Inconsistencies in Sanzar’s judicial disciplinary processes have only heightened the tension ahead of this weekend’s Castle Lager Rugby Championship showdown between the Springboks and All Blacks at Ellis Park on Saturday.
While the Boks have been often called out for “thuggish” behaviour, there is a growing concern that the same rules don’t apply to incidents when committed by other teams.
The perfect example came these last few weeks, when Flip van der Merwe was handed a one-week ban for a reckless arm during the Boks 28-8 win over the Wallabies. While the yellow card was justified, it happened in a collision and Van der Merwe should not have led with his arm.
Still, when compared to the pre-meditated shoulder clothes hanger by Ma’a Nonu on Springbok captain Jean de Villiers a fortnight earlier, it raises some harrowing questions about the consistency of the disciplinary process.
Nonu is no innocent victim. He has had one red and five yellow cards this season. He was not cited nor penalized for a shocking shoulder charge on James Slipper during the Bledisloe Cup game in Wellington and then not again for leading with the shoulder on De Villiers.
Serial offender? Decide for yourself:
With safety protocols becoming ever more a concern in international rugby and parts of the game being adapted to ensure injury doesn’t come from foul play, it is only fair to ask why Nonu hasn’t been treated with the same disdain as the other players who transgress at this level.
His disciplinary problems aside, he has been unable to find a Super Rugby home for next season and despite being an excellent player on attack is a liability for his side on defence that continues to walk away with a halo over his head in All Black eyes.
Steve Hansen’s spirited defence of this serial offender after Auckland showed all too much about how the All Blacks view this sort of thing. While insisting Bismarck du Plessis deserved his red – something the IRB didn’t agree with and rescinded the red card afterwards – a smug Hansen declined to condemn his own player for the hit on De Villiers, which was late, pre-meditated and almost took De Villiers’ head off.
“No not really, he hasn’t had one for us this year,” Hansen said referring to the yellow for Nonu – despite Nonu’s poor disciplinary record.
“We’ll sit down and talk to him; we have already started that process. What he did was dumb, so we will just move on and carry on and see what happens from it.”
Sanzar CEO Greg Peters explained why there is a difference between Flip van der Merwe’s citing and the lack of one for Nonu. In a nutshell, a neutral citing commissioner deemed Van der Merwe to have reached the “red card threshold” while another neutral citing commissioner was happy with Nonu’s repeat offence. (INCREDIBLE REALLY AND AGAIN BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHY NZ PLAYERS ARE FAVOURED LIKE THIS EVEN ONES WITH A SHOCKING RECORD LIKE NONU HAS) Considering how some players – most notably Butch James – was targeted in years gone by for similar offences, it is only fair to ask why there is one set of rules for Nonu and another for other players? Will it really take an injury before officials take action?
“The judicial process is governed by IRB Regulation 17 and, as such, we have to follow the processes in that Regulation. Under the rules the citing and judicial process is a totally independent from the rest of the administration of the game.”Peters explained.
“In SANZAR we have three citing commissioners, one from each country and all of whom have had many years' experience now. One citing commissioner is appointed for each match and, in the case of The Rugby Championship, he must be from the country not involved in the match.
“He views the match live on television and also in detail again after the match. He can call for additional camera angles from the broadcasters for particular incidents and also consider matters referred to him by a team. For him to make a citing, the incident, in his view, must reach the "red card threshold". In other words have been worthy of red card.
“Whilst the ultimate decision to cite or not is his alone, in SANZAR he is also obligated to discuss any potential citings with his two other colleagues. This is designed to try and achieve consistency and to calibrate across SANZAR. However, because we are relying on a human decision making process there is always an element of subjectivity in this. The citing commissioners do not consider the prior disciplinary record of a player they may be considering citing.
“Once a player is cited the matter is referred to a judicial hearing. In terms of this it is important to understand what the judicial officer will decide on. Under the rules his only responsibility is to decide whether on the balance of probabilities the player committed an act of foul play or not. This is critical because he does not review the citing commissioner's decision in terms of whether or not the red card threshold was met. If he decides there was foul play then he decides the sanction against the sanctions table in the Regulation based on a low, mid or high entry point depending on the seriousness.”
With that in mind, Peters said the commissioner saw Van der Merwe’s action as “deliberate” while Nonu’s didn’t breach the red card threshold.
“Turning to the Flip Van Der Merwe incident, what turned that into a red card in the mind of the citing commissioner (after discussing with his colleagues) was a view that it was a deliberate striking to the head with the elbow. This was not found to be the case by the JO but he did find there was still foul play ruled accordingly (low end and reducing the entry level of 2 weeks by 50% due to mitigating circumstances he found).
“In comparison the Nonu incident, in the view of citing commissioner for the match did not meet the red card threshold (again after speaking to his colleagues and, in this case, Jean de Villiers as well as the video evidence on the point of contact was not clear). This was on the basis the contact point was below the shoulder line and there was no injury to the player concerned.”
Still, while Nonu continues to get away with his indiscretions, and the All Blacks continue to shield him from questions, protecting him from rectifying his actions, not only the credibility of the game will suffer, but it only further entrenches the belief that there are one set of rules for the world champions, and another for the rest of the rugby world.
Exactly so and the cat is out the bag. Folk are getting fed up with this rubbish and rightly so. There can be no doubt the world is on to this favouring of nz sides and the tide is turning. On a level playing field they should still make the top 4 sides in the world but can forget about the number 1 spot.
