I’ll bet I wasn’t the only one taken aback. When news filtered out recently that World Rugby is considering moving to a different yellow and red card foul play system for the fast approaching Rugby World Cup, there was some disbelief, and, naturally enough, some confusion.
Let’s try and clear a few things up. Firstly, it is not the same system currently being used in Super Rugby Pacific, and nothing is finalised. Yet, there seems to be a growing appetite in the corridors of power to introduce something new for the showpiece tournament, which is now only four short months away. It includes absolutely nothing about how violent head collisions might be avoided, which is the root of the whole problem, strangely that remains unaddressed.
So, here are the main nuts and bolts of the proposal:
- The referee will use yellow and red cards, as usual, for clear and obvious foul play.
- If the referee cannot decide quickly whether the offence reaches level ‘red’ or not, he will sinbin the offender, and the incident will be reviewed by a foul play TMO, (let’s call that person the FPTMO) who would be a new addition to the match officials team.
- The FPTMO can upgrade the offence to ‘red’, meaning that the offender will not return to play.
- If it is upgraded to ‘red’ then that player will not be replaced.
Reads okay, doesn’t it? So let’s do it. But hang on a second, that’s part of the problem, it’s only on paper, and has yet to be tried and tested. Those promoting and lobbying hard for its introduction consider that the benefits far outweigh the negatives, and a trial at the Junior World Cup has been sanctioned. That, as we know, is an age grade tournament, and it’s hard to see how any evidence from that could hold much water. And, what’s more, it concludes only about seven weeks before the main event starts.
Even if the Rugby Championship joins in, it could only produce extremely limited data from this year’s very shortened edition, a far cry from the in-depth trialling which is the norm for World Rugby.
[ ‘Orange cards’ being considered for World Cup to allow decisions to be reviewedOpens in new window ]
The current system is far from perfect, but any notion that this will be a cure-all is very wide of the mark. Donald Rumsfeld, American secretary of defense during the Iraq War, spoke to us about the “unknown unknowns”; exactly so, and it’s impossible to say, with any certainty, how this proposal will play out. Unintended consequences are important reasons why any significant change needs a lot of examination before implementation.
Humans are curious beasts, and, if there’s a way to pass a difficult buck, it will be taken. Apart from absolutely heinous crimes it’s easy to envisage that the referee will choose to send most foul play issues to the FPTMO. And, unless there are very compelling reasons for a red card upgrade, it will be a case of “stick with your on-field yellow.”
Currently, the referee is central to red card decisions, which are totally his responsibility. This represents a transfer of decision-making power to someone sitting in a bunker, with no involvement whatsoever from the referee, who, according to the laws of the game, is the sole judge of fact during a match.
The considered benefits are that there would be no more long discussions between the ref and the TMO; that the match can continue quickly; that the FPTMO will have time (the sinbin period) to examine all the clips, and produce an accurate call; that it will reduce the crowd pressure on the referees. In isolation, these are not bad benefits at all.
It would also assist the game’s image, by reducing the number of times foul play incidents are shown on the big screen, and also beamed to millions of TV viewers. The optics are frequently awful, but getting things to look better does not mean that they are.
Presumably, too, the intent is to lessen the likelihood of the judiciary overturning red cards, as in the case of Freddie Steward in Ireland v England, a decision which was far from unanimous in the court of public opinion.
What this proposal does is to move the potential for error, and controversy, from the referee to the FPTMO. We need to remember that nothing is error-free, nothing is perfect.
In principal, the debate needs to decide a simple, fundamental issue – whether or not, in the short time available, it’s wise to introduce a new process, which includes training up the requisite personnel to reach consistency and correctness of decisions.
The history of the high tackle framework in Japan, during the Rugby World Cup in 2019, should also give pause for thought. It was fully outlined to teams and coaches just before the event, and ended up being ridiculed by teams who received red cards which they did not understand, or agree with; the short notice meant that there was not a clear understanding of the change.
The current conversation may well boil down to deciding between the devil you know, and the one you don’t. There is always a law moratorium in the year before a World Cup, and, while it might be argued that this is a “protocol” and not an actual law, that would seem a definite case of hairsplitting.
My old Latin teacher often spoke of the wisdom of the great Caesar Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, whose maxim was “festina lente”. Hasten slowly.
