Two prominent features of the first round were the awarding of many cards and the contributions of the television match officials.
Cards
No fewer than three red cards were flourished, two in one match (the culprits: Evie Gallagher (Scotland), Gabrielle Vernier (France) and Georgia Evans (Wales). That is far too many for World Rugby’s peace of mind. Each offender will no doubt be required to attend a Tackle School before her punishment can hope to be reduced. (Update: Gallagher is banned for one match). A male player has admitted a course he undertook had a beneficial effect on his game – good.
Once more I must query whether the current policies are having the desired effect; the number of cards shows few signs of diminishing. Every collapsed maul or ruck is now followed by an almost automatic card for the player deemed to be its cause. In roughly 50% of cases that player seems to have been bowled over by superior forces; hardly the culprit.
The 20-minute red card is still the subject of high dispute. Its advantage is that it helps spectators enjoy an even-handed game (15 v 15) for longer. But many contend that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
Within those three cases in round one there appeared to be different levels of culpability. We will see what three disciplinary committees make of that.
Television Match Officials
They are there to ensure a welcome extra layer of observation through a match. In Round One they produced a remarkable number of interventions.
Public reactions centred on these two questions:
1 Why had the three on-field officials not noticed the infringement?
2 Why could it take up to four minutes for the intervention to be completed?
Point One: no referee can see everything that happens on a rugby field. That is where the Assistant Referees should play their part. The term AR was introduced specifically for that purpose. Previously as touch-judges, they had a very limited role.
My concern in the Women’s Six Nations is that the ARs chosen often come from second-tier nations (good!), but where they are less familiar with high-tension contests in major stadiums with large audiences. Then there is the question of language – yet again!
Even when an AR spots an infringement, can she inform the referee quickly and accurately? From my observations ARs have been noticeably silent, too unwilling to intervene. When it comes to decision-time via the big screen, they seem to do no more than nod in agreement. Only in a few matches are leading referees appointed as ARs. At once we see the difference: they are far more likely to help the referee with a prompt decision.
Point Two: the long delay. The TMO or an assistant may spot an infringement they think worthy of intervention. The game goes on. At a suitable moment it is stopped, the referee has to move over to the ‘big screen’ and the incident shown from all available angles. (At the game in York – a fine choice of stadium in other respects – Precious Pazani had to run the length of the field more than once to obtain a decent view).
The referee and the TMO then discuss all the implications, checking they agree on each point. The ref then makes her final call, asking if her colleague agrees. The answer is usually along the lines: “Yes, fine”.
The referee then needs to explain the decision to the team captain involved (language problems once more, for example, Zimbabwean explaining to Italian), and the opposing captain informed. If a player is to be shown a card, she has to be summoned too. If it happens to be a yellow card plus referee’s arms crossed above her head, we will suffer a further delay as the the bunker decision is imparted to both captains.
This can take an unconscionable length of time, all in the name of justice. World Rugby is targeting a faster, simpler game.
