It’s time to dim the lights, time to play the movie.
It must surely be in production by now. It’s a documentary, not long, but definitely compelling. It is vital to the debate, to demonstrate different acts of dangerous play which did merit a straight red card, no replacement; but which will now go to the bunker for review. There will also be examples of Sam Cane-like (Rugby World Cup) incidents for which a 20-minute replacement is logical. And there are also accidents, which deserve no sanction.
Here’s the nub of the matter. My understanding is that it’s anticipated that more than 95 per cent of foul play will take the bunker route; it is an extremely high figure, a clear indication that to get straight red cards will now require nothing short of truly heinous foul play.
Munster part ways with URC-winning head coach
The decision to trial the 20-minute red card in the imminent international series is accompanied by explanatory wording which does nothing to describe to us exactly what is meant. We should not to be lulled into a false sense of security by a variation in the wording, which says that match officials retain the right to issue a permanent red card; but also have the option of a 20-minute red for “technical” acts of foul play deemed not to be deliberate or intentional.
Tupou Vaa’i: ‘Playing for All Blacks is a good way to show my love for my brother’
Joe Marler left England camp for personal reasons before post criticising haka
Sad that Graham Rowntree could not script dream ending in Munster theatre
Gordon D’Arcy: Munster parting ways with Graham Rowntree is a massive gamble
Asking referees to decide “deliberate or intentional” is extremely unlikely to work in practice – clairvoyants they are not. Previously, they based their decisions on the degree of danger attaching to highly reckless acts, words which, strangely, seem to have disappeared from this version’s lexicon.
Heinous foul play – head butts, eye gouging, testicle twisting – will see the referee looking at more angles, and of course these will qualify as straight reds
And that’s why the movie must come into play. Forget words, written or spoken; visuals are needed – clear, unambiguous video clips of what foul play gets what punishment. It’s absolutely imperative that the movie is on the agenda. It is the only valid way by which the World Rugby Council can be completely informed before voting. Unions could also create their own short movies, asking how previous, specific red-carded incidents will be now be handled.
In practice, this is what we will see happening: the TMO advises foul play to the referee, who, as is common practice, although he may have seen it, will wait for confirmation before he whistles. To keep the game moving the referee will quickly examine just a few video angles, to confirm whether the offence meets the yellow card threshold. If so, the ref crosses his arms above his head and gives the offender a yellow card. That’s the signal for the bunker to get involved.
And note this next point very carefully, it doesn’t get much publicity. The bunker cannot – repeat cannot – upgrade to a straight red. Their input is now strictly limited to stating that either yellow is sufficient, or that the 20-minute red card should be applied. Even if the bunker considers, having studied multiple camera angles and replays, that a straight red would be the correct decision, they are powerless. They can see evil, but can no longer speak it. That is a travesty.
Heinous foul play – head butts, eye gouging, biting, testicle twisting, and a few choice other actions – will see the referee looking at more angles, and of course these will qualify as straight reds. The tucked arm, shoulder/head-to-head tackles will be deemed to meet the yellow threshold, so will not get the straight red which, up to now, they deserved. I would be very happy to be proved wrong on this point.
The proposal imperils player safety, is terribly damaging to the game’s image, and will see straight reds become rarer than hens’ teeth. It’s interesting that recently there has been no further unwise talk about balancing safety with spectacle. That has been replaced by the argument that the replacement punishes the player, not the game. It can equally be argued that in a team sport, the team deserves to be punished.
There have been plenty of comments doing the rounds that it is well nigh impossible to win when reduced to 14 players. Not so, according to statistics produced by the French Federation. These inform us that the team so reduced has lost on a ratio of 60:40 of those occasions; of course, statistics cannot tell us how many of the 60 per cent would have been lost with 15 players.
It’s also a very moot point if win-loss ratios should really have such prominence in the debate, which should have nothing but player safety at its core. Nevertheless, they have become part it.
Nicolas Depoortère, a young Bordeaux-Begles player, was carried from the field recently, his cheek bone fragmented, the result of a head-on-head tackle by Perpignan’s Apisai Naqalevu. A red card was correctly given. This type of challenge can now fit into the oxymoronic new term “technical foul play” and be sent to the bunker.
[ Owen Doyle: World Rugby was too hasty in bringing in the bunker systemOpens in new window ]
Depoortère’s union (the FFR) is resolutely against the proposal. They will make their position very clear at the forthcoming meeting. I hope they bring their own movie. Other unions not in favour, such as the IRFU, should stand fast and be immovable in their opposition.
To conclude, here’s a short note to those in World Rugby who will make the call on the global trial: “Dear council members, please watch the movie carefully, and ignore impassioned words. During its 30 years of professionalism, rugby has inexorably become a very hard and dangerous sport. It does not need a reduction in the punishment for offences which, if they happened on a street corner, would end up in the criminal courts. Rugby must be better than that, the responsibility is yours.”
