Sanzaar hangs ref out to dry

The decision to rescind Springbok Damian de Allende’s red card is a joke.

Hey, kid, do you mind pulling over for a minute. The mob who run rugby in this part of the world they’re called Sanzaar if you’re interested, which you’re probably not – have got a message for you. They want you to know that it’s A-OK to hit someone in the teeth if you’re a bit pissed off.

A quick elbow to the chops should do it and I’m sure you will feel much better. So, if you see a politician you don’t like, and there are plenty to choose from, give ‘em a tickle in the whiskers.

Hang on mate, Sanzaar coming through again...OK, sorry, I got that bit wrong. Just to clarify, Sanzaar say it’s best only to slap someone around on the rugby pitch, because the police might take a different view. You can hit the guy who has just dropped the winning goal, but probably best not to biff the kids and missus when you get home.

I would like to think that this is satire, but no. In a quite bewildering decision, which was met with equally bewildering approval, a panel of three unwise men decided to undermine the best ref in the world and give written licence to thuggery.

I am sorry Messrs Hampton, Langford and Terblanche, but what on earth were you thinking when you decided to rescind the red card that Jerome Garces had shown to Damian de Allende for his late and high tackle on Lima Sopoaga? Oh, you actually told us what you were thinking and it is the following.

‘‘The Foul Play Review Committee found that, on an objective study, and with more time and video angles than the Referee had available to him, the act of foul play committed only came close to warranting a red card, and therefore a warning (equivalent to a yellow card) was issued instead.

‘‘The charge was late and the player had time to pull out before colliding with his opponent. However, the collision was not effected with a great deal of force...The opponent was not injured. The player is therefore free to play and will serve no suspension.’’

First of all, your study is clearly not objective, with a defence counsel, no prosecution and a bloke called Stefan Terblanche on the panel, who until fairly recently played high level rugby in South Africa, and probably knows the sent off player quite well.

Second, are you the same Nigel Hampton, QC, who decided four years ago that James Horwill had not acted recklessly when he stamped on Alun Wyn Jones’ face, the same James Horwill who had stamped on two other players in the preceding six weeks. Even the Aussies couldn’t believe that.

Your decision then was so farcical that I suggested at the time that we needed more players on these judicial panels. Sadly, I was wrong in hoping that players might improve the process. It has turned out to be like the police investigating the police. They tend to cover each other’s backs.

No, the only way these panels are going to start acting in the public interest rather than the player’s self-interest is if we actually start having a few members of the public on them. Bring in some women, for a start. They represent half the population.

And rather than lawyers, I would like to see doctors heading the panels, and I mean independent doctors who are employed outside rugby union. A female doctor in charge – why not? Go for it. It makes me laugh that French lock and captain Yoann Maestri was fined 30,000 euros for criticising a ref earlier in the year, but you guys are allowed to do it with impunity. Apparently the bit in the laws that says, ‘‘The referee’s position as sole judge of fact and law is unassailable’’ doesn’t apply to alickadoos. You guys can assail all you like.

Garces correctly sent de Allende off because he was a whole second late and he was high. So he breached foul play law 10.2.a that deals with intentional offending. He also breached the foul play law on striking with an arm, he breached the law on tackling above the line of the shoulders and he breached the law on intentionally charging a player who has just kicked the ball. Four separate foul play offences.

In ignoring that lot you have just given carte blanche to any bloke who fancies a bit of afters on a Saturday afternoon. You have undermined World Rugby’s laws, you have undermined a senior referee and you have undermined player safety.

Garces correctly sent de Allende off because he was a whole second late and he was high.

The message to young players is appalling and I am very sad that Alain Rolland, the head of elite referees, has not spoken out against you in defence of Garces. Rolland knows what it’s like to be undermined. He correctly sent off Sam Warburton in a World Cup semi and was hung out to dry by most of the game. Rolland copped some vile abuse at the time, but said: ‘‘The one thing that took me aback was the number of messages of support from parents, from doctors, and from people who have sons playing the game.’’

I am starting to sense that country is now experiencing this that same divide, one that sadly mirrors the days of apartheid. There are the rugby people who say the game is not tiddlywinks. And there is the rest of the population who wonder why it is still all right to hit someone on the head on a sportsfield.

I switched on the Wellington game in the week just in time to see Vaea Fifita smash an opponent with a no-arm tackle seen by officials. Nothing. Not a peep, not a review. No wonder the All Blacks carry on as they do.

In the other Rugby Championship match at the weekend Tomas Lezana, the Puma, was knocked senseless by Marika Koroibete. The impact was shoulder to head and the force was excessive. It was an horrendously reckless challenge. Nothing was done and we have heard nothing from Sanzaar since.

These disciplinary panels have become farcical. Stuffed with lawyers and ex-players, even Richard Loe would probably get off with a reduced sentence because of a previously exemplary record. No wonder more and more Kiwi parents are taking their kids out of rugby.