The autumn games are now over but one thing dominated the rugby conversation
I’m not sure rugby has ever had as many cards as we’re seeing right now. Ten years ago, there was a very, very low percentage of red cards in games.
But now, we’re seeing a lot more red and yellow cards for foul play, as well as citings and the new 20-minute red card. All that has come with trying to make the game safer around the tackle and head contact, leading to an influx of red cards.
Even with all red cards, what you’d call an old-fashioned act of thuggery – or a straight red card offence without hesitation – still remains rare. I’m talking about punching someone from behind, booting someone in the head, headbutting, or, of course, gouging.
That last one has been something of a talking point in the last couple of weeks, after Eben Etzebeth’s red card against Wales at the end of the autumn. Other than the scoreline, that was the thing most people were discussing after the defeat to the Springboks in Cardiff
The first thing as a referee is you have to look at the incident in isolation. You can’t worry about if another player had been niggling away before that. You can only deal with the facts of there and then. Now, of course, if there was an act of foul play by an opponent at the same time, you would of course deal with that.
But still you would deal with the gouging in itself which is a straight red card offence without any hesitation.
And the fact is this was a clear-cut case of gouging. Sometimes you get players having a hand go across the face and a finger goes near the eye area. But this was different, this was a player pushing a thumb in the eye knowing what he was doing. This was the worst type of gouging.
Gloucester’s Deian Gwynne was banned this week for three weeks for making eye contact with Castres’ Florent Vanverberghe, with the Wales U20s international deemed at the low end of World Rugby’s sanctions.
I was in charge of the Heineken Cup semi-final in 2009 when Alan Quinlan did just that to Leo Cullen. The Munster back-row ended up missing the Lions tour that year after being handed a 12-week ban.
That’s the same as Etzebeth’s ban, but they were two very different incidents. Etzebeth put his hand into Alex Mann’s face – it wasn’t an accident. It was an act of intent.
Does a 12-week ban send a strong message that this type of action is totally, totally unacceptable? Gouging is an act that garners such a big reaction in rugby.
At the end of the day, you could lose an eye. It’s a nasty piece of thuggery at its worst.
And this is the problem with rugby’s citing process at the minute. It’s very difficult for a player to really receive the ban they arguably deserve.
There’s been a lot of talk about the citing process and how the decision was delayed. I’ve refereed Etzebeth many times over the years and I certainly wouldn’t say he’s a dirty player.
I don’t know him especially well, but from my experiences, he’s a respectful player but a hard man. But his action in Cardiff was unacceptable.
And that, ultimately, is what you are judging. Not the man, but that one particular action.
You’re not judging his character. That’s why it’s concerning to read about players from other teams giving character references.
Most players in the rugby world will get on with each other very well. So what you’ll soon find out is, if that is the case, then everybody will be having a character reference and getting a reduced ban. Not that I am saying this is why it was only 12 weeks, mind.
I remember sending Percy Montgomery off back in 2003 at St Helen’s for pushing the touch judge Peter Rees over. They ended up appealing the ban as it meant he wouldn’t go to the World Cup with South Africa.
In the end, they did reduce the ban and he made the World Cup, but you had Jonathan Kaplan – a fellow referee – sending in a character reference about Percy Montgomery.
It’s all about what you’ve done in the game. I don’t care if you’re the nicest person going – I’ve refereed some lovely people who were nice as anything off the pitch, but would regularly take people’s heads off with their tackle technique – it’s about the action on the pitch.
And, in that case, 12 weeks is perhaps a bit fortunate for Etzebeth. I was expecting a bit more to be honest so he can count himself lucky there.
But this is the problem with the disciplinary process. If the starting point for a ban was 18 weeks, as was the case for the ‘mid-range’ entry point in this case, it’s very rare that a player will end up actually serving 18 weeks. And with that type of gouge, one would ask what exactly is needed for a high entry point, then?
That’s where we have to be very careful with the inconsistences in this process. Virtually every ban is reduced by 50 per cent for remorse and good behaviour, then you’ll see another week come off it to go to tackle school for head contact collisions involving illegal or reckless tackles.
Most players would have learned how to tackle as a nine-year-old when they start playing contact rugby! It’s no wonder a lot of people are getting disillusioned by these processes.
I was working for S4C during the autumn, being asked by the commentators about the big decisions. But by the second game, I didn’t know what was going to happen with some calls – let alone the bans that would follow.
I go back to the Quinlan ban and you can’t escape the feeling that the offence wasn’t quite as bad as Etzebeth’s, but that’s just the nature of the process right now.
And ultimately, will that serve as a strong enough deterrent to change behaviour?
Can you imagine going into the Six Nations with all this talks of cards ? It would be a travesty if that’s all we’re talking about.
The game at the moment is at a crossroads and they really need to solve this because it’s not right that we are just talking – every podcast, every feed on Twitter – about foul play and refereeing incidents, rather than great tries and moments.
Let me be perfectly clear here now – hell, I sound like a politician with this ‘let’s be clear’ message – but it’s not the referees who commit the act of foul play or thuggery. Players need to change their behaviour to reduce the amount of cards in a game and reduce the risk of serious injury.
It only becomes the referee’s problem, or a judiciary concern, if they don’t deal with it properly.
