Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

World Rugby to trial red card system that could end ban 'mitigation'

Referee Wayne Barnes shows Sam Cane of New Zealand a red card after a bunker review during the Rugby World Cup France 2023 Gold Final match between New Zealand and South Africa at Stade de France on October 28, 2023 in Paris, France. (Photo by Paul Harding/Getty Images)

World Rugby is poised to trial a new red card sanction process that will enforce automatic off-field bans for players shown red cards.

ADVERTISEMENT

If eventually adopted globally across other disciplinary bodies, it would bring to end the players have ban lengths mitigated due to various factors.

This revised system will be implemented during a series of closed trials across World Rugby’s 15s competitions this year. The objective is to streamline disciplinary actions for greater consistency and clarity, simplifying what has often been perceived as a complex process.

The results of these trials will be evaluated by the World Rugby Council in November.

The trial comes off the back of the Shape of the Game forum held in February, which emphasized the importance of refining disciplinary processes for audience engagement and reducing administrative workload.

Under the new framework, clear automatic sanctions will be applied for different levels of foul play. Players who attempt legal actions but commit minor errors due to poor technique or timing will receive a two-week ban. More egregious fouls involving non-legal actions like driving tackles or no attempts to wrap will earn an automatic four-week suspension. No mitigation will be offered in these cases – which is aimed at reinforcing consistency and simplifying the process.

A sanction committee – composed of experienced rugby professionals – will oversee the automatic penalties handed out after each round of matches. The aim is that they ensure these red card sanctions are uniformly calibrated, World Rugby have said.

For more serious or complicated cases requiring further review, a committee hearing will still be an option to determine the final penalty. This will apply to incidents where the facts or intentions are unclear, additional evidence is necessary or where the usual sanction length appears too lenient.

ADVERTISEMENT

The closed trials will include the ability to replace a red-carded player with a substitute after a 20-minute period.

Combined with the automatic bans, this aims to penalize the individual player while maintaining the competitive spirit of the match. Recent data shows a decline in red card offences and a stabilization in concussion rates.

A World Rugby statement reads: “The 20-minute red card was supported following examination of feedback and data from current trials, which demonstrate that tackle culture is changing in the sport with an overall reduction in red cards, and stabilised concussion rates.”

While a red card will mean a temporary team disadvantage, the replacement system will focus punishment on the offending player instead of disrupting the game itself.

ADVERTISEMENT

World Rugby say they’ve noticed a 37 per cent reduction in ‘Tackle School’ participation – their program designed to reduce suspensions after a foul play sanction – which the governing body says suggests an improved tackle techniques across the sport.

Key principles remain at the forefront. Referees can still issue straight red cards, and the ‘Bunker’ system will continue to be used for yellow card incidents.

The automatic sanctions will come without mitigation unless appealed.

Findings will be presented to World Rugby’s Executive Board and Council in November for final approval.

World Rugby Chairman, Sir Bill Beaumont said: “This streamlined off-field sanction process has been designed by the game for the game and comes directly from clear feedback at the Shape of the Game conference that the current rugby disciplinary process needs streamlining to be simpler for players and fans to understand, while upholding welfare and game integrity imperatives.

“This is a trial, and it is important to remember that the ability to replace a red-carded player after 20 minutes is coupled with sanctions that are strong, clear and will not be mitigated down. This supports consistency and agility, by making the disciplinary process less influenced by lawyers. We look forward to seeing the results, including feedback from the game.”

Related

 

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

14 Comments
C
Corne 229 days ago

Currently, a prop that has been substituted can go back on field if his original replacement gets injured. Can a red carded prop go back if his replacement gets injured, or will it be uncontested scrums?

J
Jmann 229 days ago

20 min RC is the only good solution of a bunch of bad solutions. Ridiculous that it has taken this long and caused so many uneven contests. In general these are all very good changes - one is surprised that NH brokers were able to see sense at long last.

f
finn 229 days ago

“While a red card will mean a temporary team disadvantage, the replacement system will focus punishment on the offending player instead of disrupting the game itself.”

This might work for amateur rugby, where players just want to be on the pitch for as long as possible, but hopefully we’ve got to a point where top level professionals care about the success of their team much more than about whether they personally are on the pitch or not.

s
sam 229 days ago

20 minute Red Card is untenable. If you don’t punish the whole team, coaches won’t be sufficently incentivised to pick players with, or coach better tackle technique.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 3 hours ago
'Let's not sugarcoat it': Former All Black's urgent call to protect eligibility rules

Yep, no one knows what will happen. Thing is I think (this is me arguing a point here not a random debate with this one) they're better off trialing it now in a controlled environment than waiting to open it up in a knee jerk style reaction to a crumbling organtization and team. They can always stop it again.


The principle idea is that why would players leave just because the door is ajar?


BBBR decides to go but is not good enough to retain the jersey after doing it. NZ no longer need to do what I suggest by paying him to get back upto speed. That is solely a concept of a body that needs to do what I call pick and stick wth players. NZR can't hold onto everyone so they have to choose their BBBRs and if that player comes back from a sabbatical under par it's a priority to get him upto speed as fast as possible because half of his competition has been let go overseas because they can't hold onto them all. Changing eligibility removes that dilemma, if a BBBR isn't playing well you can be assured that someone else is (well the idea is that you can be more assured than if you only selected from domestic players).


So if someone decides they want to go overseas, they better do it with an org than is going to help improve them, otherwise theyre still basically as ineligible as if they would have been scorning a NZ Super side that would have given them the best chance to be an All Black.

147 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING 2024 in review: All Blacks break Irish hearts by triumphing in Dublin 2024 in review: All Blacks break Irish hearts by triumphing in Dublin
Search