Citing versus red card: Decoding a baroque disciplinary process

DEEP DIVE: Let me say, from the outset, I do not believe there is a ‘machination’ against South Africa.

Yes, we did have the infamous ‘let’s get the japies‘ saga in 1999.

However, the recent polemical and polarising events involving match officials and disciplinary matters are not part of some broader connivance to ‘punish’ South African teams and players.

Now that the dust has settled on the Jan-Hendrick Wessels saga, and in the wake of Lood de Jager’s red card this past weekend, I feel it is necessary to spell out a few home truths about a kafkaesque disciplinary process.

Pity the poor referee that has to learn and remember the myriad of laws that are constantly being changed or updated.

They have to make split-second decisions and you’d expect some mistakes.

However, I have less sympathy for citing officials and disciplinary panels, who don’t have the same time constraints.

Again, genuine human error can be excused.

For the record, Law 9 (foul play), has 30 subsections (laws).

However, it is worth looking at the contrasting methodologies at play between the Wessels (being cited) and De Jager (red-carded) cases.

I’m not getting into the ‘wrong or right’ debate.

I also realise, the one is a franchise/club competition (United Rugby Championship) and the other an international (Nations Series) match.

However, it is the procedures that need to be spelled out.

Let’s start with Wessels.

He was banned for eight weeks (reduced on appeal from nine weeks) for actions contrary to Law 9.27: ‘A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship’.

In both the original hearing and the appeal, the burden of proof rested with the accused.

This is where the twist comes in.

If a player is not sanctioned in the game, and is cited afterwards, the burden automatically shifts to him.

That means there is a significant bigger burden on him to prove otherwise.

Because the original hearing gave more credence to the testimony of the complainant (Connacht’s Josh Murphy), the video evidence (not clear and obvious) and the citing commissioner, than it did to Wessels’ account, the Springbok utility was fighting an uphill battle.

It is worth quoting the disciplinary statement: In accordance with the Rules, factual determinations made by disciplinary committees are on the balance of probabilities. This is a lesser standard than proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ applied in criminal cases.

To illustrate the absurdity of the process, let us look at the De Jager red card.

He was red-carded in the 38th minute of South Africa’s 32-17 win over France in Paris.

The straight red card was based on video evidence of a ‘dangerous tackle’. Referee Angus Gardner deemed that the Bok’s actions (a tucked arm going into contact) against French fullback Thomas Ramos was worthy of red.

However, De Jager is likely to get off lightly, compared to Wessels, because he was sanctioned on the field.

He can admit guilt, claim he was reckless, rather than vindictive, and get away with a much shorter ban.

The reason.

The burden of proof now shifts to the ‘prosecutor’ to prove that De Jager was deliberate, in what was a very dynamic situation – with Ramos already on his knees and De Jager also low to the ground.

The Bok’s biggest problem was that ‘tucked arm’.

However, the asininity of the contrast between the two processes is what not only confuses devotees and addicts of the oval ball game, it stirs the emotions and leads to conspiracy theories.

And this is just one aspect of a disciplinary process in a game already burdened by more laws than any other sport.

@rugby365com