Dean Mumm’s yellow card in the 23rd minute of the Australia-Ireland game illustrated a frustrating disconnect between World Rugby, referees and fans.
Mumm was involved in a ruck cleanout where he lifted the leg of Tadgh Furlong and dropped him leading to Furlong falling on his head and neck. Initially referee Gerome Garces waved play on, but after a consultation with the TMO, he reviewed the incident and decided on issuing a yellow card, despite there seemingly being cause for a red.
Cue yelling into pints of Guinness, throwing shamrocks and kicking over pots of gold.
If the WR protocol for tip tackles is followed correctly here, the only sanction is a red card. The player was lifted beyond 90 degrees and comes down on his head and shoulder. Based on protocol, that is a red card and there have been many other similar situations recently where the outcome has gone that way.
But to the chagrin of Irish fans, one of the most experienced refs in the world, Nigel Owens, steps in.
Owens essentially takes control of the situation and advises that because the Irish player’s head was close to the ground (essentially saying that there was no substantial lift) it wasn’t dangerous enough to warrant a red card. Garces then justifies the decision to Rory Best as being a “static” play rather than a “dynamic” one, although it’s also unclear what that means exactly.
The problem isn’t the decision, it’s the consistency of the sanctioning that has Irish heads exploding. Like the All Blacks-Ireland game the week before, there is a disconnect between the understanding of the laws and the enforcement of them.
But hang on, maybe Owens advice was warranted? If we remove the emotion for a second, Owens, isn’t the best ref in the world for no reason, he is a no nonsense yet pragmatic referee and he has some basis for his decision here.
When refs are trained, they are taught to first and foremost consider safety, but they are also trained to consider things such as materiality, game flow and entertainment value.
I think in this situation, Owens has concluded that if Mumm gets red carded, it ruins the game as a contest and both Australian and Irish fans get cheated out of the money they paid for the spectacle.
Perhaps if Furlong had actually been injured, the result may have been different, but I think Owens has thought, no injury, so let’s keep the game as a contest. I personally have no problem with that interpretation, but it does leave the Irish fans at a loss. They are told the protocol for a red card by WR, they see some games where this protocol is enforced, and then they sit dumbfounded when it isn’t enforced in other games.
So, how did we get to this disconnect between WR and the fans?
Traditionally, red cards have been reserved for intentional dangerous play, but in the search for a safer game, WR has mandated that refs be harsher on both intentional and unintentional dangerous play.
Their research has lead to changes in play like the new ruck laws trialled in New Zealand this year, the directive to police high tackles more strictly and even the suggestion that there should be no tackling above the waist…
Now the “it’s not tiddlywinks” crowd have spat the dummy at some of these suggestions, but the tiddlywink defence isn’t really an argument. It’s the equivalent of saying “cars are made to go fast, so we shouldn’t have speeding laws”.
Yes, rugby is a dangerous game and players should know and understand that, but it doesn’t have to be unnecessarily dangerous. If we weigh up the actions of Dean Mumm (trying to clear out a player to avoid a turnover) versus a lifelong neck injury for Furlong, then I think it’s an easy conclusion to try and make the game safer.
The problem for refs comes when they have to weigh up a multitude of factors including the severity of dangerous play, the intention of the player as well as the responsibility for creating an entertaining game and decide between only two options – a weak 10-minute benching or a red card that ruins the game.
The answer to this problem is very simple; scrap the yellow and red card system and go to a graded card system.
When a player gets cited following a game, the judicial officer takes into account aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the length of the ban, so why can’t that same system work for on-field sanctions?
In Ice Hockey, minor offenscs are sanctioned with a two minute penalty; however, players can accrue multiple penalties at a time which adds to their penalty time. Doing the same in rugby would give far more transparency and accuracy to sin-bins. It would work by assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors in any dangerous situation and giving an accruing sin-bin without having to ruin the game.
In a tip tackle for example, the aggravating factors that can cause injury are:
• The height of the lift i.e. has the player been lifted to a dangerous height?
• The tip i.e. has the player been tipped beyond horizontal?
• The force of the player going into the ground i.e. Is the player being driven into the ground?
• The position of the player’s body going into the ground i.e. is it head or back hitting the ground?
There may also be mitigating factors i.e. did any other factors make the tackle more or less dangerous? Did the tackler try to mitigate his actions in any way?
If we take the Mumm-Furlong case for example, we could grade it along this scale:
Aggravating factors:
• Tip – Mumm tipped the player beyond the horizontal = ten minutes
• Position – Player landed on head and shoulder = ten minutes
Mitigating factors:
• Height – Mumm didn’t lift the player to a dangerous height = no sanction
• Force – Mumm did not drive the player = no sanction
• Tip – Simmons’ neck roll caused the tip to be exaggerated = ten minutes for Simmons
So, the overall sanction would be 30 minutes for Australia, 20 for Mumm and ten for Simmons which is more appropriate for the danger of the situation, but far less harsh than a red card which would have left Australia with 14 men for 57 minutes.
If we look at Malakai Fekitoa’s yellow card for a high tackle last week which many Irish fans along with the citing commissioner thought should have been a red card, the aggravating factors might have been:
• Point of contact – Tackle was around the neck/head area = ten minutes
• Force – Tackler left his feet which aggravated contact = ten minutes
• Wrap – Lack of both arms wrapped = ten minutes
Mitigating Factors:
• Timing – No issue with timing = no sanction
So Fekitoa would have got 30 minutes rather than ten which many fans saw as too lenient. Had the tackle been late, then he might have got 40 minutes which would have been the equivalent of a red at that point of the game.
The point here is that having only two sanctions doesn’t account for the complexity of contact in rugby, nor does it account for the growing need to produce entertaining spectacles.
It is also extremely difficult to gauge the intentionality of any action on the field, so let’s remove the subjective interpretation of dangerous play and judge it based on the decisions that the players actually made.
That is after all how players are judged when they get to the citing commission.
piru
Guest
On a rugby page I think you'd be safe
Shane D
Roar Rookie
YC's are not sent to the judiciary automatically unanimous. YC's are referred by the citing commissioner only if he feels the offence meets the RC threshold.
Unanimous
Guest
Firstly, I agree with a more graduated approach to penalties, and I like the NHL options. I think it is interesting to see how teams play with players missing. If people don't like players being off the field, there is always field position and even points that can be used as penalties. E.g. what is a yellow card offence now might be a point on the scoreboard, or 20 meter penalty in distance and restart with a penalty. A lesser offence might be 10 meters, a greater one 30. Secondly, I disagree with your assumptions about Nigel Owens thinking about the flow of the game. I very much doubt that had anything to do with his recommendation. Thirdly, the Irish player put his head down in an illegal rucking position. I can't remember if he got that way prior to the ruck forming or afterwards, but this was something that Nigel Owens mentioned at the time. Mumm did not cause the Irish player to go onto his head, the Irish player was already 90% of the way to being on his head, and his torso was already way past horizontal. There should not have been a red card for this offence, because it was not a "tipping.offence". It was also not a tackle.
Unanimous
Guest
The citing commissioner didn't disagree. All yellow cards go for review. He was let off, so no one in authority has seen this as a red.
Unanimous
Guest
All football started with no referees. There was even a time when football rules used to be agreed just prior to the game, and even improvised during it. Rugby introduced referees around the same time as other football. Rugby development has been more conservative than other types of football, due to it's demographic and amateur traditions, and there has always been an attempt to regulate the chaos rather than stamp out whole facets of the game as other codes have done.
Unanimous
Guest
"Civilised"? So is civilisation about using ambiguous general words in place of unambiguous clear language? In a country with four codes of professional football, it seems pretty smart to me to avoid the use of the word football to refer to a specific form of the game.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
I think it was the Chiefs-Jaguares game in Buenos Aires where the TMO stated that the player was not out and a try could be given. Gardner could see clearly in the big stadium screen that the player had touched the line and walked the TMO into changing his recommendation. The TMO was Argentinean and spoke poor English. Gardner did a good job handling that situation.
Homer Gain
Guest
No you are dead right. Often the issue boils down to the strength of character of the two individuals arnd their respective commands of English. There have been a few cases recently where the TMO has clearly had one view but been overruled by a stronger referee (and less frequent occurrences the other way round) or where there has been a misunderstanding between the two because of language.
exTen
Guest
You missed what Garces said - twice - but you're far from alone. Garces said "there were two of them", meaning that Mumm was driving horizintally one way and Moore(?) was driving horizontally in the opposite direction. Mumm was higher than Moore so the result was a rotation. No single player tipped anybody. No single player did other than drive hoizontally. No wonder Mumm escaped suspension.
Blue Balls Fan
Guest
My issue is with the TMO review process. Whenever a decision is referred 'upstairs' there always seems to be a discussion between the TMO and the match referee. One does not want to contradict the other so end up questioning each other resulting in confusion and delays. Like every other sport, once it is referred to the TMO there should be no further discussion and the TMO comes back with the final decision. For a decision about a try, a yes or no should be displayed on the big screen. Also when an incident is referred to the TMO, the referee should not then make a hasty decision based on the replays on the big screen. The TMO is there for a reason and needs to be utilised properly. I am not sure why others do not see this as an issue. maybe it's just me.
davSA
Guest
Thanks Edward , I have now read the said article. Was particulary taken by your comment of coaches ie. John Kirwan looking for loopholes rather than applying the basics. Adds to my argument to call for a serious re-simplification of the rules in general. Bring rugby back to a level everyone understands.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
As it turned out, no further action against Mumm so it would appear a red card would have been inappropriate.
ClarkeG
Guest
Yes - we agree.
Daz
Guest
The present two card system is a bit like mandatory sentencing that raises the hackles of magistrates and judges in our legal system. We want our referees to adjudicate fairly but we don't give them all the tools to do it. We should give referees, like we do judges more discretion in sentencing. The first level of offending results in a penalty. Who decided the next level of offending results in a 10 minute yellow? Who then decided two yellows results in a red? The ref should be able to decide how much time an offender spends cooling his heals. For instance when the darkness concedes a penalty close to their line in lieu of a try, penalty for sure. Next offence maybe 5 in the bin. Next offence maybe 10. Next offence 15 and so it steps up. But that is all moot. What we need are refs with real courage, backed up by their masters who are not afraid to enforce the rules even if it means sending half the team off. It'd only happen once or twice. Blatant foul play and you're off. No argument.
MickD
Guest
Edward, thank you for your post and setting out a method of improving upon what we have. It has merit but its just not practical. The reality is that the 'law book' section on the area of card offences is in the guideline section of the laws and once it's a 'guideline' then there is automatic flexibility in decision making. This means that while your suggestion is valid, the multitude of officials can have different views that are also all valid views on one incident despite being different . Above all, the decision has to be made within minutes or else the game ends up as an American Football style stop/start affair. This means a finite amount of procrastinating over one event and an automatic public debate over every major disciplinary event. That's why what we have now is that all officials take a look, give a view, and the referee has the final say on the spot - with a citing commissioner having the final final say if that makes sense. its a compromise, but consistency in the empirical objective sense is like perfection - always just beyond one's reach. what you suggest might work well in the citing hearings, but maybe that's what they already do? Michael
RedandBlack
Guest
Disagree - but I enjoyed the Canterbury dig.
RedandBlack
Guest
Fair enough - in my world at least you're entitled to your opinion but I put it to you that you are looking at it from a on field perspective whilst I am looking at it from a supporters perspective. And who provides the money. If you persist in providing contests that cease to be contests because of the actions of one player - making fans feel like they have been ripped off - then you will lose more core support that you really need. Its all very well to worry about the Mum's not letting Johnny play that nasty game - but if Johnny's got it in him he'll come over later anyway. But if you lose core support you die. I want a contest, i want it 15 vs 15. I don't care about being someones nanny. Its a hard game - get hard.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Edward, thanks for the interesting piece. I'm in the camp who doesn't think there's too much wrong with the current system. I understand why people want absolute consistency from decision to decision but rugby is not that kind of game. There are so many laws and so much subjectivity and variability within those laws that there will always be different interpretations within them - that's the nature of the game. As I wrote in my article this week, the referees handled all of the card situations this weekend very well. They were calm and methodical and reached decisions which were in accordance with the laws, World rugby guidelines, and common sense. It is a nonsense to say that Nigel Owens went down the path he did because he didn't want to see the game ruined as a contest. He simply ruled on the situation as he saw it, the ref agreed and so, as it turns out, has the disciplinary tribunal. Not every tipping situation is the same, and this decision merely reflects that reality. The fact that fans and many of the media either don't know or don't care for what the actual laws are, and make noise in ignorance of those laws, is not a reason to change a system which - for the vast majority of the time - works perfectly well.
Bakkies
Guest
It was Warburton's stupidity not the laws or the referee's application of them. As soon as you lift a player between the legs above the horizontal you run the risk driving the tackled player head first in to the ground. ' I think there is a flaw in the system when a foul, that results in a red card, essentially costs one team the game. ' Back then teams struggled to cope with 14 men now there is a rapid improvement. Ireland were down to 13 men at one stage in Cape Town and didn't panic in defence and when SA were sloppy with their retention game, Ireland were still accurate enough to punish their mistakes. Paddy Jackson's drop goal at the start of the second half was superb execution of ball retention with a man or two down.
Bakkies
Guest
'allow replacements on for red cards and just use yellows as warnings and judicial markers.' No surprise that you would suggest this given your nickname however this isn't underage. These incidents have to be punished and addressing the discipline has to come from within the team and in management, so no to rewarding ill discipline with keeping 15 players on the pitch. Those players have ruined the game not the referee.