Hovering in the wings, there is an issue to be decided in rugby, surrounding the thorny issue of dangerous play: “that a red-carded player will be replaced after 20 minutes.”
This has been trialled for several seasons in the Southern Hemisphere, which is determined to see it introduced on a worldwide basis. However, in May last year World Rugby’s Council rejected the proposal for a global trial, despite a recommendation from its own Laws Review Group.
Down south, the view is that their system upholds the integrity of the sport, by ensuring 15 play against 15. Also, that it improves the accuracy of decisions around dangerous play, and maintains the flow by doing away with long play-halting reviews.
In this neck of the woods, the rationale is that it is absolutely not a deterrent to dangerous play, and doesn’t contribute to players changing behaviour. And, boiling it down to spectacle versus safety, there’s only one outcome – the health and welfare of the players. That too is sporting integrity.
Neither of these contrasting opinions are without merit, the difficulty is reconciling them. Add in fundamental disagreements over what should, or should not, be red cards, and something of a Gordian Knot is created. Untangling it might not need Alexander’s sword – if the proposal was accompanied by an end to the derisory judicial suspension mitigations there’d be plenty of support. It is, after all, on-field mitigation.
Following its rejection, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Argentina Rugby (Sanzaar) went back to the drawing-board, coming up with a redesigned model, now trialling in the Super Rugby Pacific competition.
Firstly, to speed things up, the referee will give yellow, unless it’s not quickly and abundantly obvious that it’s a red-card offence. The referee’s options following the initial on-field review are:
- Play on: when no foul play is evident.
- Penalty only: a low degree of danger is identified, and/or there’s significant mitigation.
- Yellow card: when the danger level is increased, with potential mitigating factors.
- Red card: when it is determined to be deliberate with a high level of danger, the offender is not replaced. (Let’s call this option a “straight red”.)
So far that’s clear, but there’s devil in the detail. Read on carefully.
The TMO reviews all yellows during the sin-bin period, confirming either that the sanction is correct; or he decides that the card should be upgraded to red, in which case the offender does not return, but is replaced after a further 10 minutes. There is no provision that allows the TMO to upgrade to straight red, with no replacement.
That seems a glaring flaw; the complete sanction is essential for all highly dangerous foul play, without exception. The risk to the game and to player welfare is that, while these will be seen by all and sundry, they will not be acted upon.
Questions inevitably arise. Firstly, what’s the difference between the yellow and straight red options, before matters are sent to the TMO? Well, as on-field reviews are quick, and, with referees likely to be happy to ditch the responsibility, we can expect to see the vast majority of offences going to the TV booth. The bar for a straight red is set extremely high, and, with that option not available to the TMO, it’s heading towards extinction.
Absolute clarity is vital. The hit on Rob Herring by Uini Atonio in Ireland v France, where would that sit? The exact same question is there for Grant Gilchrist and Mohamed Haouas in France v Scotland, and for Sergio Parisse’s recent (Top 14) spear tackle. If the referee does not give straight reds, then these players will be replaced after 20 minutes. Depending on which camp you’re in, that is good news, or it’s bad news.
We were all pleased that Ireland beat 15 Frenchmen, mainly because Herring could be replaced by Rónan Kelleher, a “like for like” player. If it was Johnny Sexton, it becomes very different – 20 minutes without a player is very probably a lot less of a disadvantage than losing a key influential player for good.
There are resource issues too, financial and human. Super Rugby Pacific has six matches per weekend, very manageable in terms of TMO numbers, which will be 12 (two per match: one to watch play, while the other pores over “yellow” replays). That means more costs, including more money for more responsibility; the proposal is way above current pay grades.
In the northern hemisphere, these issues are greater. The Heineken and Challenge Cups’ round of 16 would require 32 TMOs; frankly, they don’t exist. The best solution may lie in Rugby League’s bunker system, where a group of TMOs, not at individual matches, reside in a dedicated centre with access to all camera footage. More financial implications arise here, including full-timers in the role.
None of this, of course, does anything to prevent the potential for human error, which is not going to go away. Just check out the VAR system in football.
The analysis of the current trial will be hugely relevant, and it must include all yellow card outcomes in video format. We have to see everything in true context, not mere pages of statistics. Full transparency is key to the process.
What’s next? The usual law-change prohibition, pre-RWC, is in place right now, so we’ll hardly see this proposal before then. But fix any flaws, and Paddy Power will probably have it short odds-on to appear in next year’s Six Nations. As you consider which side of the fence you’re on, remember: you cannot sit on it.
