The dilemma of cards in rugby deepens.
The men’s final in Paris was disfigured by a first ever red card, shown to Sam Cane, the New Zealand captain, in the 29th minute.
This is now the second RWC final in succession to be affected in this way. In both cases the team affected lost by a single score: England 31-34 to New Zealand at Eden Park in 2022; and New Zealand 11-12 to South Africa in Paris. By such tiny margins…
The questions pile up:
Is the awarding of cards reducing the number of poor tackles?
Is World Rugby’s policy of mitigating punishments by asking the offender to undertake a programme of correction justified and appropriate?
TMOs concentrate their attention on contact with the head – quite natural. But serious injury can be caused to other parts of the body. Ask Fi Pocock. I doubt if a TMO today would take any more action over the tackle that flung her into touch than was the case thirteen years ago. She next appeared for England five years later.
Are the referee’s reference points accurate enough? Is it head-on-head or shoulder-on-head? What is the angle of the tackler’s approach to the ball-carrier? What is the ball-carrier’s posture relative to the tackler? Are there other matters to be taken into consideration?
At another level, are the paying spectators getting their money’s worth? Not every rugby match costs a king’s ransom to attend, but an RWC final is another matter. A match can’t help being distorted by the absence of a player.
Teams are now trained to adjust to such a loss, what ever position may be concerned.
WR has introduced a Coaching Programme which many coaches and players have found invaluable (see below).
WXV and beyond
In the course of the WXV tournament referees have shown a large number of cards. WR has reported on the more serious ones, involving red cards. Disciplinary committees have met and delivered their verdicts.
An important feature here is mitigation. If a player intends to apply to take part in the World Rugby Coaching Intervention Programme, then the punishment can be reduced. Other grounds for mitigation include ‘a good record’ and ‘admission of guilt’.
It would be fascinating to know:
What proportion of the players offered this opportunity accept it?
WR’s figures show that less than 10% of players completing the course offend again. Is that a satisfactory outcome?
After the card in the men’s final, controversy revived about the merits of the current regulations. Wayne Barnes awarded a yellow card, inviting an official ‘in the bunker’ to review the evidence at leisure and decide whether a red card was justified. In this case the answer was yes.
An alternative is the 20-minute ruling. Here, a player dismissed with a red card could be replaced by another team member after 20 minutes. The burning question is whether that represents a fairer balance for everyone concerned: the guilty party, the replacement, the team, the opposition and the viewing public.
