SARU President Oregan Hoskins has become the first senior rugby leader to publicly question the consistency of the game’s citing process.
This has come into sharp focus recently, with some rather curious decisions and suspensions being the order of the day. The recent decisions we have seen by SANZAR’s citing commissioners have left many South African rugby fans wondering just how some of these decisions are justified. SARU President Oregan Hoskins was very outspoken recently and declared that he has had enough of this process and he is taking up his concerns with the SANZAR citing commission. Before I am shot down with the usual “There is no conspiracy against the Saffers, so pipe down” comment, please hear me out. It is the process which I have reservations over, not the nationalities involved.
In a particularly dirty game between the Cell C Sharks and the Chiefs, three red cards were produced. Hika Elliott was sent for an early shower after dropping his shoulder not once, but twice onto the unprotected head of Sharks prop Tendai Mtawarira. Sharks hooker Bismark du Plessis then produced a cheap shot with a kick to the face of Michael Leitch. Later on in the game, Sharks flyhalf Frans Steyn was also red carded for a spear tackle on Chiefs flyhalf Aaron Cruden. Aside from these incidents, there were a number of other instances of foul play that were not punished during the game or afterwards. The most serious example was Liam Messam’s actions against Ronalda Bothma in a ruck just short of the Chiefs try line. In MMA/wrestling parlance, his grip on Bothma would be called a rear naked choke hold and he had it locked in properly, with his elbow straight over Bothma’s trachea. Local broadcasters SuperSport took the time to freeze frame this for the citing commissioner’s “benefit”, but no notice was taken of a very obvious piece of dirty play. Sharks scrumhalf Cobus Reinach was also the victim of a knee to the small of his back, with no further sanction considered.
After all the disciplinary hearings had been concluded, we were presented with the following:
1. Bismark du Plessis was given a very well deserved four week ban and I would not contest that.
2. Frans Steyn was shown leniency as two other Sharks players had “assisted” in the tackle, making it worse than intended.
3. Hika Elliott was given soft ban of one week. He went in for a second helping, proving his intent to harm.
When the dust had settled, the Frans Steyn case turned from what was considered a fair censure to a joke in the game. SANZAR’s Greg Peters decided to appeal the decision of the “independent” judicial process his own organization had appointed. What are the chances of the commissioner who handled the appeal would return with an unchanged verdict when their paymaster is raising questions? The influence of two other players who took the control over the tackle away from Steyn was suddenly no longer a factor. In the strict interpretation of the laws, the tackler is responsible for bringing the tackled player down to ground safely. In this case, both Cobus Reinach and Ryan Kankowski influenced what happened in the tackle by joining the tackle above Cruden’s hips, tipping him over. The original citing commissioner took this into account as extenuating circumstances. The second hearing ignored this and applied only the most rudimentary application of the law.
Fast forward to two weeks later and Jean Deysel is quite correctly shown a red card for his knee drop on Crusaders flank Jordan Taufua. His censure was a seven week ban, influenced by his previous red card offense – stamping during the game against the same opponents in 2014. During the game this year, two significantly high and dangerous tackles on SP Marais and Jean Deysel went unnoticed by both the match officials and the citing commissioner.
The point here is that the citing commissioner, who has 24 hour window to review all game footage before being required to cite players for foul play does not react to incidents not picked up by the referee on the day. The impression this creates is that they only react to the carding of players, relying on the match day officials to pick up on all instances of foul play. This cannot be in the interests of rooting foul play out of the game.
Reds flank Liam Gill was shown only a yellow card for what was described as a reckless and dangerous throw tackle on Brumbies scrumhalf Nic White. His sanction was a rather meek one week suspension. James Horwill, also of the Reds, was red carded for a swinging arm offense, the second red card of his season. It is a bit difficult to justify a one week ban for a player who has received two red cards within 8 weeks.
I do not subscribe to any form of conspiracy theory that the Australian and New Zealand influence ensures that the South Africans are given harsher sentences as some would have you believe. Some of the sentences handed out have been at the hands of South African judicial officials, so those who believe in that just need to build the proverbial bridge and get over it.
To take this inconsistency in interpreting situations into the Northern Hemisphere, we need to look no further than the recent incident between Wasps’ Nathan Hughes and Northampton’s George North. Referee Craig Maxwell-Keys’ decision was probably influenced by the end result of the incident (North being knocked out cold), rather than the actual intent or lack thereof. Hughes was shown a red card and given a three week ban, which was subsequently overturned on appeal by Wasps. This was great news for Hughes, but not for Wasps who were without his services for their European Rugby Championship game against Toulon.
I am completely supportive of the process of citing, but cannot believe how haphazardly justice is dispensed across various competitions. As usual, World Rugby leaves the reputation of game in the hands of individuals and does not provide clear direction on how to handle specific situations. Personal opinion and a fear to to be seen to be doing “the right thing” and punishing any perceived foul play, even when the evidence points otherwise, seems to be the guiding light, not common sense or fairness to both parties.
“Main Photo:”
