The first week of the 2019 Rugby World Cup has not been short of controversy. There’s been some brilliant rugby played, but the decisions of referees have unfortunately dominated the headlines.

This article will consider the main disciplinary incidents of the opening matches and will also address the World Rugby statement on its referees, arguing that it was inappropriate.

It is worth noting at the outset that, though World Rugby sanctions are ordinarily in “weeks”. For the World Cup, they appear to be in “matches” – owing to the condensed time-frame.

Reece Hodge (Australia vs Fiji) – Three-Match Ban

The most high-profile of the incidents so far was Reece Hodge’s no-arms ‘tackle’ on Fiji’s Peceli Yato during the 25^th minute of Australia’s opening fixture on 21 September. It can be viewed here. At the time, Yato was removed for a Head Injury Assessment (“HIA”) – and was subsequently replaced permanently – but neither the referee nor TMO reviewed it. As such, the incident was not penalised during the match.

On Monday, it was announced that the player had been cited for the incident, which was deemed to be an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13. A player will be cited if the Citing Commissioner believes they committed an act of foul play which warranted a red card. This is then referred to a disciplinary hearing for determination.

Hodge’s case was heard in Tokyo on Wednesday, where the Independent Disciplinary Committee (the “Committee”) decided that the incident did warrant a red card and imposed a three-match ban.

Was there Foul Play?

The first stage of the process is to consider whether there was foul play at all – i.e. whether World Rugby Law 9 was breached. Law 9.13 states:

A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.

As the below image shows, at the moment of contact, Hodge’s tackle was above the line of Yato’s shoulders. It was thus a dangerous tackle, in breach of Law 9.13.

The Red Card Test

The second stage is the “Red Card Test” – i.e. whether the cited incident warranted a red card during the game. In determining this, the Committee considered World Rugby’s High Tackle Decision-Making Framework (the “Framework“) – previously explained here.

The first question under the Framework is whether the ‘tackle’ was a “shoulder charge” or a “high tackle”. A shoulder charge is defined as being where:

[The] arm of the shoulder making contact with the ball carrier is behind the tackler’s body or tucked in the sling position at contact.

A high tackle, meanwhile, is:

An illegal tackle causing head contact, where head contact is identified by clear, direct contact to [the ball-carrier’s] head/ neck OR the head visibly moves backwards from the contact point OR the ball carrier requires an HIA

As the above image shows, Hodge’s right arm was not behind his body or tucked in the sling position at the point of contact. However, as the image also shows, the attempted tackle by Hodge does cause head contact. It was thus a “high tackle” for the purposes of the Framework.

The next question is therefore whether the head contact was caused by Hodge’s arm or his shoulder/head. The image shows that the head contact was with his (right) shoulder.

The final question in the Framework is whether there was a high or low degree of danger. The Committee held that there was a high degree of danger which, given the circumstances, seems a perfectly sensible decision. World Rugby, in its explanation of the Framework, state that the signs of a high degree of danger include the tackler attempting a dominant tackle, and the tackler making the tackle at high speed/accelerating into it.

The video suggests that Hodge was trying to make a dominant tackle – he was trying to stop Yato in his tracks. Hodge does fly in to make the tackle, though Yato’s speed contributes significantly to the overall force of the collision. Nonetheless, the factors listed are not exhaustive and the overall force is relevant. As such, the Committee were entitled to find that there was a high degree of danger.

In such circumstances, the Framework prescribes that the outcome must be a red card, unless there are mitigating circumstances. There are no such circumstances here and, in fact, it is an aggravating factor that Hodge and Yato are in “open space” such that Hodge had a “clear line of sight and time before contact”. The incident warranted a red card.

Sanction

Having passed the Red Card Test, the Committee then had to determine the applicable sanction. Appendix 1 to World Rugby Regulation 17 sets out the “entry point[s]” for sanctions for foul play, offering a “Low-end”, “Mid-range”, “Top-end” and “Maximum” for each type of offence, to be determined depending on the seriousness of the player’s conduct (Regulation 17.19.2).

Appendix 1 states that “any act of foul play which results in contact with the head…shall result in at least a mid-range sanction”. As such, for an offence under Law 9.13, the appropriate starting point was at least a six-match suspension. The Committee then assessed the seriousness of the conduct, which is done with reference to factors such as the degree of intention, the nature of the conduct, the effect on the victim (Yato), the effect on the Match and the vulnerability of the victim.

In the circumstances, the mid-range entry point was deemed appropriate. This seems correct. It was not an intentional act of foul play, but a reckless one. It was a misjudged, incomplete tackle, not an act of deliberate violence and, though Yato was injured, he had not been in a particularly vulnerable position.

The Committee then had regard to mitigating factors to determine the extent to which the six-match suspension should be reduced which, under Regulation 17.19.5, include:

(a)     the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of culpability/wrong-doing by the offending Player;

(b)     the Player’s disciplinary record and/or good character;

(c)     the youth and inexperience of the Player;

(d)     the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing;

(e)     the Player having demonstrated remorse for his conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and

(f)      any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.

The World Rugby press release stated that Hodge’s “exemplary disciplinary record, good character and conduct at the hearing” were mitigating factors leading the Committee to reduce the sanction by three matches, resulting in a three-match ban.

Under Regulation 17.19.6, the maximum mitigation that may be awarded is 50% – Hodge was thus awarded the maximum. This is somewhat surprising given that he appears not to have pleaded guilty. It is also regrettable (as I have argued before here) that conduct “at the hearing” is a consideration. Behaving well in a disciplinary hearing ought to be a minimum requirement for cited players, not a mitigating factor.

Nonetheless, given the circumstances, a three-match ban feels right. It was not intentional, nor thuggish, it occurred at high speed and Hodge didn’t even complete the tackle. It was, ultimately, a case of poor tackle technique – something which Hodge had exhibited throughout the first 25 minutes of the game.

Hodge is banned until midnight on 11 October 2019, meaning that he will miss the remainder of Australia’s group games but will be available should they reach the quarterfinals. He has the right to appeal but, given the above analysis, it is difficult to see the grounds on which he might do so.

Ray Lee-Lo (Samoa vs Russia) – Cited

The second incident is Ray Lee-Lo’s high tackle on Russia’s captain Vasily Artemyev in the 27^th minute of Samoa’s opening fixture on 24 September. He was shown a yellow card by referee Romain Poite but has since been cited for the incident, under Law 9.13 (as above). He will face a disciplinary hearing in the same way that Hodge did, in the coming days.

The incident can be seen in this video at 4:30, and in the image below.

It is my view that this incident merited a red card on the field of play, and that it will result in a suspension.

There is clearly a dangerous tackle, as Lee-Lo’s shoulder makes contact with Artemyev’s head (Law 9.13). Applying the Framework, this is a “high tackle”, and the contact is shoulder to head. The key question is whether it is of a high or low degree of danger. Applying the factors above, and watching the incident at full speed, the high tackle is clearly an attempt to make a dominant hit, Lee-Lo makes the tackle at high speed and, in addition, completes the tackle. Unless there were mitigating factors, this merited a red card. Indeed, his immediate reaction suggested he knew it was dangerous.

Yet Poite, with the intervention of TMO Graham Hughes, deemed Artemyev to be “dipping”, which he felt mitigated in favour of a yellow card. However, this was an error. The Framework states that body height will only be mitigating if there “the ball-carrier suddenly drops in height (e.g. from earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)”. This is not such a case. The subtle dip is consistent with a player bracing themselves for impact – as seen in the Finau decision during the World Rugby U20 Championship (discussed here).

Moreover, the below images show incidents which World Rugby (in its explanatory video on the Framework) class as high tackles warranting red cards. In both cases, there was significantly more of a “dip” – yet both tacklers were deemed to deserve red cards.

It is also an aggravating factor under the Framework that Lee-Lo and Artemyev are in “open space” and the Lee-Lo “has clear line of sight and time before contact”.

To be frank, there is no way that this incident was not deserving of a red card. Poite failed to apply the Framework properly, and Lee-Lo has rightly been cited.

Following the disciplinary process outlined above, the “entry point” will be critical for the player. It may well be thought that this is more serious than Hodge’s poor attempt at a tackle. The “Top-end” entry point for Law 9.13 offences is 10+ weeks. Lee-Lo would be best advised to admit the charge and to argue that it was simply a matter of mis-timing. He appears to have a clean disciplinary record so, if he shows remorse and behaves well in the hearing, I would suggest that the ban will be between three and six weeks long.

Motu Matu’u (Samoa vs Russia) – Cited

Remarkably, less than three minutes on from Lee-Lo’s tackle, Samoa’s hooker Motu Matu’u also committed an act of foul play. Even more remarkably, this was also against Russia’s Vasily Artemyev. Poite again showed a yellow card. Matu’u has since been cited for this incident, under Law 9.13.

As the video (at 7:30) and below image show, it is evidently a dangerous tackle under Law 9.13: Matu’u’s head and then shoulder make contact with Artemyev’s head as the Samoan attempts to make a tackle.

As with the Lee-Lo incident, applying the Framework, this takes us straight to the question of the degree of danger. And, as with the Lee-Lo incident, the tackler is accelerating, trying to make a dominant tackle and completes it. It is clear that Matu’u was out of control. There was a high degree of danger. He also managed to knock himself out in the process.

The same analysis applies with regard to Artemyev’s drop in height. Arguably there is a greater drop here, but it is still not “sudden” enough to warrant mitigation. This incident also occurred in open space, and Matu’u has lined Artemyev up from a long way out – he had plenty of time to adjust his body height. It is incredibly reckless.

In light of this, it would not be a surprise to see the “entry point” deemed 10+ weeks. However, as with Lee-Lo, Matu’u appears to have a clean disciplinary record so it may, ultimately, be between three and six weeks.

It is worth mentioning that Samoa cannot replace members of their 31-man squad for any reason other than injury or compassionate grounds. They will be stretched in the coming weeks.

James Moore (Japan vs Russia) – Not Cited

The final incident to briefly note is that involving Japan’s James Moore in the opening game against Russia. As the below image shows, he appeared to “shoulder charge” Russia’s Vasily Dorofeev – causing the scrum-half to be replaced with a head injury. It went unnoticed by the match officials and has not been cited.

Given that the citing window of 36 hours (shortened from the usual 48 hours for the World Cup) has closed, Moore and Japan have escaped sanction. Applying the principles discussed, this, too, would have satisfied the Red Card Test.

Concluding Comments

Given World Rugby’s new, tougher approach to high tackles, it is not surprising that there have been a raft of these incidents. What is surprising, however, is that they have not been dealt with sufficiently on the field of play. The decision to red card a player is a significant one, and World Rugby’s Framework has been implemented to bring consistency to these major decisions. That it has been used inadequately is disappointing.

It is hoped that, with the Hodge decision and the pending cases of Lee-Lo and Matu’u, greater accuracy and consistency will be achieved by the Match Officials.

However, it sits uncomfortably that World Rugby have publicly stated that the officiating has been below the requisite standard – even though the refereeing team apparently agreed to such a statement being released. It is a central principle of all sport that the referee’s decision is final and the referee’s authority is sacred. There are carefully regulated exceptions – the TMO and citing processes, for example – but to make a press release admitting that decisions were incorrect undermines the very authority that, on the field, the sport tries so hard to preserve.

It also (arguably) contradicts World Rugby’s own rules that it is an act of misconduct to bring Match Officials into “disrepute”, or to make disparaging remarks about them in a way “prejudicial to the interests of the game” (Regulation 20). This comes very close to doing so.

It sets an uncomfortable precedent and would have been better left said behind closed doors. It has the effect of making every questionable decision a referee makes open to challenge. This is not a path that rugby should want to go down.