Consistency can ruin parts the game - it's time for referees and other officials to grow a backbone and judge all incidents, and only do so on their facts

Consistency. It is a word we hear a lot of in rugby and see put into practice during every match. But just how useful is its role in the game? Does it help or hinder?

We see 'consistency' in every aspect of the modern game, from the simple every day offences to those that are more serious. Let's take these every day offences first – referees being consistent when penalising these sorts of occurrences, such as for being offside or for going off your feet, is paramount in rugby. If a player from one team gets in trouble for something then it stands to reason that a player from the opposite team should get the same treatment for the same incident. That way, we keep the game fair and it shows us that the officials are unbiased. I have no problem with this basic element of consistency, because a match just would not work without it for obvious reasons. After all, this is why we have these elementary rules – to ensure no players can willingly break them, and that they are punished in the same way if they do. However, does it play a positive role in more serious rule breaking?

When we come on to the more serious types of incidents I feel that consistency actually ruins aspects of the game. Take the Scotland v Wales Six Nations game from last weekend for example. The first major incident to occur was the Finn Russell and Dan Biggar incident, which saw the Scot yellow-carded. There is no doubt in my mind, this incident was card-worthy (whether that be yellow or red) – Russell, knowing he would be unable to either safely tackle Biggar on the ground or have a shot at catching the ball, turned his back on the player in the air instead of trying to pull out. He clearly created a dangerous situation, and this came to a head when Biggar crashed into him and fell to the floor. But my problem comes with the second incident of this nature when Jonathan Davies was yellow-carded for tackling John Beattie in the air. In this case, there was a genuine competition for the ball, and the winner of the contest, Beattie, happened to fall to the floor. Naturally, the referee called on the television match official to look at the incident and, in the interests of consistency, gave Davies a yellow card. In this case, I do not believe a card of any sort was warranted, as both players were always going for the ball. But because referees have to be 'consistent' in all areas of the game, the player was always going to be sent off. This for me is where the game can be ruined – as a player, if you know you could penalised simply for hitting a player in the air whilst going for the ball, what incentive is there to compete? Competing for the high ball is a genuine part of the game, but you'll find nowadays that one player almost always never bothers competing if they see another player going to do so. Take Leigh Halfpenny for example. He is extremely good under the high ball and catches it pretty much all of the time. But for how many of those instances was he actually challenged? Not many, I can tell you.

So, what needs to change? Well, for some situations consistency needs to take a back seat. I know that does not seem to be in the interests of any sport, but I firmly believe in the types of situation where a player falls from the air whilst competing with another player for the ball, it needs to be assessed on the facts of what actually happened, and the previous incident should not have any bearing. Otherwise, we see players being sent off who in no way attempted to tackle or pull the player down. In the above example Davies was clearly jumping for the ball but, because he missed it and Beattie fell to the ground, the referees immediately decided he had to be sent off as other's had been sidelined before (and not just in this match, but in plenty of others). I don't think this is fair because it's ruining a staple part of what makes rugby the game it is – competition. People seem to forget this is a contact sport; if we are going to scrutinise every single incident of contact that is made the sport will become unrecognisable and there will be no flow to the play. Yes, some people create dangerous situations in the air and for that they should be penalised. But just because the referee has done so with one player, does not mean he has to with a similar incident if the situation was purely accidental with no apparent fault from any player. I am not for one second suggesting we scrap consistency. As I said before, it's the reason that the basic rules are upheld – because the referees penalises both teams for their actions. But when we make the step up into the big incidents of the game, I make the argument that it is much fairer to everyone if the facts of exactly what happened are analysed. I understand some people may say you can either have consistency or not, but I honestly do not believe it is that simple in a sport where there are many dimensions to the laws - sometimes it is important, but at other times it can get in the way.

Let's take a look at the other end of the spectrum where not having consistency is a problem. It is not just during the matches that we need to see some consistency. We need to see it in events such as citings, and sometimes it is sorely lacking. Take the Northampton Saints game versus London Irish from last weekend. Salesi Ma'afu has since been cited and banned for his actions towards Tom Court, which is absolutely correct. However, Court himself was yellow-carded in the match for stamping, but did we see a citing? No, we didn't. Now, I'm not saying he would have been banned for his actions, but both players were yellow-carded and so surely, if one was cited, the other should be as well? Otherwise it seems like certain players are being singled out, or certain card-worthy actions are being deemed acceptable over others, when in reality all incidents of foul play are unacceptable. Sure, some are worse than others and there is no denying that, but if you yellow-card a player during a match for foul play they should be cited, regardless of the severity. Even if there turns out to be no further punishment against the player, at least there can be no accusations that the citing commission condone certain actions over others. Because that is how it looks whether people like it or not. If you are going to investigate one yellow or red card incident, you should really look at them all, even if it does not result in a hearing or ban of any kind. That way any and all inconsistency is removed from citing sanctions.

So there you have it. Consistency does play an important role in sports, but sometimes it does need to either take a back seat or actually be used more if there is to be fairness within the game. It is not right to penalise a player just because another player previously was punished for something similar, particularly if the facts of the events are different. Instead, they should be treated like separate incidents and assessed accordingly. When it comes to incidents of foul play the consequences can be enormous for a player and a team, and so they deserve to be treated in an unbiased manner in relation to what has gone on before them. After all, referees are told to start with a red and work backwards from there, they are not told specifically what they should give. They are to look at the incident independently and penalise a player judged on what happened in the specific case. Not only that, but the citing commissioner(s) need to utilise consistency more to ensure all incidents are thoroughly investigated and some are not picked and chosen over others despite what happened, particularly when two players are given the same card yet only one is looked at further.

Thanks for reading ruckers!

Jess.