The standard process that applies when a player is ordered off the field with a red card is as follows:

• A player is shown a red card when the referee sends him off the field permanently, and he may not take any
further part in the match.
• A disciplinary hearing is held within a few days, where there are three members on the disciplinary committee.
They do not necessarily have to be legally trained practitioners, and quite often, the members are ex-rugby
players.
• The process must remain fair, given that the consequences for the player can be severe. A suspension may lead
to substantial financial losses, including match fees and other earnings, often totaling tens of thousands of
rands.
• A suspension shall be imposed for several weeks in which the relevant player would otherwise have been
scheduled to play a match and would have received a match fee.
• All matches are treated equally, regardless of the level of competition, provided they meet the required criteria.
• The suspended player, therefore, shall be suspended from participating in any match on any level during the
period of the player’s suspension.

At the hearing, the principles of natural justice shall be adhered to, and such principles include:

• A player who is ordered off has the right to access the evidence against them, the right to be heard, to be
represented, and to present evidence in their defense before independent adjudicators.

All disciplinary committees must meet the prescribed appointment criteria. They must be appointed independently and must carry out their functions without influence from any party to the match or proceedings, and without interference from the unions, associations, or tournament organisers under whose jurisdiction the match falls.

As stated above, the disciplinary committee comprises three members:

a) A judicial officer who will chair the committee together with two others who are panel members.

An independent committee is also required, made up of three members.
It has become practice that within less than a week (three to four days), the disciplinary committee is formed and the hearing commences. The hearing could be a virtual one or in person.

Since the parties involved are usually in different locations, hearings are often held virtually, which creates additional challenges.

A key question is: Is this process fair? In a typical matter where someone could receive a sentence costing several hundred thousand rand, a lengthy and structured process would normally follow. This would give all parties time to prepare their cases and present comprehensive evidence. They and their representatives would also have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, call their own witnesses, and submit additional evidence, such as video footage.

As things currently stand, the disciplinary hearing takes place within three to four days after the match. The player is then either found guilty and suspended for a period or, in some cases, found not guilty. However, even when a player is cleared, both he and his team have effectively already been “punished”, as he was removed from the field during the match.

Recent incidents have shown that match officials often make incorrect decisions. It would therefore be in the best interests of all parties if a player who receives a red card is permitted to participate in upcoming matches until a full disciplinary hearing is completed – a process that could take anywhere from one to three months.

There is no reason why a player should, within three days after being sent off with a red card, be charged, trialed, convicted, and sentenced. This process cannot be fair.

As stated above, players and teams suffer substantial losses in the event of a suspension. If a player receives only a warning and is allowed to continue playing, the system is not problematic. However, where a suspension of three weeks or more, or any suspension at all, is possible, additional time should be allocated for the hearing. Without this, the process cannot reasonably be regarded as fair. In a Court of Law, it would never happen that an accused is charged, tried, and sentenced within three days of an alleged offence. The reason is simple: such a process would not be fair.


While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither the writers of articles nor the publisher will bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information or recommendations contained herein. Our material is for informational purposes.