1
The Nigel Owens verdict on 'always illegal' Sam Prendergast yellow
By Liam Heagney
Retired Test referee Nigel Owens has delivered his verdict on the much-debated yellow card brandished last Saturday to Ireland’s Sam Prendergast. The 21-year-old was sin-binned by referee Hollie Davidson just eight minutes into his first international start for his shoulder-to-head contact with Fiji’s Kitione Salawa.
ADVERTISEMENT
The incident was the reviewed in the foul play bunker and the decision was taken that the punishment should remain at a yellow card. This outcome infuriated Fiji coach Mick Byrne, who believed that Prendergast, who came back on to help Ireland to their 52-17 win, should have seen red.
Reviewing the collision on the latest edition of Whistle Watch, Owens explained why the decision was reached to leave the sanction at a yellow card, claiming there was a low degree of danger in the head contact which mitigated the punishment down from a straight red card.
However, he acknowledged why there was much debate that the ‘tackle’ wasn’t judged to be a 20-minute red card, which would have meant Prendergast would have been unable to return to the field of play but Ireland would have eventually been able to replace him and restore the match to a 15-versus-15 contest.
“A lot of you have been talking about the Prendergast shoulder-to-head tackle,” began Owens on the World Rugby video series. “Do we have direct contact with the head? Yes, we certainly do, so we have foul play. What we also have here as well is an illegal action and this is probably now what has caused a lot of the debate between whether it should be a red or should be a yellow.
“Because the actions are always illegal, so he goes in with a shoulder tucked in, there is no legal time to wrap so mitigation does not play a part, so the question all of you are asking now is does this reach the yellow card threshold? Yes, it certainly does and it goes to the bunker.
“But the big question is, why was it not a red card? So can you have a yellow card even though it’s foul play, there is no mitigation because the action is always illegal? Well, the answer is yes you can. It all comes down on the day to whether officials feel that the actual contact with the head was a high degree of danger. So if it’s a high degree of danger there is no debate whatsoever, it will be a red card.
ADVERTISEMENT
“But because the officials felt that even though it was always illegal and there is contact with the head, they didn’t feel it was a high degree of danger and therefore that is how it remained at a yellow card. But it all comes down to do you think that the high degree of danger was enough to warrant a 20-minute red card?
“Hmmm, well a lot of you think it is and you are not wrong although others of you think it’s a low degree of danger and therefore, like the officials on the day, it remained at the yellow card.”
Inconsistency is the issue that plagues world rugby. Compare the Prendergast decision with Scott Cummings recent 20 min red vs SA. SC was deflected in his clear out by a Bok player standing up on the wrong side as Cummings came over the top of him mid clear out. As a result of the deflection Cummings fell off the side of the player he was clearing out and landed on that players lower leg. It wasn’t a serious injury so there was evidently no high degree of danger, similar to prendergast’s contact to the Fiji players head. If anything prendergasts’ action was worse since it was never legal but Cummings started his clear out legally and only moved to illegal inadvertently as a result of an opposition players illegal actions.
How difficult can it be to have some measure in consistent application of the laws…???
The difference should be about intent. Prendergast always intended to shoulder charge and opponents head. Even if it was just a glancing blow it was done to deliberately harm the player. Cummings was accidental but still foul play because he still managed a croc roll. The latter is a yellow but regardless of degree of danger the former should have been a red, if not a full red.
Nigel fails to mention that, in addition to whether the act had a high degree of danger of injury to the Fijian player - which it was correctly deemed not to - upgrading to a red would present a high degree of danger to the Irish team’s overall performance.
So it wasn’t upgraded to red.
Disagree. The safety of the Irish team must be a consideration for the player who committed foul play.
The real problem is, Radradra getting his yellow card upgraded to red while Prendergast stayed at yellow, this is the TMO responsibility. Fiji would have felt very unfairly treated. I thought the referee (Holly Davidson I believe), seemed to favour Ireland on any 50-50 calls in the first half, especially when penalizing Fiji at a scrum, when they were moving forward. It felt like someone had a word at half time, because for the first 15 minutes of the second half, she seemed to favour Fiji with the 50-50 decisions, including a scrum penalty that should have gone to Ireland, until reverting back to Ireland for the final 25 minutes.
Nigel didn't say what he thought. Was it a high degree of danger or not? Red or Yellow???