Twenty-minute red card undermines World Rugby’s campaign to make the game safer

The slightly surreptitious way in which World Rugby, largely at the behest of New Zealand and Australia, are seemingly intent on foisting ‘20-minute red cards’ on the game will gather momentum next month when the trialling of this controversial proposal is extended to the Autumn Nations Series.
This will now allow teams who have had a player sent off for a technical offence to bring on a replacement after a period of 20 minutes, if the act of foul play is deemed to be “accidental”. For acts deemed deliberate, referees will still have the authority to issue a permanent sending off.
This follows trials in Super Rugby, Rugby Championship and Under-20 World Championship before a final submission to World Rugby’s council on November 14th to determine if a global trial is introduced. It seems a fait accompli.
World Rugby’s chairman, Bill Beaumont, has claimed that “the positive outcomes from the trials reinforce our belief that these adjustments will bring lasting benefits to both players and fans”.
The governing body, the NZRU (whose stance looks a knee-jerk reaction to Sam Cane being sent off in the World Cup final) and RA have made plenty of comments about the impact of red cards on matches. But they have not been backed up by meaningful data from the trials to date (there were only three red cards in the World Under-20 Rugby Championship).
Indeed, the most detailed data compiled thus far on the impact of red cards has been conducted by the French Rugby Federation, National Rugby League and players union Provale in supporting their “firm opposition” to the proposal, saying it is an “unacceptable step backwards” by World Rugby.
They cited analysis based on 480 Top 14 matches and Tier 1 international matches which showed that only 60 per cent of the teams receiving a red card ultimately lost.
It’s also hard to dispute the French counterargument that 20-minute red cards will “encourage more aggressive play”, which would negatively impact “the image of the game”.
The Aussies will no doubt claim that it’s easy for the French to take the moral high ground on this given the popularity of rugby union in France is booming. Nor do the French have to contend with the monster that is rugby league in Australia, much less Aussie Rules.
But therein lies the rub. Maybe we should listen to a federation that has made a success of rugby union, rather than one that has lamentably failed. Besides, no less than rugby in Ireland up against the GAA, or France and England competing against football, rugby is up against bigger sports everywhere save for New Zealand and, to some extent, South Africa.
Nor are 20-minute red cards going to revive Super Rugby attendances any more than red cards were the cause of their decline.
Furthermore, Angus Ta’avao’s red card in the second Test against Ireland in 2022 for an upright, head-to-head hit made one appreciate the lamentable level of debate on this issue in New Zealand, even among celebrated former All Blacks. Perhaps it’s their hard man image, but despite Garry Ringrose failing a HIA and being ruled out of the third Test, it was regarded as ‘a rugby incident’.
This 20-mintue red card simply runs counter to World Rugby’s ongoing campaign to reduce tackle height and make the game safer. Nor has World Rugby’s campaign won the war just yet, witness the ‘mistakes’ conceded in concussive incidents involving Tom Curry and Will Chisholm in the Premiership already this season.
What’s more, this proposal comes at a time when over 300 players are taking legal action against the game’s governing body and some of its affiliates. The 20-mintue red card – why not call it a 20-minute yellow card, that would be more accurate – is not a good look for the sport, not least for young players and their parents.
And however much the New Zealanders lamented Cane’s red card in the World Cup final, imagine Antoine Dupont being taken out of such a marquee game and the perpetrator being replaced by a team-mate 20 minutes later? Not a great look for the sport either.
It’s simply impossible to interpret how reducing sanctions for red card offences can in any way enhance player safety. The two are mutually exclusive.
At its core, depowering a sanction just doesn’t seem like a good idea. We’ve seen that teams like Ireland and South Africa can adapt their tackle heights. And if it’s so easy to suffer a red card, why do so few teams incur a second one? Mostly because they adapt their tackle height.
The introduction of the bunker review has reduced the pressure on referees to make decisions on red cards in the heat of the moment and amid the din of the crowd, and quickened the game. But how on earth can an official in a bunker determine what is deliberate or accidental? Only the perpetrator knows that for sure.
Amid all of this, last week the IRFU have been widely portrayed as standing alongside the French in opposing the 20-minute red card. Hmm. On Monday, the union was “considering its position” on the issue. On Friday, they issued a statement saying it did not support the permanent adoption of a 20-minute red card, but having echoed much of World Rugby’s language the Union also “welcomes the variation to World Rugby’s closed law trial, which will be adopted in the upcoming Autumn Nations Series”.
That still looks and smells like a fudge, and you’d prefer the union to be standing in greater solidarity with the French. Ironically, World Rugby’s Medical Commission Conference takes place in Lisbon this week, and one wonders what the game’s medical fraternity makes of this proposal.
At a time when rugby was starting to win the battle it is in danger of losing the war.
[email protected]