BEN STRANG
Knowledge of the rules and consistency isn't an issue when it comes to the refereeing of mid-air collisions.
Communication of those rulings to your average rugby fan which is the problem.
The fact that so many of these incidents have happened in the past three weeks is a random blip this Super Rugby season, and one that should die down in coming weeks.
But to suggest these incidents have shown that referees don't know what they're doing, and that their view of each mid-air collision changes game to game, is more a reflection of our own lack of knowledge of the game.
That may be the fault of referee bosses, but once you understand the rules, and it takes a while to get there, the decisions all make sense.
The way referees have been told to deal with these incidents is, I won't say simple, but it is clear when you get your head around it.
If you take a player out as they leap for a highball, be that in open play or a line out, you're going to get carded.
Should a player land on their heads or shoulders, it will be red. If they land on their back, it will be yellow.
It doesn't matter if it was accidental or not. Intent doesn't come into the rules, only into the decisions around bans afterwards.
If two players both leave their feet and contest for the ball in mid-air, no penalty will be given.
The Charlie Ngatai yellow card was different, and that is where referee Angus Gardner did well.
It wasn't a case of Ngatai taking out Elliot Dixon as he rose high to claim a bomb. It was an awful mix-up between two players who reacted to each other rather than the ball.
Sanzaar said Gardner made the right decisions in handing Ngatai a yellow card, but they didn't explain why.
That's the issue.
New Zealand Rugby are keen for their referees to be more visible and to engage with the media and fans, but Sanzaar prefer for referees to be kept away from the public spotlight.
As a result, fans and us media are often left confused.
Information on how referees have been told to interpret certain situations is nearly impossible to find.
We are often confused about why a referee has made a certain call, and the only consistency issue is that none of the people in the know come out and clear things up.
Each week, Sanzaar should be proactive in clarifying some of the key decisions, explaining why they were made and if they were right or wrong.
It can't be a bad thing for referees. Sure, sometimes they'll be proven to be wrong, but every referee I've spoken to would like to be held more accountable.
They know that by that happening, people will realise just how often referees are bang on the money. They know that our knowledge of those rules will improve, and there will be less original abuse asking for the men with a whistle to head to Specsavers.
Don't blame the referees for making decisions that confuse us.
Blame the secrecy of their bosses.
RICHARD KNOWLER
Let's not go into a rant about the integrity of Super Rugby referees. This not what this is about. It is about the murky process that follows the frightening mid-air crashes, and the decisions that follow and create so much confusion and debate.
Take the collision between Chiefs midfielder Charlie Ngatai and Highlanders blindside flanker Elliot Dixon in Hamilton last weekend. No-one is saying Ngatai went into that with the intent of injuring Dixon, who spun around in mid-air and landed flat on his back.
Ngatai was clearly distressed at what happened, and immediately apologised to Dixon as he lay on the Waikato Stadium turf.
This is what happened next. The referee didn't make an immediate decision. He consulted the TMO. Who analysed the incident. Again and again. In the meantime the Sky TV commentators discussed what should happen to Ngatai. So did the radio crews. So did the fans at the ground. And those at home, or at their local bar.
Penalty? Yellow? Red? Scrum?
Guess what. Ngatai got a yellow card. Analyse the tape and you could question whether he did everything possible to ensure Dixon landed safely. But was it a malicious act? No. Was Dixon at fault? No. And to suggest he also should have been sin-binned is nonsense.
A fortnight earlier there was the ugly collision between Highlanders midfielder Jason Emery and Sharks fullback Willie le Roux at Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin. The ref went upstairs to the TMO, who jabbed the rewind button on numerous occasions and Emery got red carded because le Roux landed on his head.
The Sanzaar judiciary suspended Emery for four weeks for a dangerous challenge. Ngatai escaped censure.
It was only good fortune - or an intervention of a mysterious rugby God - that Dixon didn't also land on his melon. Ngatai didn't intend to hurt Dixon, but that's not really the point. He still flipped him over.
On May 1 Stormers left wing Leolin Zas was red carded for banging his body into Waratahs first five-eighth Bernard Foley in Cape Town.
Have a guess what happened? Zas, chasing a kick from a team-mate, had his eyes angled towards the sky as he chased the ball. Foley, meanwhile, bounded into the air. The two connected, not because Zas had intentionally taken out Foley, but because his feet slipped on the Newlands Stadium turf.
Referee Mike Fraser, having consulted with the TMO, ruled there was no malice in the act but because Foley had face-planted to the deck, he red carded Zas.
For good measure Sanzaar judiciary suspended Zas for two weeks. Bad luck for you, champ! Maybe if you had hit Foley harder, he could have flipped right over - as in the case of Dixon - and he had landed on his back, then you would have stayed on the field. Instead the Stormers, having been reduced to 14 men for the final 25 minutes, suffered a 32-30 loss after Waratahs flanker Michael Hooper scored with two minutes left.
There must be a better way to handle this.
Following the example of the NRL and introducing a rule where players can be placed on report, but can keep playing, would be a sensible solution.
This is a ticking timebomb. What if a similar incident takes place during the grand final?
Sanzaar haven't helped. No-one has fronted to defend the process, or even stated whether they are open-minded about the potential to change the laws. Maybe they are, but how would we know? No-one is talking. Clarity is required.
Other than issuing press releases they don't enter into dialogue with media or the fans. Is the best they can do? Why? Why? Why?
