The 2018 Autumn Internationals have come and gone without a single red card or suspension – in the men’s game, at least. Surely, this is something we should be celebrating? A cleaner and safer game is in the interests of all and now, after all the controversies in the domestic game, the sport has turned a corner – right? Not exactly.

Despite World Rugby’s attempt to crack down on foul play and dangerous tackles, the inconsistencies in the application of the laws this autumn has only created more confusion and more controversy. An array of potentially dangerous incidents have gone unpunished; entirely inconsistent with the ‘zero-tolerance’ policy regarding the officiating of foul play in the interests of player welfare outlined by the sport’s governing body and witnessed in the club game this season. This author’s piece written during the Champions Cup about rugby’s problem with inconsistency is even more relevant now.

This blog post by The Blitz Defence neatly summarises many of the incidents alluded to. It is not the intention of this author to go over each and every one in detail – for that, visit this page – but this article will make note of the prominent incidents and will consider why a more relaxed approach has been witnessed, focusing particularly on the role of the TMO.

Firstly, however, a small caveat. The standard of rugby on show this autumn has been one of the highest seen in the sport for some time. The ferocity of the contests, particularly England and Ireland’s games against New Zealand, was on another level and the game was, on the whole, played well within the laws. That the game can be so ferocious while players tackle legally and avoid each other’s heads shows that there is nothing wrong with the new high tackle protocols. The game is not going soft – far from it.

Indeed, after such an exciting month on the field, it seems wrong to be so critical off it. Yet there are important issues which must be resolved. Inconsistency, as explained here, does nothing but ruin the game, while the zero-tolerance approach to head injuries must be upheld rigidly in order to reduce the risks to players. As long as such issues remain, criticism will, and should, continue.

The Major Incidents

Each incident can be seen here.

Owen Farrell

Twice Farrell failed to use his arms in a critical tackle, and twice he got away with it. Against South Africa, he should have conceded a penalty for his team while against Australia he was lucky not to see yellow and concede a penalty try. Neither incident merited a red card, as there was no contact with the head, but both were clear refereeing errors.

After the South Africa game, World Rugby announced that “match officials were reminded of their obligations in sanctioning illegal no arms tackles” and yet, merely three weeks later, the same mistake was made. Worse still, Jaco Peyper refused even to consult the TMO and suggested that the Australian player was at fault for leading with his own shoulder. Quite what other part of the body an attacking player should be leading with is beyond this author.

Moreover, as many have pointed out, one has to wonder whether the same outcome would have been arrived at had the offending player been a big Pacific Islander. Certainly, these offences would have been punished in domestic competition, given the current climate.

Siya Kolisi

The Springbok captain received only a warning from World Rugby’s citing commissioner after striking Scotland’s Peter Horne with his head. It was held that mitigating factors, including the fact that Horne was holding the flanker down, and the “moderate force of the strike to the side of the head” meant that the incident did not meet the red card threshold. This decision seems inexplicable: a headbutt is a headbutt.

There has never been any question of force when it comes to striking with the head, while provocation is explicitly not a defence in World Rugby’s Laws (Law 9.21). Furthermore, “moderate force” from an international rugby player is far from insignificant. If such decisions are to be taken seriously, then the ‘zero-tolerance’ policy as regards head injuries is – frankly – a joke.

This was a decision entirely inconsistent with the approach taken to headbutts for as long as one can remember.

Samu Kerevi

The final major talking point is the shoulder charge of Australia’s Kerevi to Leigh Halfpenny’s head, which resulted the Welshman being ruled out of the remaining autumn fixtures with concussion. This incident was very similar to the challenge of Andrew Conway in Munster’s Champions Cup fixture against Exeter and, like then, went unpunished. This, it is submitted, was another error.

Referee Ben O’Keefe was heard saying that there had been “no intentional foul play” – he considered Kerevi’s attempted charge-down fair. Several points arise from this. Firstly, though intention is required for the offence of charging/obstructing an opponent who has just kicked the ball (Law 9.25), it is not required for the either of the offences under Laws 9.11 or 9.12:

“9.11 Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.

9.12 A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes…striking with any part of the…shoulder…”

Again, given World Rugby’s approach to head injuries, it is incredibly surprising that this incident was (a) not sanctioned at the time and (b) not picked up by the citing commissioner. The incident was clearly an offence under either 9.11 or 9.12 and, with the directives on sanctions for head contact, should have resulted in a red card.

Lastly, the fact that Halfpenny suffered a concussion as a direct consequence of this challenge shows that this is exactly the type of incident which World Rugby are trying to eliminate with their ‘new tougher approach’. It is another mind-boggling decision.

Other Incidents

While the three cases mentioned above were, in this author’s opinion, particularly troubling, there were several others which must be noted.

The forearm strike of Alun-Wyn Jones into the neck of Australia’s Bernard Foley went entirely unpunished, in contrast with the red card and three-week suspension handed to USA Women’s Megan Rom for an almost identical incident.

In addition, Rob Kearney should have seen a yellow card for his tackle in the air on New Zealand’s Reiko Ioane, and Fraser Brown was fortunate not to be carded after he made contact with the head of an Argentinian player this weekend.

Jack Nowell could easily have seen yellow for a dump tackle against Japan, South Africa should have had a penalty try and a one-man advantage after a high tackle from Wenceslas Lauret denied them a certain try in Paris, and Tonga were extremely lucky not to have Dan Faleafa sent off after his off-the-ball hit to the head of Wales’ Aaron Wainwright.

Meanwhile, the ruck continues to be an area of concern. Sam Whitelock’s off-feet clearout into the head of Cian Healy in Ireland v New Zealand was just the most dangerous of many reckless clear-outs this month and deserved a red card. Ellis Jenkins, too, will be left counting the cost of a so-called ‘crocodile roll’ by South Africa’s Handre Pollard in the moments, which has probably ended the Welshman’s season. Though not currently illegal per se, such dangerous play is an area which World Rugby must revise.

The fact that not a single one of the potential red card incidents (Jones, Kolisi, Kerevi, Brown, Faleafa and Whitelock) resulted in a citing and disciplinary hearing is staggering and makes a mockery of the system. Equally, many of the lesser, yellow-card offences should arguably have received an official citing commissioner’s warning.

These were, in this author’s opinion, primarily errors of referee judgment. This in itself is disappointing, and can be improved, but the fact that the fail-safe system (i.e. the citing commissioner) didn’t pick them up either is of even greater concern.

Why is this happening?

This is the big question. A month ago, it appeared that rugby was changing and that referees, citing commissioners and disciplinary panels would be hot on any suggestion of foul play. This month has been starkly different.

Is this a deliberate policy by World Rugby? CEO Brett Gosper’s comments last week would suggest not. He has called for more red and yellow cards to crack down on dangerous play. The real solution is far more nuanced than that, but his views would suggest that this shift hasn’t come from the top down.

Are referees simply ‘bottling it’ on the international stage? This is possible. There have been a number of less experienced referees given opportunities this autumn, but there were still plenty of ‘old heads’ on display. The pressure of making big calls, particularly at the end of matches or in a try-scoring situation is huge, and it could be that some were overwhelmed by the occasion. After all, referees, like players, are human.

However, this author believes that the new TMO protocol may have played a part. A new TMO system was being trialled in the autumn tests with a focus on reducing “TMO reliance and time impact”. There was emphasis on the idea that decisions should primarily be made on the field, with the TMO only being referred to (for foul play) when the referee spotted something “clear and obvious”. The trial explicitly ruled out the ‘on the run’ chat between referees and TMOs that Wayne Barnes has been an advocate of.

It is suggested that this trial may have affected the decision-making of referees.  The pressure not to go to the TMO is likely to have encouraged them to make decisions based on what they saw in the moment, rather than taking some time to review footage. Such decisions, in the pressure-cooker of an international game, are more likely to be wrong. Equally, even if a TMO spotted something, they were not bringing it to the referee’s attention.

However, none of this explains why so many apparent errors were made by the citing commissioners.

What can be done?

The state of affairs described in this article is deeply unsatisfactory and regrettable. World Rugby needs to get a grip on the situation. This is, of course, incredibly difficult. A month ago they were being criticised (by some) for ‘ruining’ the sport with the directives on dangerous tackles, and now they are being criticised for not enforcing them. The reality is that a balance must be struck – one which protects players but allows the game to flow and be enjoyable for all.

The laws and directives as they are allow for that to be the case. The key is consistency in their application. Without that, the game will remain unstable and the true effects of these changes will never be known.

But; how to achieve this consistency? As argued in the previous article, continued clarifications and directives from World Rugby are key. World Rugby’s referees meet regularly to discuss issues and agree on the way the game should be refereed, and this must plainly continue. But there is confusion amongst fans such that public clarifications would be welcome.

It has also been argued before that the role of the TMO should in fact be enhanced. Having a second pair of eyes in such a complex, fast-paced game is a tool which the sport should make the most of rather than try to restrict. As has been suggested, the more limited TMO protocol may have been a reason for some of the conservative refereeing decisions this autumn. If the TMO was given a greater role, it is likely that more consistent and correct decisions would be reached. This, of course, requires TMOs to be just as qualified as referees. There is no reason why this could not and should not be the case.

The recent TMO protocol creates more problems than it solves. It seems ridiculous to have a trained official watching the game who is advised not to tell the referee when he has missed something important. With the right guidance – perhaps under the leadership of someone like Wayne Barnes – a reversal of this policy could help the sport massively.

Finally, a word on citing commissioners. The evidence of this autumn suggests that the citing system is flawed: far too many incidents of foul play slipped through the net. This is damaging for both the game’s image and for player welfare. A citing panel of top officials working together each weekend could be much more effective. It is not hard to pick out the controversial incidents emerging from international games – in truth, they would only need to look at twitter to find the relevant pieces of footage. An experienced panel could then review each incident efficiently and decide together whether it merited a red card, or whether a warning is appropriate.

Allocating the review of each match to a different individual as World Rugby does at present is a system leaving itself open to inconsistency. The aim of having a citing system is to spot things missed by the match officials in the heat of the moment. There will always be inconsistencies on the field – that is the nature of sport – but having a team of experts off it would make the fail-safe system far more effective.