Following the sending off of Benjamin Fall of France in last week’s second New Zealand v France test match, and his subsequent clearing by the disciplinary, World Rugby have clarified the position for referees, judicial members and the game itself.
They have reconfirmed the 2016 guidelines which deal with situations when two players are challenging for a ball in the air. They are designed to give clarity [our italics not theirs!] and alignment regarding the red card threshold.
The World Rugby guidelines are:
- If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is contact, and their opponent lands on their back or side – Yellow card
- If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is reckless or deliberate foul play and the player lands in a dangerous position – Red card
Eyes on the ball?
World Rugby have confirmed that a player having eyes on the ball is not by itself a mitigating factor when the match officials are determining whether potential foul play has been committed.
The primary consideration a referee should have is whether both players were in a realistic position to regather the ball.
What does reckless cover?
This remains an unclear part of this whole process and hasnt been clarified by this particular World Rugby statement. It is, in part left to the match officials determination. In the January 2017 law update on high tackles, World Rugby used the word ‘reckless’ to mean “the player knew or should have known that there was a risk” of the act causing an issue therefafter. In that case, it referred to contact with the head.
In this case, the player put themselves in a position where he should have known that not to jump/complete would mean that cause an issue with a player that did [recognising the mitigation for being off balance in this case].
There has been plenty of commentary around whether this is fair or not – but this is the guideline and has been created with player welfare in mind. As referees, we attempt to referee to the laws and the guidelines with welfare in mind, not necessarily whether we agree with it. The World Rugby Law Review Group is primarily comprised of players, former players and coaches to determine what law changes are needed in the future.
So why was Fall’s red card overturned by the independent disciplinary hearing?
In respect of the red card issued to Benjamin Fall during the New Zealand versus France match on 16 June 2018, World Rugby have again confirmed that the match official team followed the guideline correctly and made a decision based on the available camera angles.
Only during the subsequent review by an independent judicial panel, when additional camera angles were made available, was it determined by the hearing, that Benjamin Fall was knocked off balance immediately prior to the challenge and therefore mitgated the subsequent actions. Therefore this independent judicial process dismissed the red card.
But it was mentioned by the commentary at the time?
It is common protocol by TV companies that during a Television Match Official review, the audio commentary in the TV truck (where the TMO sites during a game) is cut. This removes any suggestion that the commentators influence the process.
So what you are saying is that a commentator have better eyes and judgement than a TMO? And that a TMO and referee and AR is not as competent as a tv commentator when looking at footage reviews? Then why do World Rugby use incompetent people in international matches to review such decisions? Is it simply because the wrong “type” of people are in charge and systematically trained to be out of touch with even the general public who saw it immediately?
Thanks Chris – Ive just been back to check on the video. There was no reference or suggestion of any issue with the Frenchman’s run, or him being off balance at all during the whole of the review process. All the reviews and angles shows were from after that contact. No commentators mentioned it in real time, nor during the review process. No players mentioned it – that we could hear. So your comments on competence are misplaced. If it came up later in commentary, then so be it, but it didn’t happen at the time. So you may wish to reconsider your remarks.