Why Kiwi red-card rule is a travesty
HERE’S the good news — rugby returns on Saturday, with the start of Super Rugby Aotearoa, involving New Zealand’s provincial sides. The bad news? They have agreed a ludicrous law change, which amounts to a cheats’ charter.
If any players are sent off during the five-team event, they can be replaced after 20 minutes. Seriously. Let’s hope World Rugby officials don’t decide it should be expanded globally as it could cause chaos.
Chris Lendrum, head of professional rugby for the New Zealand union, attempted to explain it by saying: ‘Red cards can sometimes have too much of an effect on a match.’ Perhaps the best idea would be to avoid earning one, then.
Disciplinary grievances tend to fester in Kiwi circles. The All Blacks rarely find themselves on the wrong side of referees but when they do it creates indignation. Scott Barrett’s dismissal during a defeat against Australia last summer drew a furious response and there was similar uproar when Sonny Bill Williams’ sending-off for a high tackle on Anthony Watson helped the Lions beat the hosts in 2017.
On both occasions, individual offences brought a collective penalty. That is how it must be. Allowing the replacement of a red-carded player reduces the deterrent to a sham.
Clearly, this is designed to eradicate the issue of matches being wrecked by dismissals — especially early on — for acts which are not malicious, but require severe action, such as accidental contact with the head.
But it would be better to implement World Rugby’s orange card proposal, which would give officials 15 minutes to review marginal incidents and upgrade to a red card if required.
The problem with all law amendments is that they are adopted with commendable intentions but soon become subject to abuse.
It would be outrageous to see a player sent off for stamping, biting, eye-gouging, or any other heinous crime, only for his team to be allowed to return to full strength.
In time, cynical teams could seek to illegally target opposition stars, on the basis of limited risk.
Part of the rationale is to ensure a ‘fair contest’. But what is fair about violent conduct barely denting a team’s chances of victory?
And while a quest to maximise the quality of the spectacle is understandable, it can’t rely on a renewed tolerance of lawlessness.
Rugby’s Wild West days were supposed to be in the past.