TALKING POINT: Unless we have consistency in cards, rugby's image will continue to suffer

It would be an understatement to say that the red card to Franco Mostert not only frustrated but infuriated Springbok fans, and rugby fans across the world.

Because, while it was the Boks’ second red in as many weeks, the decision of the refereeing team to issue a permanent red made little sense, especially in a weekend where there were so many other incidents that warranted a card, but never received any attention.

At the time of writing Mostert’s disciplinary is still pending, and hopefully the card will be rescinded. Purely on the evidence that the point of contact wasn’t the head, but the shoulder, as pointed out by SuperSport’s pundits on the day. For that alone, a permanent red card is an absurdity, and shows just how badly the refereeing team on the day got it wrong.

REFFING “FICTION”

Schalk Burger put it mildly - “more fiction has been written between this refereeing team to get to that decision than in Hollywood” - and thankfully this Springbok team dug in deep to weather the storm and get a hard-earned victory.

But it underlined just how wrong the officials are getting it at the moment, and just how much damage it is doing to rugby as a product.

A game that wants to sell itself, that wants new markets to market to, but is overly cautious about head contact has delved too far into the ridiculous and it isn’t helping the game. For starters, nobody wants to see players get lasting damage because of collisions, and rugby is right to put laws in place that help protect players.

But the problem is that World Rugby don’t even follow their own protocols. As pointed out in last week’s Talking Point, World Rugby released a video of Angus Gardner explaining the difference between a 20-minute red card and a permanent red. It comes down to this - a permanent red card is for thuggery - a headbutt, a punch etc, while a 20-minute red card is for a tackle gone wrong.

By those standards it is hard to fathom how the refereeing team came to the conclusion in the last two weeks on its own. Never mind the mitigating circumstances of another tackler being involved and in Mostert’s case there was never initial head contact.

CONFUSION ABOUNDS

If fans are confused, players are confused and coaches are confused, then what good does it do the game? Rugby is a collision game and try as you might, there will be rugby incidents that happen in split seconds that are not on purpose, but at the moment are very costly to teams.

In the same game there were two incidents - a head high hit on Siya Kolisi and one on Marco van Staden that were simply brushed off with little regard to the similarity.

Then there was a clash of heads that has seen reds flashed before that was deemed a yellow in the same game? While I’m of the view that an accidental clash of heads should never be a red, how does this line up with consistency?

The biggest gripe of it all is how can teams plan for a game when there is no consistency in the refereeing judgements? We saw Sam Prendergast get away with a shoulder to the head in the Australia game, there were a number of incidents in the Wales-Japan game that never received the same scrutiny as Mostert’s incident did.

As Rassie put it afterwards, how do you teach a guy to tackle lower when he is almost bent over. Mostert and De Jager stand over 2m tall, both were bent, and both were in classical tackling positions. Both had a second tackler influence the ball carrier’s fall. Neither was taken into account because they weren’t deemed to wrap the arm.

TECHNIQUE WAS CORRECT

As Burger pointed out, the way both tackled is exactly how players across the world are taught to tackle. Mostert was in the process of wrapping, but the TMO’s initial assertion that there was “clear head contact” almost forced the issue.

If Mostert’s card doesn’t get rescinded World Rugby would have shot themselves in the foot again.

The bigger problem is with the spectacle. The game needs 15 v 15 on the field, and unless there is a clear act of thuggery, we are ruining the game. We are asking players to make split second decisions and then pouring for minutes over frame by frame replays that are egged on in the heat of the moment in front of partisan crowds who are baying for blood.

Emotion often gets the better of the officials, and it should be taken out of the equation.

Rugby needs a spectacle. Already the game is too complicated by laws that change every season, and when you have your prime product confuse and infuriate fans on a weekly basis because of a lack of consistency, it does more harm than good.

DECISIONS HURT THE GAME

Again players have a responsibility, but when they get it right - like Mostert did - to be punished and labelled a dirty player because of a split second decision that is played at slow motion over and over by zealous television directors, it may appease the crowd, but it hurts the game more.

Nick Mallett had it right on the podcast Talking Boks - why can’t any decision be given to an independent TMO who can pour over it for 10 minutes and come up with a decision that is measured and thought through, rather than the baying crowd egging on a card frenzy on the field?

Rugby deserves better. The game deserves better. Fans deserve better.

And right now, they aren’t getting it.