Sri Lanka Rugby Football Union broke new ground when they referred to the disciplinary body a citing complaint by a citing commissioner. Citing though new to Sri Lanka domestic rugby has been practiced for a long time. An essential need for citing is to be able to have the incident on video camera for review by the judiciary. Where a citing commissioner is appointed teams may bring offences to the attention of the citing commissioner for review. The citing commissioner may cite a player even if the referee has already dealt with the issue (except where he has ordered a player from the field).
A player who is cited is called to a hearing to show- cause why he should not be treated as having been sent off for the alleged offence. The hearing usually takes place before independent persons nominated by the union or the competition organizer. If the offence is proven, the panel issues a penalty, usually in the form of a suspension for a number of weeks.
There is disagreement on the fairness of citing, as a player who is cited is liable to receive a ban from all competitions for several weeks if found guilty. Some may argue that if the offence was detected during the match, he would have been likely to have received a caution and temporary suspension rather than being sent off. This is not the true situation as citing commissioner may still make a report if he thinks that the caution and or temporary suspension is not enough. That however is matter for the disciplinary committee which is the judiciary to decide based on the citing complaint.
What is important to understand is that even if a referee misses an act of foul play there are chances that it may be picked up by a third eye . This requires more discipline by the players as well as the mentors. Foul play in rugby is as old as the game itself but now it is taking place under intense conditions here as well as abroad. Rivalry in Sri Lanka has taken a new turn as we hear stories of a different kind. Some we have not heard before.
 The possibility of more foul plays increases and will get worse unless you impose discipline in consistent manner. With few clubs competing in the final stages year after year and if bad feeling keeps getting stirred between them every vital match will be a potential flashpoint. Players will respond to the toughest discipline if they feel it is unbiased and evenly applied.
While it has been the onus on the referee to maintain discipline and mange the game it has not been as easy as it should be. The pressure is tremendous as he keeps running around interpreting the laws which has a lot of judgmental issues. Foul play is one of those that he has to decide on judgment. In every one of these cases the blame has been fairly and squarely placed on the referee. He was wrong when he blew for foul play and he was also wrong when he did not blow.
With the entry of the citing commissioner there is always the possibility that an undetected offence can be bought to inquiry. Where such incidents which have not been seen are cited the final sanction depends on the balance of probabilities. There are many instances that citing reports have resulted in a player being cited. For a citing, the Citing Commissioner has to be satisfied that the offence in question is one for which a player could be sent off - a red card offence.
The problem is, there doesn't seem to be any definition at all in the Laws as to what is or is not an offence that merits a red card. Law 10 (5), which is the one dealing with sanctions for foul, illegal or dangerous play, is very much along the lines of, referee it is your call. The only one at all seems to be the mandatory requirement that anyone committing the same offence for which they have been sin-binned must be sent off in Law 10 (5) (b). This is where a referee has had no problem in booking a player. Just as much as the referee the work of the citing commissioner is entirely subjective. The advantage is that the citing commissioner can have a look at the video before he hands over his report, a luxury that the referee does not have. This will help the game as players will have to beware and referees too need to get their calls right.
It's a bit like the famous sentence from the American Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, on obscenity in the case Jacobellis vs. Ohio where he concurred that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography." Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
If only it were that simple in rugby or that precise so the task of the referee or the citing commissioner will be easy.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB |
E-mail
