- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Opinion
Saturday’s Women’s World Cup final was the culmination of a great tournament. It started off with one-way traffic, the Red Roses scoring at nearly a point a minute. But 17 minutes in the game changed.
Yes, Lydia Thompson connected with Portia Woodman’s head with force. Yes, it was reckless and dangerous. But it also seemed accidental and without malice.
As much as I was stoked to see the Black Ferns win, I can’t help but feel the resulting red card significantly influenced the outcome of the final.
The Black Ferns dug deep and clinically made use of the gap that Thompson’s absence created. But most people would agree that if the red card were a yellow card instead, the Red Roses would’ve won and probably won well.
The rules are the rules, and the rules were broken. But are the rules fit for purpose? Originally the red card was reserved for the most egregious offending. Referees were so reluctant to enforce the red card that the yellow card was added to international rugby. But there has been significant ‘punishment drift’ in the last ten to 15 years. In the past the Woodman-Thompson incident may have been seen as an accidental head clash with no sanction warranted. A few years later maybe it would’ve been worth a penalty. A few years after that we would’ve seen a yellow card. From 2017 onwards it’s been a red card.
The reasoning for the increase in punishment is clear and justified: to protect the health of the participants. Especially the reduction of head impacts. The method that World Rugby chose was to increase the types of offences that result in a red card.
Red cards used to be rare. Last weekend there were three red cards. It is arguable that the Pieter-Steph du Toit red card also cost the Springboks that match. Looking at the reply, it seems the incident was possibly more accidental than the Thompson clash. Du Toit tripped over Uini Atonio, and when he was regathering his balance he was propelled by into Jonathan Danty by Kwagga Smith. Smith was lucky to not get punished as well.
An attempt to address the disproportionality of some red cards was attempted by the 2021 trial of a ’20-minute replacement’ red card. Its widespread adoption was rejected by World Rugby, probably correctly. Sometimes foul play is so brutal and deliberate that the offender’s team being reduced to 14 players for the rest of the match is required. But it must also be recognised that not every team that receives a red card loses.
With these examples of punishment drift, the best way forward might be a third option. An orange card. The offender is off for the rest of the game, but they can be replaced after 20 minutes. This would’ve been a more appropriate punishment for the Thompson and Du Toit incidents. The games would’ve been better and truer contests if the offending player was replaced after 20 minutes.
An orange card would still result in a trip to the judiciary and, highly likely, a ban. But the bans are part of the issue. Is a ban that is cut in half and a week cut off again a suitable deterrent?
The red card punishes the team as much as the offender; the fans miss out as well. The red card needs to be reserved for misconduct that is truly beyond the pale, not dangerous accidents. Why not punish offenders more harshly and leave the spectacle intact? Why not give more orange cards, but a six-week ban as a start? None of the good behaviour and ‘coaching intervention program’ nonsense.
One orange card with a six-week ban would rule a player out of an international window or most of a World Cup. Players who are orange card-prone will be seen the same as those who are injury prone – a risk. Unions and clubs will be far less likely to pay a million dollars a year to players who are absent for six weeks or more.
If more lengthy bans don’t work, then fine the offenders as well. The fine and reduced pay for not playing will surely make players more safety conscious. Also, a player who is prone to foul play can’t commit foul play if they are banned.
The nuclear option would be to ban and fine coaches as well if their players keep offending. If Rassie Erasmus can get banned for disrespecting the referees, why not ban coaches if their players can’t play safely? If a coach got banned and fined because of their players’ high tackles, you can bet that there will be specific emphasis on lowering tackle height when they are next able to run practice.
The most sensible long-term option to reduce high tackles is to reduce the legal tackle height. In New Zealand the legal tackle height will be lowered to the sternum in 2023. “The first tackler must tackle below the sternum and target the belly area”.
Apart from reducing head impacts, it will probably result in more offloads as the ‘ball and all’ tackle will become an even more dangerous option.
World Rugby has quite rightly decided that player safety is paramount. But is the current red card-yellow card-short ban method the only or even the best way to address the issue? The introduction of an orange card but with longer bans and fines could be as good or better. One of the main differences is the game day spectacle wouldn’t be as affected. Also, the punishment will be greater for the offender, and repeat offenders will be seen as a liability – as they should be.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.