Rugby: Inconsistent refereeing has fans seeing red

Chris Pollock sent off Kane Barrett but not James Horwill. Photo / Getty Images

Referees say it's knowing when to show the yellow card that troubles them. But history paints a different picture - one where officials over the years have made incredibly bad decisions of when and when not to show the red card.

The inconsistencies are hard to fathom. A combination of flawed judgement, flawed laws and, certainly in the past, flawed eyesight are the root causes of the problem.

But who wouldn't be confused by events over the past few years and the past few weeks in particular?

That confusion has been compounded by the irregularities of the judicial system.

James Horwill stamps on the face of Lions lock Alun Wyn Jones in the first minutes of the first test and is neither red carded nor sanctioned by the judiciary. Kane Barrett, with no obvious intent or malice, tries to move Craig Clarke out of a ruck and clips the Chiefs captain on the ear with his boot. He's red-carded and then forced to face a judicial hearing on a separate but similar charge and handed a two-week suspension.

The same referee, Chris Pollock, was in charge of both games.

But the irregularities are everywhere. The 2011 World Cup semifinal between France and Wales was altered by the sending off of Sam Warburton. The Welsh captain lifted Vincent Clerc in a tackle and was deemed, by referee Alain Rolland, to have driven him into the ground.

The decision left Welsh coach Warren Gatland incensed.

"I just thought that decision ruined the semifinal. I feel our destiny was taken away from us in that minute. We accept Sam has lifted him and it probably warrants a yellow card under the directions the referees are sent about players being lifted. But he lets him go, he doesn't drive him into the ground and the player is fine to carry on."

On the same ground five years previously, Lote Tuqiri was guilty of a much worse spear tackle on Richie McCaw. The All Black skipper was driven headfirst into the turf and was lucky not to be seriously injured. The tackle was in full view, yet there was no card - but an 11-week ban was handed down after Tuqiri was cited.

The contradictions are endless: Andrew Hore clobbered Welsh lock Bradley Davies last year in Cardiff. Supposedly all the officials missed it, yet when Paul Williams of Samoa pushed/slapped away South Africa's Heinrich Brussow at the last World Cup, the former Blues fullback was sent off.

None of it makes sense - red cards appear, they don't appear ... it's a lottery. Even with the advent of the increased powers of the TMO, there is no more consistency. Steve Walsh called for video assistance at Eden Park when Ma'a Nonu shoulder charged Piri Weepu - in the head.

It was nasty, clearly full of intent and a yellow card was deemed appropriate. Later in the season, Nonu was red carded by the same referee, again after video reference, for tip tackling Crusaders back Tom Marshall. The two offences appeared to be of an almost identical level of severity yet had vastly different punishments.

Rod Hill, New Zealand Rugby Union's high performance manager of elite referees, says he has faith in his pool of employees that they will instinctively know when an incident is worthy of a red card.

"If someone kicks someone in the head, it's automatic conditioning," he says. "A switch flicks and a referee, especially one who has spent a period of time in the game, will instinctively know that it is a red card. It's black and white while the yellow card has an element of grey."

The laws for officials and guidance they receive are not necessarily clear. There is room for significant interpretation around tip tackling. The area of contention, says Hill, comes when determining the logistics and level of intent when the tackler 'exits' the tackle. Does the tackler spear his opponent into the ground, or lower him with an element of control?

It's much the same with 'stamping'. A player will almost certainly concede a penalty for using his boots to clean out. He'll probably also be shown the yellow if the referee feels the player was overly vigorous and almost certainly a red if his boots make contact with the head. "It [rucking/stamping] is definitely going to get a decision," says Hill. "And if it's down by the head, then there is only one decision the referee is going to make.

"It's important that the [elite] teams present a good picture. That's what concerns me. We often hear players say 'that's okay in club football' but it's not and we don't want there to be a flow on effect."

The elite game is the shop window - it does indeed need to be clean and well policed when it is not. But getting it right is proving tough and rugby is suffering as a consequence.

Sending a player off is the ultimate sanction available to the referee - it is also a game-killer. The instant a team is reduced to 14 men, especially in the professional age, they are toast. Football has produced heroic victories over the years where teams have won with 10 men: rugby hasn't and probably never will.

Barrett's red card last week denied 25,000 paying spectators seeing the game they came to see. A six figure TV audience was also short-changed; so were the Blues, Barrett himself and possibly, too the other Super Rugby challengers - with 15 men, who knows, the Blues might have won and the Chiefs may not have had home advantage for the playoffs.

But what is the alternative to red cards? "I don't have the answer," says Hill. "My personal feeling is that I am an advocate of having 15 men on the field. Some people say only the guilty player should be punished but the danger with that is that we might see cynical ploys where people are used to take out stars like Richie McCaw and Dan Carter, knowing their team will be able to replace them after they are sent off."