground. This produces a flurry of slaps, one of which, on White, may have been effective. Even Ben Cohen comes running in from the wing but stops short when he meets Xavier Rush.

As the belligerence peters out, Dallaglio goes on with it, angrily holding Spencer by his front, near his neck. Tana Umaga helps to restore calm.

In this action the referee had been on the left of the tackle area as England look at it, but at the back with an angle to see Robinsons action, which suggests that he could possibly have seen Whites action and Shaws action.

The referee blows his whistle to penalise Robinson.

When there is calm, the referee consults the touch judge.

They both, apparently, check with the television match official to ensure that they have the right culprit.

The referee then shows Shaw a red card.

1. Organisational disparity:

It was a technicality that saved Simon Shaw from suspension. The wrong procedure/protocol had been followed. It did not say that he had not done wrong but that the method of identifying him was wrong.

The officials of the day had called in the help of the television match official to identify Shaw.

That is okay in SANZAR matches, but not in other matches. That will be okay when New Zealand play Australia but not when New Zealand play England.

The touch judges were Australians and used to that procedure - ratified by the IRB - in Super 12 and Tri-Nations, but this match was not under the aegis of SANZAR and so consulting the television match official was not allowed in the identification of players guilty of foul play.

Match officials, like players, perform under pressure and often by their schooled instincts.

Is it not better to have one way of working for all? Either the television match official is consulted in the matter of foul play in all matches in which there is a television match official, or the television match official is not consulted in the matter of foul play in any matches.

Exit confusion. It makes life simpler.

We have not debated the desirability of consulting the television match official in such cases so as to avoid wrongful identification - as happened in a Six Nations match this year.

2. Disparity of punishment in the matter of cards:

Clearly the referee's discretion has to be used in deciding degree of culpability and so the extent of any punishment that should be meted out. Not every punch warrants sending off, for example. Not every high tackle, late tackle, air tackle and so on.

His decision has to be made on the evidence of his eyes - and in a split second.

The better the referee, the better his judgement, the better his application of discretion.

Discretion goes only so far. There is discretion to use a card or not to use a card, discretion to use a red card or a yellow card, but no discretion to add value to that. It does not altogether make sense that Ireland prop Reggie Corrigan arrives at an emotional gathering and strikes an opponent twice and gets a yellow card, while Springbok Wayne Julies - in the exact same match - plays the ball with his hand and receives the same punishment.

Both of these actions happened in midfield. A suggestion we have had is that in the case of foul play, the penalty be given on a penalty spot, say 10 metres from the offender's goal-line and in front of the posts.

3. Disparity in citing:

This applies also to the citing procedures, which are not under anything like the pressures that refereeing is under.

It does not make sense that Scotland lock Stuart Grimes would be cited and suspend for "mountaineering" on David Lyons whom he judged to be blocking his path to the ball while Julian White does not get cited at all for thumping a boot down onto Keith Robinson whom he judged to be blocking his path to the ball.

It seems to the layman standing by that the citing procedure is not objective or independent enough and that it is possibly subject to the extremes of zealotry and laxity.

Readers have cited the incident of Josh Lewsey's injury to the boot of Ali Williams in New Zealand last year, and the incident of Wikus van Heerden suffering under the boot of Owen Finegan this year - a case of boot to head as was the case of Danny Grewcock.

Why Grimes and Grewcock and not Williams and Finegan, they ask.

Why did Shaw get off on a technicality when what he did was obvious after all, the England lock was not innocent/blameless.

Presumably, regardless of the procedure, Shaw could not be cited for his action . Or could he?

5. The card and the contest:

At Twickenham in 2002 and in Auckland in 2004 we have seen a player sent off early and the match spoilt as a contest after that because one team was forced to play with 14 men.

We all know how teams have performed heroics when reduced in numbers - England at Wellington in 2003 when at one stage they were down to 13 men. But mostly the team so reduced suffers.

Would it be not be possible to apply serious sanction and avoid reduction in numbers?

Admittedly no team-mate is an island. His whole team and his management are responsible for him and share in the responsibility of his actions, but could not the punishment for misconduct be differently managed?

Consider the following.

A player is guilty of serious wrong-doing. The referee tells the captain what has happened. He tells the captain that this player may take no further part in the match, but he also tells the captain that if he would like to bring on another player he is allowed to do so.

That means that the team can continue with 15 players.

Then after that, the player sent off appears before a judicial committee which decides on any further action, such as suspension. The player is being punished - not his team, as much, and not the millions watching the match.

A suggestion we have had from readers is that there be a period of ten minutes, as for a yellow card, when the team is obliged to play with only 14 players - to stress the corporate responsibility for good behaviour.

The argument against this is that it takes away the referees best weapon in keeping discipline as it reduces the damage to a team and it is the team which has the responsibility for all its players.

6. "Neutrality":

Rugby has a fixation about the unattached official. This is a long-established principle in international rugby, going all the way back to 4 March 1882 when HL Robinson of Ireland was the referee for the match between Scotland and England at Whalley Range in Manchester. Unattached referees have existed for 90% of Test history.

The unattached principle has grown. Touch judges have become unattached and so have television match officials and assessors.

It probably is important in the interests of transparent justice, that citing and judicial officers are also unattached.

The problem with that is the animosity created between the hemispheres. There is so much distrust and suspicion that it is going to be hard to appoint officials who are transparently unattached simply because each man has a hemisphere.

To try to argue the silliness of this mistrust and animosity is simply a waste of breath, it seems. Some people are locked into it as if it were an article of faith.

7. l'Envoy:

The touch judge who pointed out Simon Shaw's action is placed in extreme categories, depending on the nationality of the viewer, it seems. To some he is a hero, to others an utter villain.

Perhaps, just perhaps, he is a man of remarkable moral courage. And he was the messenger in this matter. It remains fashionable to kill the messenger, it seems.