1
Owens gives nuanced take on 20-minute red as World Rugby explore trial
By Josh Raisey
Nigel Owens fears the introduction of a 20-minute red card which is being considered by World Rugby could result in players not changing their behaviour around dangerous acts of play.
ADVERTISEMENT
World Rugby revealed on Tuesday that they are considering a global trial of the 20-minute red card sanction which is currently in use in Super Rugby Pacific, where a team is down to 14 players for only 20 minutes before the red carded player can be replaced by someone else.
Specialist working groups will explore the idea further, which came from the recent ‘shape of the game’ forum, before a final proposal will go to World Rugby’s Council in May.
Speaking at a BKT URC round table recently, the 2015 World Cup final referee gave his take on the 20-minute red card, saying it is a “kneejerk” reaction to please those that claim red cards ruin a match.
The Welshman compared the current problem of dangerous clearouts and high tackles to the tip tackle, which was prevalent in rugby a decade ago but has been phased out through red cards to offenders- with Sam Warburton’s 2011 World Cup semi-final red card being the most famous case.
While he worries that diminishing the severity of red cards will consequently result in players failing to change their behaviour and technique, World Rugby did specify that “stronger off-field sanctions” would partner the 20-minute red card.
Stronger off-field sanctions would thus continue to serve as a deterrent to players, while also achieving World Rugby’s objective of “increasing simplicity, consistency and fan understanding,” during the match.
ADVERTISEMENT
Owens said: “Safety is hugely paramount and we have to change player behaviour and get them out of that recklessness, flying in, not caring where they are hitting people. We have to change that.
“I am a little bit worried that if teams are only going to be down to 14 men for 20 minutes, are we then taking away what we really need to be strong on and that is changing player behaviour and making the game as safe as we possibly can.
“If you look back at the tip tackle or the recklessness of taking a player out in the air, many years ago referees went really strong, players were sent off, and we very rarely see a tip tackle any more. That’s because there were bans for it and it changed player behaviour.
“But, for some reason, we are still struggling with getting the change of player behaviour when it comes to recklessness around clear outs and around head contact in getting those tackles lower.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Some players are consciously trying to do that, others are not.
“We do not want to go down to 14 men for any period of time, so let’s make sure we get the discipline right and get these tackles lower.
“I just think the 20 minute red card is a bit of a kneejerk reaction in trying to find a balance of keeping people happy when they are saying going down to 14 men is spoiling a game, compared to a clear red which is there for a reason.
“Let’s look at the whole picture and make sure we get it right rather than just simply papering over the cracks and not seeing a change in player behaviour, particularly when it comes to head contact.”
How about a different set of rules for RWC matches or all-blacks? If player safety is the issue, then make policies consistent. If maintaining a 15-on-15 matchplay is the goal, then do the 20 min red
World Rugby is facing a class action law suit from former players now suffering from early onset dementia and other conditions which repeated concussions and head contact caused. It cant ignore tackle heights and head contact any longer and its a major player welfare issue. 14 vs 15 does spoil a game and gives a team a major advantage. The 20 minute red is in my opinion is a fair choice when partnered with strong off field sanctions like multi match suspensions. Having said that it is a climb down from world rugby and does open them up to further risk in litigation
Give the game back to the fans. RC’s used to be awarded solely for foul play - punches/kicks/gouges. And most of those were missed. Now theyre handed out willy nilly to unintentional actions of technically incorrect body positioning or timing. There was very little difference between the cards of Cane and Kolisi in the RWC Final but 1 team plays the game 1 man down, the other gets their man back. Cane had never been RC’ed his entire career, but gets treated worse than Bakkies #JUSTICE4 Botha. The 20mins rule returns the game to the fans, noone wants to see 14 v 15. The RC’ed player will still receive a ban and loss of earnings, a deterrent to repeated offences that Owens alludes to remains.
Unless World Rugby amend the trial used in Super rugby there is still provision for referees to issue a “full” red card for clear acts of thuggery and foul play. In those circumstances there is no replacement as under the current red card laws played in the northern hemisphere.
Agree with both Mark and Troy’s comments, where in the past red cards were rarely seen, nowadays its unusual for a game not to feature a red card because of head contact.
More head contact correlates to more red cards and yet World Rugby doesn’t want to treat the cause only the symptoms.
IRB wanted to outlaw rucking and that forced the game to change how they attack and defend the breakdown which saw the emergence of the jackler and increase in collisions to clean out the player with his hands in the ruck and head over the ball.
Tackle height rose from round the waist and legs to chest and shoulder height with the pollination of league defensive coaches, changing tackles to becoming more offensive to stop players at or behind the advantage line as well as curbing offloads.
Why? because defensive lines could fan out on both sides of the breakdown as the defensive team would win possession if the ball couldn’t be recycled, unlike the previous laws that awarded the last team moving forward at a ruck if the ball wasn’t played.
Forwards no longer needed to assemble en masse so they could now line up as part of the backline and backs were confronted with tackling bigger men, until their body shapes, weights and sizes changed as well.
With space shrinking to attack with the ball in hand, kicking downfield and not to touch became prevalent to advance territory with lesser effort and then contestable kicks where players now leapt into the air to compete for the ball.
The fundamentals of rugby are the same, but the details around contesting and winning possession is vastly different from how the game was played even 10 years ago.
Yet World Rugby mistakenly believes a coloured card and sanctions will solve the problems with head contact.
Gotta agree with Mark about the ‘ disappointing comments ‘ from Nigel Owens. When have these so called ‘acts of thuggery’ in the modern game led to long term disability or lack of quality of life?
The increase of red cards in our game is simply a reflection of the over kill being adjudicated when dealing with accidental ‘headshots’ that occur which lack any malice or intent. Sam Cane in the final is a great example, where was the malice or intent?, but we all know the game was won and lost by that red card.
Save the “baby” while changing “ the bath water “ and let the contest prevail for the benefit of all.
Losers changing the rules so they can win…wtf? Shamefull
I can’t think of one single act of deliberate thuggery in the past 10 years of professional rugby. Yet we’ve seen time and time again games become mismatches because of an early red. Nigel Owens is my favourite ref of all time, but these comments disappoint me.