Rugby: Time to sinbin 'one strike and you're out' rugby rules

By CHRIS LAIDLAW

A few years ago rugby made one of its many borrowings from rugby league - the sinbin.

It was a good idea, because it gave referees an option between a penalty and an ordering-off.

Unfortunately, it seems to have become a first option instead of a last one, and it is time to look again at the whole question of player penalties.

The game is in danger of becoming over-policed and excessively prissy. Despite the loudly expressed views of some of its more squeamish critics, rugby has not become more violent. It is considerably less so than it used to be.

Offences that a generation ago would have gone unremarked are now the subject of harsh sanctions against the offender. Justice is writ in large letters.

Not so long ago, rucking was an art form and anyone hanging about on your side of the action expected to, and invariably did, receive bodily souvenirs for his trouble.

Referees would watch this process of jungle justice with benign interest. It was self-regulation requiring little external intervention.

Lineouts were a combat zone where interference would be followed by retribution - unless you were playing against Colin Meads, in which case any attempt at retribution was ill-advised.

Head-high tackles were run-of-the-mill, and unless they were judged to have been deliberate, were simply ignored by referees.

How things have changed.

Certainly the game is cleaner, but retribution is now an offence in itself.

Anyone who throws so much as a virtual punch is immediately penalised, sinbinned or worse.

Punches are almost always thrown in response to some act of illegality by another player, and the sense of frustration that builds up over not being able to respond can be very damaging. The All Blacks who played in the World Cup semifinal could attest to that.

We saw an example of the limitations of the new regime when Tana Umaga was ordered off a fortnight ago. His offence was not deliberate, and it looked a lot worse than it was.

Without any recourse to hindsight, considered reflection or the benefit of a television replay, the referee threw the book at Umaga. He was treated as if he had carefully taken aim and kicked someone in the head.

The maximum penalty was instinctively imposed, and the game was ruined as a result.

On more rational reflection, the rugby union's judicial panel imposed a symbolic, one-week suspension.

Anything less would have been a vote of no confidence in the referee, and the panel appeared unwilling to do that.

Referees and the judiciary are in a bind. The rules, or at least the current interpretation of them, require drastic penalties.

And too many games are being reduced in quality as a result.

We need a clearer system that distinguishes between intentional and unintentional actions.

Referees should not be burdened with the responsibility of making that decision instantaneously unless they are absolutely certain.

We need to borrow again from rugby league.

However cumbersome it might seem, its report system lifts the judgment out, lets the game continue and ensures that the right kind of justice is administered.

If we don't introduce this, we can expect to witness game after game disrupted by the comings and goings of players who might or might not deserve such a fate - but who do deserve more than an on-field kangaroo court.