1
Nigel Owens' verdict on the 20-minute red card trial
By Liam Heagney
Retired referee Nigel Owens has shared his verdict on the 20-minute red card trial which has been used in The Rugby Championship and Super Rugby Pacific. It was last May when World Rugby signalled it would also be trialling this revised sanction, explaining that the 20-minute red would be used in its tournaments such as WXV, the Pacific Nations Cup and U20 Championship.
ADVERTISEMENT
Results of this trial are to be evaluated with a recommendation made to World Rugby council in November. In the meantime, Owens has given his view on the 20-minute red after it emerged that French rugby bosses were poised to unveil the law proposals they want to see.
Mathieu Raynal, another retired Test referee, has been involved in formulating ideas such as increasing match day squads from 23 to 25 players but cutting the number of used replacements from eight to six. They also want do away with the 20-minute red card, an aspiration Owens agreed with.
Video Player is loading.
Writing in his latest weekly walesonline.co.uk column, he stated: “As far as the 20-minute red card idea is concerned, I’m not a fan. As Mathieu has said, I don’t believe it will really solve any of the problems that we have in the game at the moment.
“If someone on the pitch has committed a red card offence, they should be given a red card that sees them sin-binned for the rest of the game. Simple as that. The problem at the moment is that players are being sent off for things like accidental head collisions, which are not acts of thuggery or recklessness, but simply rugby collisions just accidentally gone wrong.
“They should not be seen as red card offences in the first place – so do we need to change the laws instead? I think so, or we certainly need to look at the options, especially upright tackles. Too often, players are still not making the effort to go lower.
“I’m against the 20 minute red card because if you have been sent off, you have done something reckless that has put another player at great risk, or you have committed an act of thuggery. A red card means you deserve to be off the pitch, so I don’t see why there should be a middle ground.
ADVERTISEMENT
“In my view, having a 20-minute red card is a cop-out. It’s simply papering over the cracks, when the discussion that really needs to be had is defining exactly what constitutes a red card offence and what doesn’t. That would be far more constructive for the game of rugby.
“Plus, we didn’t see any real changes in player behaviour when it was trialled this summer, including at The Rugby Championship. There is still a lot of careless, reckless conduct out there, so I don’t know if introducing these new cards has made much of a difference anyway.”
Nigel Owens: The rugby experiment I don't like and the issue everyone seems to be missing https://t.co/sVgskVfjjt
— WalesOnline Rugby (@WalesRugby) October 5, 2024
The Women's Rugby World Cup 2025 is coming to England. Click here to buy tickets.
I have no problem with red cards if they are administered properly and for the right reason. It (the red card) should be a player only penalty, not a team penalty eg the player at fault gone completely from the field of play, but replaced. That way the game as a spectacle is not ruined. Having Referred Basketball in the past (36yrs) a Disqualified player is replaced, the game as a spectacle is not overly reduced, but the player concerned is gone completely (to the changing rooms or outside the stadium) in disgrace!. More often than not red cards are issued because the tackling player has not dipped enough, if the ball carrier decides to dip a lot lower than the lowering tackler, some of the onus must go ball carrier, he/she knows what he/she is doing going into the tackle. Too often Red cards completely spoil the game. One other point players have numbers, officials should use them, nothing worse than an official who uses the names of some players and not others, it gives the impression of bias. Officials are there to Judicate fairly and evenly.
In basketball there are only 5 players on the court, sending off one would be equal to sending off three in rugby. In that regard the argument is not valid. Also, when you leave your teammates a man down, the team becomes vulnerable which is seen as a factor in terms of deterrance. I agree there should be some common sense in the decision making around red cards of course. And around what is a high tackle for that matter.
Clearly Nigel doesn't understand how the 20 min red card works. He says “I’m against the 20 minute red card because if you have been sent off, you have done something reckless that has put another player at great risk, or you have committed an act of thuggery. A red card means you deserve to be off the pitch, so I don’t see why there should be a middle ground." However for a 20 min red card you are sent off and can't return, just the team can replace you after 20 mins. He also says "Plus, we didn’t see any real changes in player behaviour when it was trialled this summer" Therefore if it makes not real difference to behavior isn't better to have the game 15 on 15 rather than like the world cup where it was 14 on 15 for 60 mins for just getting the tackle wrong and being high, not an act of thuggery as Nigels says red cards should be for
Think his point is that a red card should be a punishment. So if it's not changing behaviour then it's not a very good disincentive which is counter to what WR are trying to do with head contact.
Maybe the right answer is a new card for accidental head contacts which have the 20mins sin bin? And reserve the red card for deliberate thuggery ie eye gouging, raking and stomping etc
Firstly, I think we need to change the two yellow cards = a red card law, esp when reds are meant to be for serious, dangerous, foul play. Maybe the player gets an automatic one test stand down. I'm sure that'll change repeat serial cynical reoffending, behavior.
And Owens is correct. A red card should be a red card. Unfortunately, under the 20 minute red card law, we have two classes of red card:
1. An "in real time" red card for serious dangerous foul play where the ref ejects the offender & reduces the team for the remainder of the game (I think Owens is hinting that refs may be copping out by using the upgrade option?), and,
2. An upgraded red card for serious dangerous foul play where the offender is ejected for the remainder of the game but can be replaced after 20 minutes.
Why the difference in punishment? Surely for consistency, #1 must have the 20 minute replacement law too. A red card is a red card!! Further pro rata punishment will of course be meted out by the judiciary.
So, no, I don't think a further law is needed. Just the tweaks I suggest to bring consistency of punishment for a red card, & to punish 2 yellows differently. It's a system definitely worth keeping imo.
Sorry Owen, it's not that simple. People get sent off for a simple offside these days. You'd think someone like this would actually have something to say? "Simple as that" lol
Alright, to his credit he did have something to say after that..
So we might as well start here, which I'm assume was the topic he started with as well. The only reason 20min rec cards were brought in was to make the game fairer, a problem highlighted by their recent frequency.
A player, and team, should receive the same punishment for a particular foul, no matter what. Red cards (as they were) don't achieve that as the punishment is purely dependent and what stage of the game it is (if you think a punishment has an effect on the frequency of offenses, ask yourself if you've noticed more people committing red card offences towards the ends of game). So a team who receives a red card in the first minute of the game, is overly punished and that is obviously going to be the case for the viewers as well. That is the problem a fixed length red card 'solves'.
Now, onto the other topics he raises..
They're not!!!! They are now seen as 20min red card offences. Here at least, you could still be given a straight red no replacement card on the field for 'thuggery'. This is the law change you're asking for!
Going lower is the cause of these problems. There is nothing wrong with upright tackles, they are safe. Shoulder charging and swinging arms are long out of the game Nigel!
No, not necessarily. But in the few cases where they were, that punishment is for the player. Not the team. You can be sent off for receiving a 'team' yellow, this is a case were the rule should directly be rectified however. It's outside this discussion.
I don't recall any careless or reckless behaviour, not at least in TRC, what is he referring to? What we did just see was the game last week be saved by the 20min RC rule. We had what Nigel is describing as an accidental head collision which saw Argentina receive a read card (must have been very close to yellow). Normally that would have destroyed the game (and it did for that period), but by returning to 15 players it was still able to be a contest, which Opta suggests would normally have had just a 7 point gap between the teams. This is why there is a middle ground (what you have been saying you want!!).
Back to his poorly made point. I would suggest bigger off field penalties that are far more involved that a 'tackling' school, and obviously not just for the player, the whole team, especially the coachs, needed to be doing the penance. A definite review to team based yellow cards and how infringement sequences can be better handled is required as well.
Too many rules that they make more complicated than is necessary. Rugby is a team sport. Should a player overstep the rules, they should accept the punishment. Accidental or not, head collisions is bad. Red carded players should NOT be replaced. The team must be punished because the players will hold that player accountable. I'd rather say the defence coaches should be fined and there should be repercussions for those coaches. It is their job after all to ensure the right techniques are used and applied. Instead of adding rules, existing laws should be changed to adhere to current problems occuring. There is no ref that knows all the current rules, nevermind the old rules. It's the biggest reason for different applications of the rules by the refs. Everyone blames the refs, but the problem lies with WR and the rulebook. Personally I would rip up the rulebook and send the whole WR board out the door. They are corrupt and if anything, they are incapable of doing their jobs. Rugby is one of the biggest sporting codes in the world and yet it's a small sport. Instead of growing the sport, it has gone backwards over time. WR is a disaster. We need a new World Sports Body to run World Rugby. The current crop of execs is there for prestige, not because they have what it takes.
What does any of that got to do with 20min red cards? Why should it be a different penalty each game? That is wrong.
I'd like the idea if there was a good world body but sadly all I know are run much the same way.
20 minute red card has always been an excellent law down in the SH, only NH teams don't like it because the refs have always favoured them.
Often, head collision is accidental, and while some is more intentional than others, it should not entirely ruin the match, but simply act as a major advantage to the opposition.
The real issues with CTE are in the lower amateur and barely professional/provincial leagues, as the technique is obviously worse. WR should be looking to improve the systemic issues at grassroots rather than implement a law which only benefits the highest level (and taking their time with it too). Hasn't this thing been on trial for like 4 years now? Just get on with it
Red Cards and head knocks are completely different topics alright. Some people do think that a penalty stops an action from re-occurring (more often), but as we know from the real world, that is not the case. Like you say, rehabilitation actions are what has been needed to change behaviours, not a slap on the behind, or even confinement.
Player welfare and how they conduct themselves during the session of a rugby match is what WR wants to enforce for the safety of all concerned.
In comparison to a blatant act of thuggery deserving the full extent of the laws, what peeves me is when players take an accidental hit, milk it by doing a hollywood the other player gets sent off and they suddenly seem fit enough to play on.
Which in my opinion is an act contravening the conduct of good sportsmanship and should be punished by a yellow card.
I agree. However, I don’t think that rugby officialdom have the courage to stand behind the reality that some head contact is accidental, and not preventable.
That admission would work against them in a future court process. Players need to accept they could get hurt too.