While most eyes have been on the Lions Tour, a lower-profile clash between Argentina and Uruguay has given rise to a disciplinary decision with significant implications for rugby’s evolving officiating protocols.
On 19 July, Los Pumas beat Los Teros 52-17, in Salta, Argentina. In the 52nd minute, Argentina and Bristol Bears lock, Pedro Rubiolo flew into a ruck and struck an opponent in the head with his shoulder. Following an intervention from the Television Match Official (TMO), the referee issued Rubiolo a yellow card and sent the incident for an off-field review.
Two minutes later, the TMO informed the referee of the outcome of the off-field review: “I’ve got an outcome on the yellow card. It will be upgraded to a 20-minute red card because the action is always illegal”. Rubiolo was thus issued a red card.
The matter was subsequently referred to a Disciplinary Committee, where Rubiolo challenged the red card, disputing not only whether his actions met the red card threshold but also raising a novel jurisdictional argument: the red card was issued by the wrong official.
The ‘Bunker’ and its boundaries
In 2023, World Rugby introduced its Foul Play Review process, commonly known as the ‘Bunker’.
Under this process, if a referee identifies an incident which may be worthy of a red card but cannot be certain after two video replays, they may issue a yellow card and refer the incident for an off-field review by a Foul Play Review Officer (FPRO). The FPRO then has eight minutes to determine whether the yellow card should be upgraded to red.
This process is distinct from the stated role of the TMO, whose authority is limited to advising the referee. According to World Rugby’s TMO Protocol:
The intention of this Protocol is to allow the TMO to support and enable the on-field team to make better, more accurate decisions when they are in need of such support. It is not to enable the TMO to drive decision making.
Therefore, whilst the FPRO has the power to make decisions as to whether or not to upgrade a yellow card, the TMO does not.
Rubiolo’s argument
Rubiolo argued that, because no FPRO had been appointed for this match, only the referee had the power to issue the red card – the TMO did not.
Yet, the referee had referred the incident for an (off-field) Foul Play Review and the TMO then made the decision to upgrade the yellow card to a red card.
Rubiolo therefore argued that the red card was issued ultra vires (i.e., without jurisdiction), such that it was invalid.
World Rugby’s response
World Rugby countered that, where an FPRO is not appointed (for example, due to logistical or resource constraints), the TMO may undertake the role of an FPRO.
It further argued that the TMO had merely recommended that Rubiolo be shown a red card, rather than issuing the red card per se, and that the red card decision had ultimately been made by the referee (in accordance with his powers).
The Disciplinary Committee’s decision
The Disciplinary Committee held that “the infrastructure in place in respect of referral of yellow cards for review do allow a TMO to carry out that review in circumstances where an FPRO is not appointed”.
However, it acknowledged that “the role of the TMO in such cases is to advise the referee as to a suggested or recommended sanction. The referee remains the sole decision maker and decision is one for him/her to make, having received such advice from the TMO”.
In this case, the Disciplinary Committee found that the decision to issue the red card to Rubiolo had been made by the TMO and not the referee. It noted, for example, that there had been no discussion between the TMO and referee as to the sanction; the TMO simply informed the referee that the yellow card would be upgraded to red, and the referee informed the players accordingly.
Therefore, the Disciplinary Committee agreed that the red card had been issued ultra vires, “there being nothing in the Laws of the game permitting him to do so“. The TMO had no authority to issue the red card and, as such, it was invalid.
Accordingly, the red card was rescinded and Rubiolo was free to play with immediate effect.
Comment
This decision is the first of its kind and underscores the importance of due process in rugby disciplinary matters. However, perhaps most importantly, it highlights the need for greater clarity over the roles of the TMO and FPROs.
World Rugby’s TMO protocol currently makes no reference to the TMO having the power to fulfil the role of an FPRO (if an FPRO is not appointed in a particular match), whilst the role of an FPRO is not even established in the Laws of the Game.
The jurisdictional mix-up in Rubiolo’s case was therefore inevitable and, although the Disciplinary Committee in this case accepted that the TMO could fulfil the role of an FPRO to some extent, that ruling may be open to question, given the terms of the applicable rules.
Indeed, it is conceivable that a future challenge might go further still because, given the absence of any provision for the powers of an FPRO in the Laws of the Game, it is arguable that any red card issued by an FPRO will be invalid (unless, perhaps, the FPRO system is enshrined in another agreement governing the match).
With the women’s Rugby World Cup just around the corner, it remains to be seen whether World Rugby will move to amend the applicable rules, or whether we may yet see further challenges to red cards on jurisdictional grounds.
Article by Ben Cisneros. Ben is an Associate at Morgan Sports Law with a dedicated rugby practice. This article reflects only the author’s personal views. Please email ben.cisneros@morgansl.com with any enquiries.