Rugby World Cup could feature radical red card upgrade system

[.X.]

World Rugby is exploring an innovative law change that would see yellow cards upgraded to reds by television officials at this year’s World Cup, Telegraph Sport understands.

The move would alter the handling of controversial dismissals such as Freddie Steward’s for England against Ireland last weekend. The governing body will come to a decision over the next two months after exploring logistical hurdles and consulting with stakeholders, including players and coaches.

There is still a way to go for the off-field upgrades to be in place at the World Cup because the system would need a wider trial, slated for the Under-20 World Championship this summer. Matches would also need an extra TMO, meaning more officials would need to be appointed and trained prior to the flagship tournament, which begins on September 8.

Telegraph Sport understands there is a growing reluctance from referees to give red cards for “grey area” incidents at the World Cup in the wake of Steward’s sending off. The new law could help reduce these instances for the on-field officials.

England’s full-back was dismissed on the verge of half-time in Dublin following a high-speed clash with Hugo Keenan in which Steward turned to protect himself and inadvertently made contact with the head of his opposite number.


Initially brought in to shorten stoppages while the on-field officials confer with their TMO, this off-field upgrade system could also ensure that red cards are not branded hastily and that teams have a better chance of keeping all 15 players on the field.

Should the World Cup adopt this law, which is being trialled in the Super Rugby Pacific competition, there will be one major change. In the Super Rugby Pacific competition, yellows have been upgraded to a 20-minute red card with the offending player replaced by a team-mate if the TMO deems the offence to be serious enough. At the World Cup, however, there would only be yellow cards or traditional, permanent red cards.

World Rugby have been enthused by initial reaction to the Super Rugby Pacific trial and would be happy to roll it out further at relatively short notice because it would not need players or coaches to make any material alterations to their World Cup preparation.

One criticism of the Super Rugby trial has been that any upgrade has not always been obvious to spectators at the ground. World Rugby will be eager to address this concern at their showpiece event.

A source, who officiated in this Six Nations and attended a significant World Rugby alignment meeting between international coaches and referees on Monday, revealed the incident had split opinion at the very top of the sport.

There is a growing sense that officials, as well as decision-makers at World Rugby, do not want World Cup matches to hinge on similarly divisive red cards.

“There is a feeling going into the World Cup that we clearly don’t want games decided on incidents like that when there is so much grey around it,” said the source.

“Would that [the Steward incident] be a red again? Probably not, because it splits opinion so much and is so potentially decisive in the outcome of the game.”

World Rugby is aiming to aid officials with a background “calibration process” that sees the ex-players and coaches that developed the head contact process (HCP), such as former New Zealand centre Conrad Smith and Scotland head coach Gregor Townsend, review a series of incidents every three weeks and circulate a document detailing best practice. Chris Quinlan, the head of judiciary at World Rugby, is also involved in this exercise.

However, it is understood that at this week’s meeting in Heathrow, decision-makers were split over the correct outcome in the Steward incident.

[palitu]

i am always confused why they do not like the 20 minute replacement rule. has a decent punishment for the current game, as well as potentially harsh sanctions post-match. But also enables the game to continue to a reasonable spectacle even if the card was in the 1st minute of the match.

[GIGS20]

i am always confused why they do not like the 20 minute replacement rule. has a decent punishment for the current game, as well as potentially harsh sanctions post-match. But also enables the game to continue to a reasonable spectacle even if the card was in the 1st minute of the match.

I believe world rugby's issue is with reducing the severity of the sanction. I remember reading somewhere that they cancelled the trial because initial terms of reference included judiciaries imposing strict sanctions on guilty players, which they didn't believe had occurred.

[palitu]

I believe world rugby's issue is with reducing the severity of the sanction. I remember reading somewhere that they cancelled the trial because initial terms of reference included judiciaries imposing strict sanctions on guilty players, which they didn't believe had occurred.

i am on the rugbyunion sub-reddit (on reddit) and they piss and moaned about it all the time. saying that it encouraged foul play, as the penalty was not that strong.

judiciaries are always a toss up!

[GIGS20]

i am on the rugbyunion sub-reddit (on reddit) and they piss and moaned about it all the time. saying that it encouraged foul play, as the penalty was not that strong.

judiciaries are always a toss up!

I mean I totally get why World Rugby got rid of the trial that the Southern Hemisphere unions proposed and were allowed to trial.

When you see the difference in interpretations between the hemispheres, the SH Unions pretty much used the trial to ignore the line that World Rugby were pushing and they continue to push back against the head contact protocol.

Now I'm not suggesting that SH Unions don't have a point, they might, they might not. My big issue with their strategy is that they have no actual power in a fight with World Rugby over rules and interpretations and all they're doing is training their players to not meet the threshold that will be applied in the upcoming RWC. It seems like a flawed strategy to me.

It would be far better to have run the trial in such a way that World Rugby were happy with the outcome so that the 20 Minute Red card was implemented for the World Cup and have players who were more used to the system and coaches who had trialled systems to cope with it.

Now we see (since England has become the victim of a red card they're not happy with) questions about whether Red card is too great of a sanction and World Rugby are almost instantly considering off field review I guess amongst other things.

There are 2 possibilities of why this might be
1 England influence World Rugby in the same way as NSWRU influence Rugby Australia
2 (and probably more accurate) England have proven to undertake the responses to head contact in ways that are more supportive of what World Rugby are looking for and therefore World Rugby are more inclined to listen to their concerns.

Personally, I think Orange Card is a good middle ground, all based upon off field review, so that intentional or excessively reckless and dangerous incidents can still hamstring the team for good and incidental, but illegal incidents can receive a 20 minute card. There should also be clear guidelines to judiciaries about the level of sanction escalating for a red card over and orange card. (ie higher entry points or no ability to reduce sanction for good behaviour and early plea)

[shasta]

I mean I totally get why World Rugby got rid of the trial that the Southern Hemisphere unions proposed and were allowed to trial.

When you see the difference in interpretations between the hemispheres, the SH Unions pretty much used the trial to ignore the line that World Rugby were pushing and they continue to push back against the head contact protocol.

I would not totally lay the blame at the feet of the SH Unions. Apart from the fact that there are already differences of interpretation between Oz & NZ Sirs, I've noticed a degree of push back from some of them against the process of off-field review where some TMO's try to increase their influence in that process. Ben O'Keeffe last SR season comes to mind instructing the TMO to "Put the vision up and I'll inform you of my decision" - which I liked at the time.

I've seen some other attempts at overreach by on-field refs. And - worse IMO - some letting the TMO talk them into ridiculous decisions. Though I can't recall other individual incidents in Rugby, I saw a blatant effort to control the TMO in a Mungo match on the weekend. Sir had ruled a player had lost control during the PTB. The tackling player had clearly jersey-pulled him off balance causing the error. There was a Captains Challenge, Sir notified the TMO and added "I've ruled he tried to PTB too quickly" in other words "Don't overrule me" and he didn't, despite clear evidence. Ruck-speed determines momentum in both codes; in what law does it say you cant strive for quick ball? Unfortunately, I think tinkering in both codes has only managed to muddy the waters.

[GIGS20]

I hear what you're saying Shasta, but I don't think referee overreach is the reason world rugby scrapped the 20 min red card trial.
I'm sure there was an article somewhere saying that judiciaries weren't harsh enough, and that, I think, indicates some involvement by the union.
I think the judiciaries have also influenced referee interpretation, remember Tom Banks headbutt on Toni pulu last year? Gus Gardner called it red on the field and the judiciary told him it was yellow, after a few of them I would confidently say that refs have backed off the severity of their decisions and put more emphasis on mitigation when following the protocol.
As for tmo involvement, I don't think it relates directly to the point I was making, but I have seen referees completely ignoring the speed up variations and rather than getting the TMO to check something on the run they're now stopping the game and pretty much keeping the TMO out of the decision.
It goes along with differing interpretations by country (NZ refs almost completely ignore the breakdown as long as the attacking team gets the ball out quick, aus refs seem to want defenders attacking the ball more, NZ refs will pretty much ignore head contact if the tackler is adopting a good posture aus refs more likely to review a tackle where head contact is made and work their way down from red)
If these variations aren't a product of the union, where do they come from? Refs are employed by ra in Australia, so there must be some system of advancement which selects ref a over ref b that is controlled ultimately by the union. Refs who want higher honours, ref the way they need to to get there.