Some see red over trial rule, while for others it’s a red letter day for rugby
IT’S the radical rugby law trial that is deeply dividing opinion among some of the biggest names in the game and the debate is sure to continue over the coming weeks and months. We are talking about the 20-minute red card rule which is once again being tested out in the southern hemisphere.
So how does it work? Well, when a player is sent off, that’s the end of his game. But, under the trial, he can be replaced by a team-mate after 20 minutes. The initiative was first implemented last year in Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship.
It was also brought in for the Rainbow Cup, the PRO14’S end-of-season spin-off competition. Now it’s back for this year’s Super Rugby Pacific tournament.
The objective is to avoid games being spoiled as contests, which can happen if one team is reduced to 14-men for a long period of the match.
But there is concern that, by reducing the punishment, it sends out the wrong message about foul play. The view is it’s not enough of a deterrent at a time when you are looking to change player behaviour, in particular in terms of head-high tackles.
There have been reports that World Rugby has proposed trialling the law globally, but they have dismissed this as inaccurate. They point out they were not the originator of the concept and say it is important to fully review the impact of the Super Rugby experiment. That trial Down Under is certainly provoking a lot of reaction.
It came under the spotlight again last weekend when All Blacks second row Scott Barrett – the brother of Beauden and Jordie – was sent off while captaining the Crusaders against the Blues. There was widespread agreement that it was a red card offence, with Barrett’s shoulder connecting with the jaw of prop Alex Hodgman as he went in to make a hit and he has subsequently picked up a four-week ban, confirming the call from the officials.
Yet is just a 20 minute sanction against the guilty player’s team the right way to go? World Cup final referee Nigel Owens thinks not. He is a strong critic of the law trial.
Speaking to The Telegraph, the Welshman said: “Personally, I feel the 20-minute red card is not a good idea. If you want to create change in player behaviour and for coaches to change the way they coach tackle technique, then you have to stay firm with clamping down on strict punishments for contact to the head.
“Most people now abide by the speed limit. Imagine if you only had a £10 or £20 fine for going over the speed limit as opposed to three points on your licence and a £100 fine – there would be a lot more people less concerned about being caught. The harsher punishment makes you really think twice.
“Those measures were brought in for safety on the roads, just as red cards in rugby are all about improving player safety.
“The part which I don’t understand is that you will hear talk about players being unlucky to be sent off, and that therefore you need a 20-minute card as a solution. Well, my response would be that if a player is unlucky to be sent off, then he shouldn’t be sent off.”
Leicester coach Steve Borthwick agrees with Owens and that’s despite having a player sent off in both of the Tigers’ Champions Cup games against Clermont Auvergne, leaving them permanently down to 14 men on each occasion.
“My view is a red card is a red card,” said the former England second row.
“That’s the way I was always brought up. I watched football and if someone was given a red card, they were off the pitch and didn’t return. That’s been my stance.
“Generally now, with the ability of the TMO to review the footage, there shouldn’t be too many things missed or too many mistakes made. There are clear protocols set out, therefore if somebody does something that warrants a red card, a sending off, then that should be for the game.”
The 20-minute red card trial has plenty of other critics. Progressive Rugby’s Dr Barry O’driscoll warns that it will expose players to an even greater risk of brain damage, saying: “If the motive is to make the game more appealing commercially, then that is completely wrong.”
Long-serving Press Association rugby correspondent Andrew Baldock made his feelings clear, saying: “A 20-minute red card is utter garbage. Like getting parole for your team before you have even been sent down.”
Alex Bywater, of the Daily Mail, said a global trial of the rule would be “such a bad idea”, while South African journalist Jared Wright commented: “Why is the 20-minute red card popping up again? It is terrible in Super Rugby and was terrible in the Rainbow Cup.”
Irish rugby reporter Neil Treacy referenced Wallabies front row forward Tolu Latu as an illustration of why the law is the wrong way to go. Stade Francais hooker Latu is something of a serial offender and has just been banned for 11 weeks following his latest indiscretion - a red card following a horrific hit on an airborne Racing 92 player in the Champions Cup.
Treacy wrote: “Tolu Latu is a fantastic example of how an orange/ apricot/tangerine card would be a dangerous idea. Six yellow cards and two reds already this season. Hasn’t learned his lesson and won’t learn his lesson. A 20-minute red card
would just be an open invitation.”
However there are other prominent voices who support the rule, notably Sale and Bristol coaches Alex Sanderson and Pat Lam. Sanderson believes it will help combat the grey area that inconsistent refereeing brings to the game.
“I believe it’s a good thing because getting a red card changes the game irrevocably. It has to change because now it’s probably a bit too harsh,” said the Sale boss.
“Referees don’t want to be the person who dictates the outcome of the game, but increasingly so they are becoming that. I understand why they have shifted away from certain things, mitigating factors, affecting the decision for red cards, but there is still a lot of grey there between a yellow and a red.
“What we’ve seen is an inconsistency to what conjugates a red card and what the sanction of a red card is.
“A 20-minute sanction would affect the game hugely, but not irrevocably, so I think it’s probably a good idea. It gives you an ability to punish grey areas more than the straight black and white of a yellow or red card.”
Giving his thoughts, Lam said: “Red cards used to be for out and out foul play. Someone punching someone or a real dangerous situation. But with the current laws around tackle height we’re seeing a lot of stuff.
“The rule is probably a good idea with the amount of red cards out there. Pretty much every week someone is getting a red card.”
Wallaby coach Dave Rennie is another fan of the law and has expressed his disappointment that it has not been trialled worldwide.
“Some decisions that are made can have a massive impact on the game and maybe post-game are viewed as not as serious.
“At least with 20 minutes you can even the numbers up again. There is a lot of emphasis now around head contact and so on. There are going to be a lot of cards,” he said last year.
“Individuals who get it wrong are going to get punished and spend a long time on the sideline anyway. If we can get back to 15 on 15, ideally, that’s what we want. It had enormous support in the southern hemisphere, but not the northern. I don’t understand that.”
Taking the middle ground, commentator Sam Roberts has come up with a suggestion, saying: “Surely there’s scope for the TMO to decide whether it’s a 20-minute red card and allow a replacement?
“Some reds really don’t deserve a reprieve, some do. If we’re going to go this way, let’s go properly, using all of the abilities we have.”
And so the debate goes on.