Red is rugby’s topical colour right now. Red cards seem to be flashed near on every week in elite rugby. In Round 10 of the Gallagher Premiership, there were five red cards across just two Gallagher Premiership fixtures. It’s creating endless debate on social media, with fans venting about how frequently these cards are fundamentally changing games. But finding the balance between player welfare and keeping 30 players on the pitch may only require a few tweaks, not a total transformation.
Rugby red cards creating controversy
This conversation can’t be had without reminding ourselves why these stringent rules have been introduced to begin with. The players who fill our weekends with entertainment are at risk. Serious risk. Comments from those pursuing a lawsuit against World Rugby have made that pretty clear. Former internationals such as Steve Thompson and Alix Popham could be in care homes by the time they are 50 years old due to their rugby careers giving them early-onset dementia. Fans don’t like to see red cards ruining games, but World Rugby is trying to prevent families from losing quality time with loved ones prematurely.
World Rugby’s ‘High Tackle Framework’
World Rugby attempted to tackle this epidemic in January 2017, introducing the ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy. The policy would ensure that any contact to the head would be punished. This was after risk assessments concluded that the biggest risk to players was head-to-head contact, with shoulder to head contact also proving dangerous. The problem was that referees across different rugby competitions were punishing high tackles/shoulder charges differently, leading to inconsistent and subjective refereeing. This spurred World Rugby to create the “Decision-making framework for high tackles”.
The framework set out an objective process to determine punishments for high tackles or shoulder charges. It set out a number of closed questions, with red cards awarded if the appropriate questions were answered “yes”. This includes questions such as ‘is there a high degree of danger?’, ‘was contact made by the shoulder or arm’, etc. There is a list of mitigating factors that can prevent a red card, but these must be “clear and obvious”. This would make judgements on these punishments consistent and transparent to the fans.
So what is the problem?
The hope was that players would quickly change their technique to prevent these extreme punishments. But we are four years on from World Rugby’s Zero Tolerance policy, and we are still seeing a sea of red cards in the top domestic and international competitions in the world. Player technique has not changed enough to prevent games from frequently being severely compromised due to red cards.
The answer is not to reverse all the work of World Rugby’s policies. Partly due to these policies, World Rugby reported its best player welfare outcomes at the 2019 World Cup, including a reduction of concussion incidences by 28% compared to the 2018 elite competition average.
What are the solutions?
Theoretically, fans have no issue with ensuring players are better protected. Most are frustrated with red cards when it feels as though unfortunate circumstance, rather than reckless behaviour has ended the player’s game. ‘Mitigating Circumstance’ is supposed to ensure this doesn’t happen, yet this hasn’t prevented numerous controversial red cards. This could partly be due to the wording in World Rugby’s framework, stating that mitigating circumstances must be “clear and obvious”. This makes the player guilty until proven innocent. 50/50 calls will always result in a red card because a plausible mitigating factor isn’t good enough, it has to be “obvious” to give referees the power to reduce the punishment to a penalty or yellow card. Changing the interpretation from “clear and obvious” to something like “significant” may sound pedantic, but could create more of a balance. It could lead to inconsistency, as what one referee constitutes as ‘mitigating’ would be different to another, but inconsistency seems far less damaging to a fixture’s integrity than red cards for an unfortunate, but natural rugby incident.
Additionally, dangerous play could still be punished and deterred even if a referee has been overly lenient. Citing commissions already ensure that players are banned for dangerous play, even if a referee has not delivered the just-punishment during the match. There could even be ‘Orange Cards’, a solution that the referee legend Nigel Owens approves of. This would mean if a referee feels uncertain that a high tackle/shoulder charge warrants a red card, the player will be sent off for 15 minutes, similar to a sin bin. During this time, the TMO would have ample time to review the incident and have the option to either return the player to the field after 15 minutes or upgrade the offence to a red card if they see appropriate. Perhaps this seems convoluted, but it illustrates other options to deter dangerous play, whilst simultaneously reducing red cards.
The Breakdown
The mitigating factors around the ruck area also need to be considered. The problem for attacking teams is that ‘poachers’ at the ruck are in low body positions with their head over the ball. When a defending player’s head is in this position, the head is in a zone where the clear-out will take place. One unlucky shift of the head will create a collision course with the attacking player’s shoulder. Defenders trying to steal the ball have a low centre of gravity, meaning a clear-out with speed and acceleration is required to shift them (especially considering the gargantuan size of some forwards). This is a problem because the clear-out probably needs high intensity to be successful, meaning if it hits the defender’s head, it is high-risk contact. The speed and acceleration of the clearout also make it incredibly difficult for players to adjust if the poacher does move their head, especially considering the pace elite matches are played at.
Let’s use the Fagerson red card as an example…
Wyn Jones is in a typical position. His head is over the ball, with a low centre of gravity. He weighs nearly 19 stone, so Fagerson needs to run in at pace to shift him. The technique required to move a poacher is to go under the player’s shoulders and shove them backwards. The problem is that Wyn Jones moves his head as Fagerson is coming in, but because Fagerson is running at such speed, he has no time to adjust. If Fagerson doesn’t come in at speed, there is no way there is enough impact to move Jones due to his body position, and the only alternative would be to ‘crocodile-roll him’. But anyone who saw Jack Willis’ horrific injury against Italy knows this is hardly a technique we want to encourage for player safety! Fagerson’s right arm is tucked, so it would likely have been a yellow card or penalty anyway. But it was a red card based on contact with the head, which given all the circumstances doesn’t seem to be entirely Fagerson’s fault.
In Conclusion…
The solution to the relentless wave of red could be a more lenient interpretation of ‘mitigating circumstances’. Some readers may be concerned that this increased leniency is not taking the threat to professional rugby players seriously enough. Certainly, it must be the top priority. However, citing commissions and ‘orange cards’ could be the answer to ensure only truly reckless offences are red-carded, whilst maintaining a deterrent for dangerous collisions. It’s also worth noting that the former players suing World Rugby requested 15 changes to the game for player safety; most of these were off the pitch, such as players receiving better aftercare, and greater education on the issue of concussion. These are the changes we can immediately consider, whilst simultaneously equipping referees to make more rounded decisions on red cards. Hopefully, a few tweaks can stop red cards dominating punditry, and more importantly, secure the safety of the players who make our game special.
“Main Photo:”
Embed from Getty Images
