Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

World Rugby seeks to expand controversial 20-minute red card trial

England's Charlie Ewels gets red carded in 2022 (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

World Rugby will consider introducing the 20-minute red card as a global law trial despite concerns that it could diminish the deterrent effect. The law, which is being trialled in Super Rugby, means the dismissed player can be tactically replaced by a substitute after 20 minutes.

ADVERTISEMENT

England lock Charlie Ewels was sent off after 82 seconds against Ireland in the Guinness Six Nations last month, with many observers feeling the dismissal ruined the game as a contest. World Rugby, however, is determined to keep lowering tackle heights and the Super Rugby trial so far has proved inconclusive.

“That has been discussed before and will be discussed again,” World Rugby chief executive Alan Gilpin told the Daily Telegraph. “It would be great if more competitions, even in a closed trial, would use it because that would give us more of an overview of the effect it would have on the game.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

“We need to see more of the data to see whether that strikes the balance between safety and spectacle better. There is more work to do to analyse that and the concern is if a team goes back to 15 players, is that enough of a deterrent to drive that behavioural change? We would like to see it trialled more widely before drawing any conclusions.”

World Rugby’s interest in a global trial of the 20-minute red card goes against the opinion of recently retired Test centurion referee Nigel Owens, who some weeks ago outlined to RugbyPass his dislike of the law in use in Super Rugby. Referencing the Ewels red card for England in the Six Nations, he said: “People need to stop thinking that red cards ruin games because a red card is given for a reason when clearly there is an act of foul play or recklessness, and if the referee gives a correct red card then it’s irrelevant whether it ruins the game or not. 

“It didn’t in this instance [Ewels], it probably added to the game. People say, ‘It’s a bit of an unlucky red card’. Well, if it’s an unlucky red card then it shouldn’t be a red card. A red card is nailed on and that red card was nailed on. You can say the player didn’t try to do it – that is irrelevant. 

“This was a nailed-on red card, it didn’t ruin the game and people talking about this orange card, if you’re going to have a player sent off and in 20 minutes you get another player coming on instead of him, that isn’t going to change player behaviour. It isn’t going to make coaches really hit home to players you have to change tackle techniques because if you’re going to be back up to 15 men for 60 minutes compared to being down to 14 men for 80, I don’t think that is enough of a deterrent for player behaviour. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“So a red card is a red card for a reason and you shouldn’t be replaced because the Irish player [James Ryan] left the field and didn’t play the following weekend. He was out of the tournament so player safety is paramount. Yes, the red card was a big call at the beginning of the game but the referee was 100 per cent correct.”

The 20-minute red card is already available as a closed trial (as per Super Rugby) but cannot be considered for global adoption before the next women’s (later this year) and men’s (2023) Rugby World Cups. The 20-minute red card was not supported by World Rugby when the global trials were considered back in May 2021, but dispensation was given to any competition wanting to run it as a closed trial.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

145 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks' 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks'
Search