TALKING POINT: Rugby's laws need a reset to reduce anger and confusion

If there is one thing to come out of the Autumn International Series - it is that Rugby’s card system needs clarity as the past month’s actions have left players, coaches and fans more confused than ever, and nobody is satisfied.

Matthew Carley’s decision to send James Ryan to the bunker for his reckless cleanout of Malcolm Marx was the right decision in the end, and Ryan rightly got a 20-minute red card, but the action in the context of the last month made little sense when Lood de Jager and Franco Mostert both got permanent red cards and the Boks twice had to contend with large parts of their test matches with 14 men.

Still, it is the inconsistency that bites harder than anything else, and other than those incidents there were a half dozen others that were not only inconsistent, they infuriated fans across the spectrum and left the rest of us dazed and confused.

The 20-minute card is seen as the antidote to a lopsided contest and rugby’s head contact system - as flawed as it is - is there to change behaviour. But one of its biggest flaws is that it doesn’t allow for context.

SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS

As the red card to Mostert and Tadgh Beirne showed in the last month, players are being asked to make split second decisions that are hard to avoid, often through the actions (tackles) of other players. Instead of being a dynamic process, the refs then pour over slow motion clinical screenshots and decide what a player could have done better and how to punish them for their indiscretions.

In front of a crowd baying for blood this often doesn’t make for the best environment for a fair decision making process as the TV director and crowd often play an outsized part in the decision. That’s why the bunker is a more fair process where a TV ref can sit away from 80 000 gazing eyes and make a decision that should, in theory at least, be rational and more fair than in the heat of the moment.

And then there is the way the game is being reffed. Those in charge often have little option but to follow the letter of the law, but rugby’s own mantra of allowing refs to interpret which laws to ref at what time is part of the problem.

You either ref to the letter of the law or you allow interpretation. You can’t have it both ways.

While every Irish fan has condemned Carley for doing his job, it underlines a bigger problem of how the red card and the head contact system is now becoming almost a bigger focus than the game.

CARDS ARE TOO MUCH OF A FOCUS IN RUGBY

Fans baying for blood are hoping and wanting the opposition to be reduced in number so that they have an advantage, although that doesn’t always play out on the field. The expectation is that whenever the TMO says “check check” there is going to be a card.

Not only does this take away from the spectacle but it means we are talking more about cards than we are talking about the game and that can’t be a good thing.

Just look at the fans’ reaction to Tommy O’Brien being monstered by Canan Moodie. There were really many fans there who thought the ball carrier needed to be carded, and not the upright defender who came off worse from the tackle. It baffles the mind.

But back to Carley. There is little sympathy for Ireland outside of the Emerald Isle because to be fair, they have been the masters of getting away with borderline negative play for years now. Ask anyone who has watched the Six Nations. They are a very good side, but part of their strength is the ability to skirt cards with negative behaviour that they get away with.

On Saturday that didn’t happen. They met a Springbok side that was so dominant that they were always going to win that game. The Boks did want to lay down a marker and once they got on top in the scrum, they wanted to make Ireland hurt.

We can debate whether or not it was the right decision to have 16 Springbok scrums in the game or rather inflict more pain by scoreboard pressure, but the referee can only referee what is in front of him.

NEGATIVE PLAY NEEDS CONSEQUENCES

As much as people in Ireland may not like it, when a prop repeatedly infringes, there has to be consequences. When a team consistently is offside and transgresses the law, there has to be punishment, otherwise negative play will dominate our game. Ireland were consistently on the wrong side of the law and it would be difficult for any Irish fan to debate their cards.

The one point that they can make is that Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu was lucky not to be carded for his tackle on Tommy O’Brien. We’ve seen softer tackles get cards and he was lucky. But that does not excuse Ireland’s transgressions.

What Carley had to experience was “referee overload through continuous infringements” on Saturday - as a whatsapp I received put quite well. I am unaware of the author, but it sums up pretty much what happened in Dublin.

“Referee overload through continuous infringements refers to a deliberate tactical approach in rugby where a team employs high-frequency, low-level, and often rotational infringements to overwhelm the referee’s cognitive capacity, disrupt the opposition’s momentum, and subtly influence officiating standards as the match progresses.

REFEREE OVERLOAD

“This tactic relies on creating a decision-making overload, where the referee is bombarded with so many technical, borderline, or grey-area moments, at the breakdown, offside lines, ruck entries, tackle releases, holding on, blocking lines, or contest height, that it becomes impossible to penalise every infraction without destroying the flow of the match.

Faced with this dilemma, referees frequently shift from strict enforcement to management mode, allowing more to go unpunished or subconsciously “balancing” decisions to avoid appearing biased or overly whistle-heavy.

“Crowd dynamics amplify the tactic further. In a hostile home environment, each whistle against the home side is met with significant noise, jeering, or emotional pressure that subtly suppresses referee assertiveness (“whistle fatigue”).

"The referee becomes acutely aware that continual penalties risk backlash, accusations of bias, or loss of match control. As a result, they may loosen enforcement on the infringing team while tightening application of marginal calls against the opposition, creating an unintentional asymmetry in law application.”

There was more, but that is just it. And it worked. Matthew Carley could have yellow-carded a player from the penalty try but didn’t. He could have issued more yellows but decided not too.

And by the end of the game he yellow carded Manie Libbok inexplicably for celebrating the Boks winning a turnover. If that was the standard then the whole England team would be in the sin bin for their antics.

DUBLIN WAS A STATEMENT

Saturday was a Bok statement, but it was also a statement on how rugby’s complicated laws can be manipulated by a weaker opponent, and how referees are only human and can manage so much.

Referees have to take 200+ decisions in a game, and the laws are very complicated. Can we really blame fans for not understanding and getting upset most of the time.

That’s why it needs a reset, or clarity because the last month has done the game no good in this regard.

And referees who get blamed when they are navigating a complicated system need more clarity and support.