Owen Doyle: World Rugby needs to stick to its guns with no replacement red cards for ‘aggravated foul play’

“Alea iacta est,” the die is cast.
In 49 BC, having pondered long and hard, Julius Caesar spoke those words when he’d finalised his decision to cross the river Rubicon. It would change the shape of the then Roman republic forever.
Now, in 2024 AD, following their fast approaching November meeting, World Rugby will inform us of their plans to reshape the game. It is nothing less than their Rubicon moment.
In WR’s own words, it is “the largest reimagination of rugby’s entertainment value”. Given that there is sensational stuff being played at the moment, it will be very interesting to see what they come up with.
Perhaps the hottest potato in the discussions will be whether or not to introduce a global trial of the 20-minute replacement for a red carded player. A version of it is currently used in the southern hemisphere who have lobbied extremely hard for its wider introduction. Australia and New Zealand are strongly in favour. The proposal is designed to punish the individual player, rather than the game, by ensuring it’s 15 players against 15.
But there are counter-points, for example, when a key playmaker is forced off permanently by foul play his team is punished a heck of a lot more than the opponents who can replace the offender after 20 minutes. If it does go to a global trial, then like Caesar, there will be very little chance of turning back.
So, what’s the best thing to do?
Let’s consider World Rugby’s recent 20-minute replacement trials which have included automatic suspensions with no mitigation. First off they are therefore more realistic sentences. Further, there are no judicial hearings in this proposal, unless the fixed suspension periods are clearly not enough for a particularly bad offence; or, presumably, if there is an appeal.
We will not miss these hearings, although I’m sure some of their lordships will miss the notoriety. These suspensions would also see an end to six-week sentences being whittled down to three, or even two weeks. The farcical tackling School of Mitigation would, presumably, be closed down.
The trials include two-week suspensions for players who have attempted a legal action, but have made minor errors in technique or timing. It is impossible not to have sympathy for some players whose red cards come under this heading. Allowing a replacement for these offences would have enabled Sam Cane to be replaced in the World Cup final, and that’s hard to argue against.
Next, in terminology used by WR itself , comes “aggravated foul play”. This has an automatic four-week suspension for player actions which are “highly reckless and/or not legal rugby actions”, such as a tucked arm, no attempt to wrap.
These often end up with high impact shoulders to the head of the ball carrier, or head on head, but still qualify for the replacement. We’ve seen enough of them to be fully aware of the damage they can do, even though some believe these to be part and parcel of the game.
And that’s where there’s a chasm between very different opinions, with many in the northern hemisphere finding it very easy to argue in favour of the no-replacement straight red. This would now be reserved solely for rare, egregious acts of foul play, such as a rabbit punch, a headbutt, an eye-gouge; shamefully for the sport, these have all happened.
It is impossible to reconcile the 20-minute replacement for actions which WR themselves describe as “highly reckless”. The optics of that are certainly not good – in fact, they are awful.
When a so-called tackler chooses to tuck his arm and lead with his shoulder to an opponent’s head, it is well nigh impossible to categorise it as accidental, or a misjudgement. Rugby needs to think long and hard, before allowing a replacement for a player action which is a very close relative of a headbutt.
It is also an acceptance that these incidents will occur, whereas WR’s target must be to eliminate them. The organisation stuck to its guns about dangerous challenges in the air, there was no talk of a replacements then, and these have largely disappeared. WR, as custodians of the game, has surely a definite responsibility, right now, to stick to those same guns.
There is also a large role for elite coaches to ensure that such “tackles” just don’t happen. And, let’s acknowledge that, in recent times, things have definitely improved.
Ireland have achieved admirable success in altering tackling methods, the result being they have consistently played with 15 players. The recent Rugby Championship also saw very little such foul play, apart from an exceptionally nasty clear-out by Argentina’s Pablo Matera against South Africa. A replacement, who did appear, for that level of violence does nothing at all to support WR’s much vaunted “priority” of player safety.
Retaining the straight red for players who embark on dangerous tackles or clearing out at the breakdown will likely see the improvement continue. While removing it takes away a very meaningful deterrent, which has undoubtedly played a significant role in things getting better.
So, to answer the question of what’s best: I wonder if there isn’t a simple solution at hand: allow a replacement for Cane-like incidents, and remain utterly unforgiving, with no replacement, for hard shoulders to the head and similar incidents.
It may need a small protocol tweak, enabling the bunker/TMO to upgrade to a straight red, but it really is eminently doable. Safer, and more sensible.