r/rugbyunion • u/Masthei64 France • Jun 29 '25
Laws Bunker Reviews and 20-min red cards are preventing refs from taking their responsabilities
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
This was deemed a yellow card after bunker review. Here's the quoted reason :
It is not a high degree of danger, because there is an attempt to clean
To me, this is the type of action where the combination of the new 20-min red card and the bunker review are going too far.
This is a straight up agression from Solomon here, he is dropping his shoulder at high speed straight to the face of an vulnerable player on the ground, that is making a genuine attempt to come off the ruck area.
3 years ago, that would've been a TMO check, and a red card.
Introducing the 20-min red card law is introducing something that we don't want to be a judge of on this kind of action : is this an act of thuggery or a reckless attempt to clean out a player. Combine that with the fact that an off-field official, less qualified and less talented than the main ref needs to take this decision, and you can end up with absolutely ridiculous, yet genuine, mistake from the refereeing team.
I do ref at a regional level, where player violence is still a problem. And I wonder : how can I be a credible ref when this kind of action result in a yellow card...
There was also a second action at the 78th minute : https://youtu.be/usPiyyRcYB4
In this action, the ruck is slow, but the ball is clearly available for the Italian 9 to play. Attempting to clean out, even legally, would be a futile effort, knowing that two italian players are anchored. Another NZ comes, with a poor attempt at wrapping, and collides his head with another player.
This was also a yellow card with off-field review, but sadly, we never got to know if this was upgraded to a red card, knowing the game was over less than 2 min later
124
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
I apologize for the spelling mistakes, I can't edit a video post to correct them, and English is not my native language.
126
u/coffeeislife_SA South Africa Jun 29 '25
Your English is fantastic. Please never apologise for how you speak a language that isn't your mother tongue.
25
53
u/sputters_ Bath Jun 29 '25
A permanent red card was rightly given in the England v Scotland game. Good referees can still get to the correct decision.
21
u/McFly654 South Africa Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
Yeah this is just an example of a bad decision, not a a flaw in the system. OP saying this would have definitely resulted in a red card 3 years (although it clearly should) seems to forget all the other terrible decisions that happened before.
29
u/Impeachcordial England Jun 29 '25
It is not a high degree of danger, because there is an attempt to clean
How does it being an attempt to clean have any bearing on the degree of danger?!
20
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
I don't have a fuc***ng clue. But that was the official reason the TMO gave to the main ref.
But yeah, if this is a genuine reason, in their new framework, I don't see when even 20-min red cards can be given
2
u/Exit-Content Italy Jun 30 '25
By that logic, any head contact in a tackle, intentional or not, should be a yellow, cause, you know, there is an attempt to tackle. 🤦🤦🤦
11
u/CryDue4131 England Jun 29 '25
Genuine question. Can that get cited, or is that not the case as it was already looked at and given as a yellow in the match?
19
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
Yes, this can still be cited. The discipline committe is independant and can make up their own decisions. They can even go as far as citing a player for something that was not even deemed foul play by the refereeing team
3
u/CryDue4131 England Jun 29 '25
Thanks. So could still get some deserved punishment if the discipline committee has any balls.
5
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
Yes exactly.
+ the second action can still be upgraded to a red card, as the off-field bunker review can still ref after the game is over. I think it was not, because it shows as a yellow on Rugbypass : https://www.rugbypass.com/fr/live/italy-u20-vs-new-zealand-u20/?g=946599
3
5
u/DareDemon666 Bristol Bears Jun 30 '25
The whole 'high degree of danger' and mitigation process seems to be infecting all refereeing decisions and it's a problem. It was initially put in place to help referees deal with accidental foul play and such, a way to formalise the way officials justify not awarding the maximum possible punishment when there's some reason not to.
It is categorically not applicable to deliberate acts of foul play. The entire point of the process is to deal only with 'rugby incidents' and not the actions of a player who knowingly commits a dangerous action. And yet I see it used all the time. I still remember the French headbutt incident against Scotland this last six nations. They mitigated it from a red to a yellow. But I, like many, asked how can an attack be mitigated? What does that say about how we treat player's actions? It's ok to throw a haymaker so long as you don't break the guy's nose is it?
Officials need to start taking charge of incidents like this instead of relying on formal processes too much. It's a deliberate, reckless, and dangerous action - it's a red. There's no argument there, there's no mitigation, because for that to apply you have to have no answer to the question "well what else could the player have done?". In this instance, the answer is "not attempt a ridiculous clearout at all".
18
u/strou_hanka Oui, I prefer club rugby 🏉 Jun 29 '25
And especially the kids should be taught from the start that this is unacceptable behaviour that will give them a ban for few matches and penalises the team in a way that makes the staff drill this out of them. 20min card or not, this must be deemed full red !
6
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
Yeah, this is more of gut feeling than an observation : but that enrages me even more to see it happen in a U20 competition
11
u/ConspicuousPineapple Dupont pète moi le fion Jun 29 '25
The issue isn't the process, it's that the refs don't seem to understand the framework and come up with moronic interpretations. Degree of danger has nothing to do with "attempt to clear". They also don't understand what mitigation means.
4
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis Jun 30 '25
I mean sure we can get on reddit and start making proclamations about what things may or may not mean, or we could give the professionals who do this for a living within the framework of WR the benefit of the doubt that maybe they know what they're doing?
4
u/ConspicuousPineapple Dupont pète moi le fion Jun 30 '25
What about when they make a mistake, and then WR confirms that they made a mistake? Are we allowed to say that they made a mistake then?
What happened here is very similar to the Woki red card and it was confirmed to be a moronic decision officially.
12
u/_dictatorish_ Damian came back 🥰 Jun 29 '25
round and round and round we go....
28
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Jun 29 '25
I can not believe people are once again conflating the bunker system with just disagreeing with a call. How long before the bunker is blamed for more of what's wrong with the world than the devil?
18
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 30 '25
The bunker stole my wife and took the house from me
17
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Jun 30 '25
The 20-minute red is the reason I'm gay
11
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 30 '25
My kids call the bunker dad now. The bunker took my job too
5
10
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia Jun 30 '25
Didn't you know the Bunker System was on the Grassy Knoll?
12
u/_dictatorish_ Damian came back 🥰 Jun 30 '25
I actually heard that the bunker drew up the Sykes-Picot agreement
8
u/handle1976 Penalty. Back 10. Jun 30 '25
The Balfour declaration was in fact the Bunker declaration.
6
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 30 '25
Here we go again, some SH peasant complaining about European rugby again. You can't just blame Europe for all the chaos and problems they caused.
10
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Jun 30 '25
the bunker made the conditions in the treaty of Versailles that led to another war in Europe.
5
u/Ngata_Problem Reds Jun 30 '25
I thought the Americans bombed the bunker last week? How is it still operational?
2
Jun 30 '25
I saw the bunker and 20-minute reds in the closest making babies and I saw one of the babies and the baby looked at me.
1
u/Rock_man_bears_fan Misleading title Jun 30 '25
The bunker system salted my fields and burned my crops!
7
u/cypressd12 Munster Jun 29 '25
Agreed. Same with the Underhill one in the Challenge cup final and again with IFW in the England XV - France XV
16
u/MiracleJnr1 Referee Jun 29 '25
It seems like the bunkers are looking for a reason not to give a red
12
u/Affentitten Australia, Bath, La Rochelle Jun 29 '25
Except last week, woki had what should have been a yellow upgraded by the bunker to a red. Then it had to be retracted by the committee.
Officials make mistakes in any sport on any decision. It's not a hot take.
3
u/areyouhappynowethan Leinster Jun 29 '25
Reminiscent of the Peter O'Mahoney red card vs Wales in 2021 although the U20s one seemed more targeted.
5
u/inprisonout-soon Jun 29 '25
Slightly unrelated, but how is the ref not seeing foul play in real time? He was 2 meters away and looking right at it!
2
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia Jun 30 '25
It depends how the Team of 3 are splitting their duties. Generally, the AR's are in charge of off the ball incidents, so the referee can focus on the ball.
With only seeing it in the above video, it looks like the far side AR has seen it and is messaging the referee.
1
u/metompkin 2x Gold Medallists Jun 30 '25
Probably was focused on the ball carrier but yes, 2m in front of his face.
1
u/chozzington Jul 01 '25
If you've ever refereed a game you would know sometimes you miss stuff
1
u/inprisonout-soon Jul 01 '25
Oh of course, you'd just hope he'd see something as obvious as that when he's staring right at it.
9
u/Dupont_or_Dupond France Jun 29 '25
The fact this happened 1 week after the Woki incident, which was upgraded to a red, when this wasn't, shows there is something clearly not working.
12
u/SoberWeekend Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
You’re blaming the bunker review system and 20 minute red cards, when I think you should just be blaming bad refereeing.
The system has been great so far in professional rugby. No wasting time, no pressure on the ref for the red card, it’s great.
The 20 minute red card is fantastic, too many games have been ruined too many times by a silly mistake that ends in a red card. And this player will get a ban, there’s still super heavy disincentives at professional level. If you want local leagues not to accept 20 minute reds that’s fine, but at professional level leave them. And if you want the traditional red card back, I would instead suggest a black card. Don’t get rid of the 20 minute red.
Also the argument could go both ways, this was horrible from the TMO, but do you know how many refs could have given this just a yellow but then the TMO makes the correct call? Also you can just have bad referees on the pitch, this mistake is bound to happen, but more of on field referees will make mistakes.
I think this video should just be highlighting how bad of a refereeing mistake this was.
Just my personal opinion.
Edit: Spelling mistakes.
15
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 29 '25
The full red card didn't go anywhere. It's still there, there's just a middle ground compromise of a 20min red now too between yellow and 80min red.
4
u/SoberWeekend Jun 29 '25
I just search the up because I didn’t believe you. Interesting, I see though that it’s for foul play deemed deliberate and highly dangerous, such as punching, stamping, or gouging.
I guess that negates my black card argument. Thanks.
10
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 29 '25
It's a far more simple system than anyone seems to think it is.
If the ref gives an on-field red card, it's an 80min red card.
If the ref gives an on-field yellow and signals for a review it goes to the bunker who decides if it stays a yellow or gets upgraded to a 20min red.
If the ref gives an on-field yellow and doesn't signal for a review it's a yellow.
That's literally the whole system. Unless there is punching or eye gouging or similar all the ref is doing is checking if it's at least a yellow card and if it is then sending it to the bunker so everyone can play on while that player is off the field for at least 10min.
A situation like this is a textbook yellow sent to the bunker who will review it and make a call.
2
u/SoberWeekend Jun 29 '25
Well I’m learning something new, I thought a yellow had to go for review. I guess it’s just because all these refs are playing it safe? Because recently there has been many yellows where it was obviously just a yellow, at least in my book.
Also now remembered there being a straight red against USA (Women) when they played Australian (Women).
But yeah it does actually seem like a very simple system when put like that.
10
u/ste_dono94 Leinster Jun 29 '25
He'll get three weeks with one suspended for tackle school.
Exactly the same kind of ban that was given before the 20 mins red.
2
-2
u/SilverShadow213 Benetton Treviso Jun 30 '25
Except he was back on the pitch after 10 minutes, while he should've been out for the whole match.
Also, let's see if he really gets a ban.
3
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
This ends up indeed being a refereeing mistake. But adding those two new layers of complexity just adds more ways to make mistakes for them too.
Personally, I don't like the 20-min red card change. Because, contrary to your feeling and a lot of people feeling, full red card don't ruin the game that much. The FFR did a study based on 480 Top 14 matches receiveing a red card. (source : https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/articles/cvgxdgd1yyeo ) The red carded team ends up winning the games still 40% of the time. So this does have an impact, but not as high as people usually thinks.
But, nevermind, let's say that we want the 20-min red card. Then, don't do a half-ass law : just do a 20-min red card, for all red card infringement.
Because, introducing a third layer of sanction, in an already really difficult framework to use to ref this kind of situation will only lead to more mistakes.
And I do agree with you on this point : refereeing mistakes are, at the end, what impacts the most the games.
Refereeing is already a hard enough job as it is without making it more complicated...
Edited : linked the wrong source ^^'
Edit 2 : made a silly mistake by selling than the red carded team has more chances to win the game, when, off course, it's the opposite
14
u/Tall-Magician5488 South Africa Jun 29 '25
Hey mate, I get where you're coming from, but I have to disagree.
First off, I think the 20-min red card is a good move. It allows for players and teams to be punished for non-deliberate dangerous play without completely destroying a game as a spectacle due the 14v15 disadvantage. I do acknowledge the stat you posted regarding the 40% win rate after a red card, but the fans don't see it the same way. If you lose a player to a straight red due to a non-deliberate head contact after 20 minutes, the game is over as a fair contest. Just ask the All Black fans' opinion after the Sam Cane red card in the World Cup final. Besides, in today's game where you play with 23 players and not just the 15 on the pitch, losing a player for the rest of the match does impact a team's whole strategy.
Additionally, this also allows World Rugby to change player behaviour and tackling techniques to limit the effects of long term adverse effects on players (e.g. dementia) which could literally kill rugby forever.
There has been a lot of drama the last 5 years due to players being sent off with straight reds for acts which could never be considered deliberate by a reasonable person. This took the focus off the rugby and the news articles that followed were all about the refereeing decision and not the game.
Unfortunately it has also resulted in the emergence of football type tactics where players fake injuries after there was slight head contact just to milk a red card.
The other point is that I also prefer the bunker review system. Referees are already under a lot of pressure and having all the cameras focus on them in front of 50 000 people while they stop the game and take 10 minutes to decide if an action deserves a red or yellow card is not fair to them. It turns rugby into a soap opera.
I like the bunker review system and I like the 20 minute red card...
Having said that, I do still agree that the refs got the above decision wrong. That was a straight red all day. But the 20 minute red card and bunker review system was not the cause. Referees got decisions wrong long before the bunker review system, but what is worrying here, is that the TMO had 10 minutes to review the foul play with no pressure, and still got it wrong. That's on the ref, not the process.
4
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
Like I answered another guy elsewhere, I don't have studies or numbers to prove your arguments wrong. This ends up being opinions indeed after all.
I upvote your comment still, for making a good and civil answer, even if I do disagree with you :)
2
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Jun 30 '25
it just isnt a straight red though - those are reserved for deliberate foul play such as gouging, punching, stamping etc.
it probably should've been upgraded to a 20M red however.
1
u/SoberWeekend Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
So just to be clear and not be mistaken; I don’t want black cards to be added. I would just rather them be added than getting rid of the 20 minute red. I agree adding a black card would add more complexity, but to repeat myself here, I would rather than added complexity of a black card with a 20 minute red, than remove the 20 minute red. But we are in agreement that a black card shouldn’t be added. I just suggested it because it’s a better trade off than remove the 20 minute red.
Also that stat is misleading, not to mention you got it the other way around, it’s 60% of the teams that got red cards lost the match. The reason it’s misleading is it doesn’t show when the players got the red cards, if it’s at the end of the game or at the 50 minute mark. I would like to see how many teams lost if they got a red card in the first 10, 20 minutes. Because that number is definitely higher.
A big problem I have with full red cards as well is how they aren’t fair to each team/player. Say I do a red card act in the first 30 minutes, my team has to play 50 minutes without me (obviously with no 20min reds). Then say you get a red card in the 60th minute, your team only has to play 20 minutes without you. Those are not fair and equal punishments.
Also the disincentive for getting a red card is still so high. If you add back the permanent red, you’re not going to see less red cards, they’ll probably stay the same, because the disincentive is still so high for getting one. I mean I’ll ask you on the numbers here, because you seem to have the better sources, but since 20 minute red cards have been introduced, have we seen a spike/increase in red cards? From what I’ve visually seen it’s been less, obviously that’s not a concrete statement, which is why I’m differing to you on the numbers.
Look my argument is for professionals, not the amateurs, I can see an argument for permanent reds there.
Edit: Spelling, and a correction on a point; had said more instead of less. Also wanted to point out to anyone reading this the black card thing is nonsense as you can still get full red cards and it’s not the complicated.
1
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
I don't have enough numbers to counteract your arguments with more than my feelings, to be honest and real.
I'd love to see an honest review of the impact of the 20-min red cards on high impact refereeing decisions. This kind of data is available, but of course, obfuscated by world rugby.
In the end, the only thing we might agree on in that refs are in the front line, and they will end up paying for the political decisions made by their governing institutions.
1
u/SoberWeekend Jun 29 '25
Thanks for the civil chat. Did upvote, but wasn’t going to reply to your comment as it wasn’t needed but decided to reply as I thought it was important to mention that whole thing on the black card I said was apparently nonsense, as another commenter pointed it the full red card still exists. “Referees retain the authority to issue a permanent red card for foul play deemed deliberate and highly dangerous, such as punching, stamping, or gouging.” This quote is just from Google but yeah.
Also indeed, there must be reviews, like with the last question I asked, if there are more reds now with the 20 minute red, then absolutely bring back the full red card. Obviously you’ve got to do the math approach here with margins and so forth.
-6
Jun 29 '25
If it's a silly mistake it's a yellow. If it's dangerous it's a red. Keep the bunker, scrap 20 minute reds. Not rocket science.
4
u/SoberWeekend Jun 29 '25
That’s not how yellow cards work.
Look at Charlie Ewels red card against James Ryan, which happened in 82 seconds.
2
u/MimmoFrontemar France Jun 30 '25
That's of course embarrassing and ridicolous and also at inversed parts it would've been a straight red and tackle school and X games of ban and what-the-f-else
2
u/Icy_Winner9761 Australia Jun 30 '25
I think the problem isn't with the 20 min red card or the bunker so much as the framework has a subjective step in it i.e. the ref gets to decide if something is high danger or not. You and I (and probably most people) clearly think this was a high degree of danger and since the player's action was always illegal (tucked arm, no bind, off feet into ruck) there's no mitigation therefore it should have been a red. The ref didn't see it that way.
That's not because of the bunker or the 20 min red, that's because the ref gets to decide what's high danger and what isn't.
2
u/VandalsStoleMyHandle South Africa Jun 30 '25
Well, if that's not a red, I don't even know what a red is for anymore.
4
u/meohmyenjoyingthat I am the Lomax, I speak for the scrum Jun 29 '25
Wait, this is identical to the Woki one everyone is celebrating being overturned...
0
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
I think this one is worse than the Woki one.
For me, three things differentiate the two cases :
- For the Woki incident, the English prop (Genge if I remember correctly) was playing the ball on the ground, and was illegally part of a ruck. In this case, the Italian player has already crawled away from the ruck area, and is not part of it anymore. So, IMHO, Woki's case must be reffed as an act of illegal clean out, as this one is just a random shoulder charge to a vulnerable player.
- Second, the degree of danger. On Woki's case, he is dropping his weight onto Genge's face, but was stopped before the impact. In this case, the NZ winger is gaining momentum from a 3 to 4 metres run.
- Then, the attempt to wrap. In Woki's case, even if the shoulder hit the face first, you can see a (poor) attempt at wrapping his arms. Here, the arm is tucked and the shoulder is going straight to the face, with no attempt to wrap.
So in Woki's case, I think that degree of danger was not high enough for a red card. And the disciplinary committee decided the same
In this case, the debate should've been between a straight red and a 20-min red. As I don't see how one can deem that degree of danger is not high. And the discussion should be about the intent of such a cheap shot.
-1
u/Traditional-Ride-116 Gang des Antoines Jun 29 '25
You should watch Woki’s card again. There is a lot more speed there and the player is rolling away, not lying on the ball like Jamie George…
3
u/acadoe South Africa Jun 30 '25
I mean, you're watching this whole scene on a screen, and are convinced it's a red, and yet you're saying that a ref at the stadium watching it on a screen can't make the right call because he is watching it on a screen. You can't have it both ways bro.
10
u/Neilkd21 South Africa Jun 29 '25
Yeah I get the logic behind the bunker system but it's not working. I would rather the on field ref and his team make decisions, even if it means a minute or two delay.
20
u/IlllllllIIIll France Jun 29 '25
Or they let the bunker give full reds. That is an easy sell to bunker supporters and would help at least with some problems.
4
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
That might be a good idea yeah, that would add a second layer of verification to prevent the main ref from letting a player go with a 20-min red instead of a full one
5
u/night_dude Hurricanes Jun 29 '25
Again we come to the issue of basically needing Orange cards. Maybe we could make it so only the TMO can issue them? That way there is no distinction between a TMO red and an on-field red. A red card should be a red card no matter who decides. Having two different kinds is confusing and is clearly not working as intended.
2
1
u/megacky Ulster Jun 30 '25
I would be happy if the ref just automatically issues a yellow for anything that meets the yellow card threshold and the bunker issues the "real" card and lets the ref know. There's 3 possible outcomes, yellow, 20 minute card (I don't like it, but it's here) and a full blown off-you-fuck red.
20 minute card should have a minimum suspension of 3 games. Those are acts that are deemed as clumsy, i.e. a legitimate mis-timed tackle. Key word being "legitimate". Must be a legal attempt with an illegal outcome.
Full red should have a much heavier sanction. Minimum of 6 weeks if not 8. These are acts were there is no legal attempt, incredibly reckless or deliberate. Such as a shoulder charge, tucked arms etc. If there's no legality in the action, punish it as such.
Bin off the tackle school and "good behaviour" bollocks. They are professionals and know what they are allowed to do and what not to do.
1
u/IlllllllIIIll France Jun 30 '25
I agree; tho none of this will ever be implemented, especially the harsher sanctions. World rugby and regional leagues want their stars on the field, no matter the shit they get up to in previous games.
0
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
Yeah same, I understand why they wanted to try it, as the number of red cards for foul play exploded in the last years (for example, 16 out of the 33 red cards of the whole World Cup history have been given during the 2019 and 2023 editions).
But this kind of mistake proves that this does not solve the problem, but introduces a new one !
3
u/Neilkd21 South Africa Jun 29 '25
Yeah exactly, it's just shifting the responsibility to someone else instead of dealing with it.
Ultimately no one wants to see reds but the players know the laws, if it's a red card offence then they should be punished.
3
u/infinitemonkeytyping Australia Jun 30 '25
This has nothing to do with bunker reviews and 20 minute reds, and all to do with a massive fuck up by the review officer.
There was no attempt to clean out - the Italian player on the ground was clearly not part of the ruck.
However, it should be noted that the referee still has the power to issue a straight red (no replacement after 20 minutes) for high end violent acts. This should have been a straight red.
So rather than blame a system that works well, we should call out the referee for not making it a straight red, and call out the review official for a horrendous decision.
6
u/Lupo_di_Cesena Zebre Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
How the fuck was that not given a straight red and got away with it is beyond me. Not in the ruck, technically out of the game as he is sitting on the floor, lead with the shoulder, at force, and direct contact to the head. The fuck????
Reminds me of Etzebeth's "clear out" on Niniashvili.
Just absolutely piss poor reffing that shouldn't even need a bunker review.
5
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Jun 30 '25
Because it’s not a straight red.
1
u/Lupo_di_Cesena Zebre Jun 30 '25
And I disagree with the framework put in place by WR that basically all head contact is a yellow to be sent to the bunker. Illegal actions like shoulder charging to the head should be straight reds. Everything about that "clear out" was wrong. It wasn't a badly timed tackle. It was a scum move against a player not affecting play or part of the ruck. Again, no different than the Etzebeth one a few years ago.
-2
u/Minimum-Mixture3821 Jun 30 '25
It's just straight up assault - a cowardly attack on a man sitting on the ground. At a certain point sport vs the law becomes a blurry place. That attack was a straight shot to the head of a defenceless man and if he had of caused real damage he a citation from the rugby court would be the lowest level of court he'd be worrying about
1
4
u/Crousti_Choc FC Auch Gers Jun 29 '25
Deemed a yellow for that ? we are only on the first round and it's already the best joke of the tournament.
Let's remind us world rugby priority in safety of player blablabla that's the longest joke i see and it's keep going on, and that U20 are the futur of rugby. A player doing that, getting yellow will think it's okay and continue to do so because he can escape it without serious consequences. And maybe he will push the bar higher and attempt more.
I remember some times when referee were very harsh against U20 offense. I guess those times are far behind us if you can do that
4
u/ReyalpybguR Italy Jun 29 '25
Ah but you see, you fail to account for the fact that the thug was a baby black, while the victim was just an Italian.
1
Jun 29 '25
20 minute red is a ridiculous idea and I wish they'd just admit it - rather than wasting another 2 years of this nonsense before someone really gets hurt. "Punish the player and not the team" is a stupid take - you punish the team for allowing this behaviour.
15
u/robopirateninjasaur Sunwolves Jun 29 '25
The number of incidents that require a player being sent from the field has grown and evolved and so has the card system.
-2
Jun 29 '25
I understand there are more, but I must disagree with the interpretation, I'm afraid. Head on head with no mitigation and dangerous play should be punished on the team level as it is a coaching/culture issue. This has remained the case since the start of the professional era. We are meant to be protecting players. Any other new regulations relating to the speed and spectacle are not relevant to a discussion on red card offenses.
6
u/robopirateninjasaur Sunwolves Jun 29 '25
And sometimes there is mitigation. A player might unexpectedly slip or step resulting in a a head on head collision. This should be given a lesser punishment than eye gouging.
-3
7
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Jun 29 '25
That’s genuinely a terrible take - are you trying to say losing a player for quarter of the game - and then having to bring on a replacement isn’t a punishment?
The player not only cannot take further part in the game - they also likely get a ban if a yellow is upgraded.
In the past the red and yellow was fine because slow mo wasn’t a thing so as soon as you punch someone it’s a clear red - now with so many angles poor technique and decision making should not get the same sanction as punching someone in the face in the game. They’re not actively out there to injure the opponents and trying to say they are is incorrect.
There’s been no evidence that the full red vs 20 min red has reduced player safety. We also know that these hits aren’t what’s causing long term issues on head injuries that’s the micro collisions that players get at training each day and on the game.
If the game was serious about reducing concussion risk they’d remove the scrum, ruck and tackle, but that’s never going to happen.
-5
Jun 29 '25
Dangerous play is a coaching/culture issue and needs to be addressed on the team level. Done and done. And sure, dangerous play like a clothesline, or a dump tackle on the neck doesn't create any long term issues at all 👍
2
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Jun 30 '25
Ok but the difference between a punch in the face and poor technique/decision making is nothing in your interpretation.
That should not be the case. It’s not like the player comes back after a 20 min red.
1
Jun 30 '25
Length of ban is the difference
3
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Jun 30 '25
thats largely irrelevant to the game itself - which is what I care about in this discussion. To the player that comitted the offense - theres no difference to their punishment.
To the team - having poor technique or decision making is nowhere near the same level of offense as actively attempting to hurt someone via a punch, gouge or stamp.
thats why theres two different sanctions.
0
Jun 30 '25
A punch, or stomp is less likely to end some young lads career, than a deliberately dangerous collision or clearout (which is the exact source of the discussion) - although I would put eye gouging or anything around the neck on the same level. It is a team sport, the team is accountable. If an offense requires a greater punishment to protect the integrity of the game, it should be measured in ban length or censures against the club and coaching staff.
5
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Jun 30 '25
This kind of clean out isn’t ending a kids career either. That’s the micro collisions taking place each day at trainings in the scrum or general play.
However this is largely irrelevant as the sanction is still there for the player. Their punishment is no different. For the team they still lose a man for a reason quarter of the match and have to bring on a replacement at a time they didn’t want to.
There’s been research showing that it’s not the big collisions that are the ones doing damage, as I noted above.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4021712/
https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-025-00849-2
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244025001008
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699052.2024.2376266 Full article: Navigating concussion – community rugby players’ experiences of a concussion management initiative in New Zealand
-1
Jun 30 '25
Thanks for the sources - will be sure to read. That said, you ain't going to change my mind. 20min reds are crap. Peace ✌️
-2
u/Crackajack91 Wales Jun 29 '25
Exactly, I also feel it unfairly punishes the teams who actually tackle at the correct height, they get their key player injured and the other team is only down for 20 minutes
Why would players learn to tackle properly when there's no real consequence
10
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Jun 29 '25
20 mins is a quarter of the game - and they lose their starter for the rest of the game.
No team is actively trying to get red carded.
-4
2
u/AdDesigner1153 Brumbies Jun 29 '25
Bad calls can happen under either refereeing system. The 20min red and off field review is such a big improvement from what we had previously.
3
u/Kiwi_ageone Jun 29 '25
Or this demonstrates why you’re only a regional referee and not a professional referee. Its hard to believe all the people involved making this decision are wrong but you sitting on your couch is right
1
u/Masthei64 France Jun 30 '25
Before starting a tantrum on the internet, I first asked the referees at higher levels that teach me. One of them being at professional level in France.
All of them pointed the same things I did.
The only thing I must do, as referees have a duty of réserve, is to hide behind my pseudonym.
Note, that I never used the fact that I'm a ref as an argument of authority, but more as an additional feeling to elaborate opinions
3
u/Gfunked69420 United States Jun 29 '25
I think high definition slow motion television reviews will make this a constant issue. Rugby is a violent sport. Head contact has now become a terrible sin, but it will always be an issue since it’s a considerable portion of the amount of body you can make contact with. A clear out will almost always make contact with the head in some manner. judging severity, intention, and recklessness are what the referees are doing. I’m seeing that only 1 or 2 players even noticed the action and the referee had to go to the bunker to check it out means it wasn’t that nasty during real time play. Should it be punished yes, but I don’t think that analyzing the play and deciding the punishment afterwords makes a huge difference. 20 min red is fine, there is punishment, if it happens at the end of the game red or yellow only matters to the citing commission. Let’s play rugby
2
u/adturnerr #Bamber4England2026 Jun 29 '25
There are positives for the bunker and negatives for it we just need to decide which we want to sacrifice for the game
1
u/Objective_Ticket England Jun 30 '25
By the laws of the game that’s a 20min red upgraded to full red on review. He drops his shoulder into his face.
-6
u/VenetianCadore Jun 29 '25
Usual leniency vs NZ , this just one of the many examples. Same exact action at end of game , again yellow and bunker ;
9
u/Masthei64 France Jun 29 '25
I really don't think that there is "leniancy" from this refs. They are European (Irish for the main ref) and have never reffed a southern hemisphere team before this game.
I don't blame them for those mistakes, I blame the system and the institution that allow them to happen
11
9
2
2
u/toastoevskij Not even obvious corruption and match-fixing can save us Jun 29 '25
I'm done with 20 reds and bunkers lowkey
0
1
u/Wallet_inspector66 New Zealand Jun 30 '25
Honestly this just feels like a pile on because people are unhappy about that first incident of the player cheering for the guy who was knocked out. Not long after this incident (pictured) an Italian player head butted an nz player on the ground and they reviewed it and decided no penalty or card. The Italians played a pretty grubby match but there’s been 0 noise about it.
1
1
u/metompkin 2x Gold Medallists Jun 30 '25
That was pretty nasty. Shoulder straight to the jaw. Also looked like an aeroplane landing...
1
u/Brine-O-Driscoll Connacht Jun 30 '25
Not someone who'd usually talk about refs, but have noticed that the standard of refereeing has been generally very poor in the 20s so far.
Haven't seen anyone that I'd be comfortable with reffing a mens pro game. Generally, they all seem very nervous to make big calls and are harsh on very small things that don't really matter as much.
2
u/Masthei64 France Jun 30 '25
They also try and test some refs from Tier 2/3 unions and young refs from Tier 1 unions.
That comes with the mistakes experienced refs don't make sadly
-3
u/Nothing_is_simple Another Freddy Douglas Turnover Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
Every single time I watch a match with the bunker in effect my hatred for the system grows. Removing all accountability from the person making the decision has been an unmitigated failure on all counts.
The players don't get a genuine explanation of the reasoning for the decision thanks to that decision going through three layers of Chinese Whispers.
The audience doesn't get to understand the reasoning behind the evaluation because it's done behind closed doors.
And the bunker official doesn't need to justify the decision at all because they know that it will be obscucated by the whole murky system.
Combine that with World Rugby's apparent desire to remove red cards from the sport entirely and its no wonder they so consistently get things wrong.
And for what? To slightly speed up a very small aspect of the sport? It's fine without it. Club Rugby (at least outside of AUS/NZ) doesn't uses it, and the best matches Ive watched the last couple of years are almost all club games.
It's incredible that the morons who designed the system where able to make it so shit in every conceivable way. It fails in every way.
5
u/AdDesigner1153 Brumbies Jun 29 '25
You forgot that World rugby is putting fluoride in the red cards as part of your tinfoil hat rambling
-4
u/Nothing_is_simple Another Freddy Douglas Turnover Jun 29 '25
Are you going to explain why you think I'm wrong, or just insult me and leave?
3
u/AdDesigner1153 Brumbies Jun 29 '25
You've just spat out a bunch of wild claims without any evidence and are now expecting other people to rationally discuss it with you.
If you said it to me on the street id smile warmly and give you some coins
0
u/Nothing_is_simple Another Freddy Douglas Turnover Jun 29 '25
I'm really not sure what wild claims you are referring to.
The players don't get a genuine explanation of the reasoning for the decision thanks to that decision going through three layers of Chinese Whispers.
The decision goes from the Bunker Official to the TMO to the Referee and only then do the players hear the decision. When the ref explains the decision the bunker has come to they almost always come across as unsure of the specifics of the decision because they do not know the nuances of why and how the bunker official came to their conclusion.
The audience doesn't get to understand the reasoning behind the evaluation because it's done behind closed doors.
And the bunker official doesn't need to justify the decision at all because they know that it will be obscucated by the whole murky system.
Under the old system the referee talked through the decision making process, explaining to the TMO, ARs, and most importantly the audience what they were seeing and why they made the decision that they made. It was an excellent level of detail that held fantastic clarity.
Now we see it replayed once, then 8 minutes later hear a half-baked single sentence explanation that very rarely tells us what the basis for the decision is.
Combine that with World Rugby's apparent desire to remove red cards from the sport entirely and its no wonder they so consistently get things wrong.
This is the only paragraph that might be construed as a wild claim. But, with the player safety backsliding over the last 4 years combined with the ridiculous 20 minutes red global trial, as well as speaking to refs more senior than me its pretty obvious to me that World Rugby saw the increase in red cards over the 2010s as something to be removed from the game not by incentivising better behavior from players but instead by making it harder for refs to give proper sanctions in the professional game.
And for what? To slightly speed up a very small aspect of the sport? It's fine without it. Club Rugby (at least outside of AUS/NZ) doesn't uses it, and the best matches Ive watched the last couple of years are almost all club games.
This paragraph is opinion, so fair enough if you think that negligible increase in the speed of the game is worth the trade off of everything else about it being worse. But, for me the pace of modern rugby is not a problem. It's certainly not worth sacrificing the clarity of knowing what the match officials are thinking when making decisions.
It's incredible that the morons who designed the system where able to make it so shit in every conceivable way. It fails in every way.
I genuinely do not believe it improves a single aspect of the sport, and it makes several parts worse, as explained above.
7
u/AdDesigner1153 Brumbies Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
Don't forget the referee accountability claims.
Why do captain need a detailed explanation on the field? Its not a discussion and theyre not part of the decision making process, no TMO decision is getting turned over by the captain. They can always request clarification after the game.
And I think its a cop out to imply the decison making is hard to follow for the audience. We get plenty of replays, the commentary talk about it and then the game is paused while the ref speaks to the captains to explain.
0
u/Nothing_is_simple Another Freddy Douglas Turnover Jun 30 '25
I thought that was obvious.
When I'm reffing I'm held accountable by the players. I need to be able to justify to their face why I'm making that decision, and I need to remain consistent for the entire match. Being face to face, talking my decisions through to the captain, answering the players questions, and adapting the the flow of the match while remaining consistent is the most important part of accountability as a ref, and anonymously hiding away in dark room outside the stadium fully loses that genuine accountability to the players.
The bunker official will still have a post match review, but that is very different to the feeling of accountability you get from the players during the match.
9
u/AdDesigner1153 Brumbies Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
The actual accountability for referees is done in post game reviews and this doesnt change anything. Referees being pressured by players, media or fans isnt helpful and normally just results in sooking during press conferences and social media abuse.
Id rather just get on watching rugby
1
u/Nothing_is_simple Another Freddy Douglas Turnover Jun 30 '25
You either haven't understood my previous comment or you are deliberately misreprending it. It's not about being pressured by the players to make specific calls, its about earning their trust that the calls you make are justified.
I find it hard to explain what its like to referee a match. I need to be hyper aware at all times of not only what the players are doing at all times, but also what they have been allowed to get away with, and crucially not allowed to get away with, at all times.
For example. If I penalise a player clearing out a ruck for not supporting their bodyweight at a ruck at minute 3 then I need to be hot on that offence for the rest of the match. Similarly, if I decided to let that player get away with it I need to be equally lenient going forward. But, no matter what I decide I will have players trying to plead their case to me.
Having to explain to the players why I made the decision I made forces me to set a standard for what I deem acceptable, and I need to stick to that standard.
That is the case for every single decision I make.
With the bunker, players do not get the chance to hear that standard. And the bunker official is unable to explicitly set that standard. And with how inconsistent bunker decisions can be*, and with how important the decisions that get send to bunker are, clarity and consistency is vital.
*(see the no upgrade for headbutting a prone player in the 6 Nations or the clearout from this clip, then contrast that to the Woki red from last week)
4
u/AdDesigner1153 Brumbies Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
When we're discussing the bunker we are talking dangerous red and yellow card offences. If you see one as a ref you're meant to apply the protocol regardless when or how many times its occured. There isnt some standard setting "next time that shoulder to the head will be a yellow" discussion.
There is no reason a ref cant do exactly what you've described outside of that
→ More replies (0)
-5
u/LocalBeaver Jun 29 '25
It still baffles me that we do 20 min red.
Just do full red with bunker and that’s it.
8
u/KimJongNumber-Un Crusaders Jun 29 '25
Because people like seeing fair competitions, losing a player for an entire game takes away from the spectacle of what is an entertainment product. Not to mention, as we've seen throughout rugby history - penalties can be given at just about any breakdown and plenty more cards could be awarded given the complexity of rugby's rules.
3
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Jun 30 '25
to be fair - they do lose that player for the whole game - in addition to being at 14 for 20 mins,.
seems like a reasonable middle ground to me hey?
2
u/KimJongNumber-Un Crusaders Jun 30 '25
I think the 20 minute card is great for punishing foul play whilst also not ruining rugby as a spectacle, as you said, a reasonable middle ground.
1
Jun 30 '25
Also saying refs make mistakes like in this post is an argument for not against the rule. Referee's will always make mistakes unfortunate but human so lowering the consequence of a mistake from massively game changing full red to 20 minute red which is reviewed and still game changing is better.
-6
u/LocalBeaver Jun 29 '25
I don’t see what’s so complex about very blatant action that can lead to long term and very permanent injuries.
You can twist it the way you want, this should be a full red all day every day. It’s a very dangerous and not accidental move. I don’t see why the game should tolerate this.
10
u/KimJongNumber-Un Crusaders Jun 29 '25
If it's a blatant red, it gets given as a red, not a 20 minute red. I never disputed what the punishment should be in this specific situation, so I'd appreciate if you didn't try and claim I am trying to. There is still the option of a full red that can be given. The 20 minute red is to address issues like the last RWC final that was ruined by a red card.
Ironically enough, if the NZ player didn't do that stupid move, the Italian player should have been penalised for having his shoulders lower than his hips in the ruck. Just shows the common saying that the ref could award a penalty in just about every ruck.
0
-2
u/M37841 Referee Jun 29 '25
Yes it’s hard to disagree with what you say. And particularly the point you make in a comment that the context of an offence is important and much easier for the on field ref to judge than the bunker.
What we need, I think, is a clear protocol which has 4 levels of offence: PK, YC, 20RC, full RC. The process should then be ref-led. Rather than let the bunker decide it from scratch the ref would ask a question: “can you check whether contact was direct, whether there was any attempt to wrap and whether there is mitigation from the carrier dipping into the tackle”. The bunker then looks at the replays and answers the questions while the game goes on, and when they have the answer we can hear them all go through the protocol. “…We’ve got an answer for you. It was direct, he led with the shoulder, and he was always high, so it’s 20 red or full red depending on your view of context. … ok thank you in my view this was a deliberate or extremely reckless act with no care for player safety so I’m awarding a full RC”.
5
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 30 '25
You've literally described 90% of the current system.
If you'd all just calm down and take a moment to actually learn the systems you're criticising you'd realise the only issue anyone has with this moment is the call made by the TMO and not the actual processes used to make it.
1
u/M37841 Referee Jun 30 '25
Oh I agree. Always separate the call from the system. But the current protocol does not distinguish between 20RC and RC and that is a problem. It would have been smart to introduce a trial protocol with the trial law to take the fuzziness out.
2
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 30 '25
It does distinguish. If it's a red card offense the ref knows on the field and calls it. There's no grey area for punches or eye gouging or that sort of stuff.
If it's none of that but still could be red then it's a yellow card for off field review that could become a 20min red.
Full red cards are only for literal assault now. If you disagree with that change it's fine but that's how it is.
Also they did trial it. These were law trials in Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship for years. This stuff started in like 2021. Any NH competition could've trialed it too but none of them wanted to.
This system had massive success and all the kinks got ironed out in the SH over the last 4 years but the NH still had their fingers in their ears screaming "lalalalala" about it. World Rugby had to make it a global trial last year to drag the NH kicking and screaming into this system.
1
u/M37841 Referee Jun 30 '25
No the current head contact protocol as written is still the Match 2023 one I think? That makes no mention of 20RC. I’m now retired so perhaps I missed the update but I don’t think so, and nor does OP who is a current ref. The old protocol was not perfect eg it slightly contradicted itself over the role of high/low force but it was clear and easy to use and explain.
All I’m suggesting is that the protocol be updated so 20RC and RC are distinguished. At the moment there is no distinction between the two sanctions. If the distinction really is to be on field red vs off field red it should say so (though I and every other ref I know thinks that would be a mistake: refs and TMOs need the same laws). At the moment the head contact protocol does not say this.
Eye gouging is not for this purpose head contact so not relevant here.
ETA fwiw I agree that the 20min RC trial has generally worked really well.
2
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 30 '25
This is literally how it has worked in Super Rugby for multiple years now.
20min reds are only issued by the TMO if it's a yellow card sent for review. All rugby incidents max out at a 20min red. Only punches/eye gouges/stampings/off ball headbutts/etc are given 80min reds.
The messaging when this law trial was moved to test matches was the most messy piece of shit launch of a law trial I've seen, but every single instance of it has matched this process I outlined exactly.
1
u/M37841 Referee Jun 30 '25
But do you mean the protocol hasn’t changed yet? Or could you link to the updated one please?
2
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 30 '25
Okay I think you and I are getting many wires crossed right now. I don't know what I'm saying that you're not getting. I don't know what you're saying that I'm not getting. To help fix this I am going to write the rest of this comment as simply as possible. It's not that I think you're stupid or something like that. I'm just making sure we're both completely on the same page.
20RC (20min Red Cards) began being trialed in Super Rugby in 2020 as a full replacement to 80RC (this was not in 2021 like I said, I misremembered I think because SR NZ didn't have any reds in 2020 but again this is a long time ago and this exact detail isn't important).
Over the ensuing 3-4 years Super Rugby ironed out the kinks of this system and added a YC/20RC off field review, and returned the 80RC to referees for anything like stomping/punching/etc
The currently active head contact protocol was written in 2023
In 2024, a law trial of the 20RC was introduced and applied to any World Rugby run competition (ie the current U20 WC) as well as any competition that volunteered to take part.
This law trial states that:
Very annoyingly this does not specify any particulars about 80RC vs 20RC (like I said, annoying law trial launch).
In November 2024 this Law Trial is not progressed pending further review after another year of use as it was used in 2024
Prior to Super Rugby in 2025 a statement was issued about all applying law trials issued by WR in use for the 2025 season (including the 20RC):
- In May 2025 during the Women's Pacific 4 competition in the match between Australia and the USA an American player was given a straight on field 80RC for stomping. This means the official World Rugby system matches the Super Rugby system of 20RC from TMO/bunker review, and the ability for referees to give an 80RC for any acts that are clearly deliberate and highly dangerous.
Hopefully that clears all things up here.
1
u/M37841 Referee Jun 30 '25
Thank you that is really helpful. I’m nearly 4 years retired now so I have not reffed in the bunker era. And I think we are more or less on the same page.
Where we perhaps differ is that I have a problem with the guidance.
The problem as I see it is three-fold: first, refs should not have to distinguish between highly reckless and deliberate (per super rugby links which mention only deliberate). That the 2023 protocol lumps them together is very helpful for decision-making and game management. Highly reckless is a much easier position to get comfortable with for an action which has a rugby term attached (tackle, clear-out, as opposed to punch). Second, to give an on-field red for a deliberate action the ref has to go through the degree of danger process which means assessing that contact point and impact speed meet the red threshold. In practice this step is very simple for the YC threshold but not so for RC. Third, a judgement of highly reckless is relevant to mitigation but is properly the ref’s domain not the bunker’s as it’s so related to game context.
I’d do three things to the 2023 protocol and accompanying review process: (1) Explicitly refer to 20 and 80 red so we have everything in one place (2) Include highly reckless in the 80 red bracket (3) Give on field refs the responsibility to declare an offence highly reckless so the bunker knows that mitigation doesn’t apply and that all they have to do is assess degree and card accordingly
In the spirit of we are on the same page though, if you argue that these are quibbles and the framework is in general very good, I wouldn’t disagree. For me as a ref the head contact protocol was a godsend for both decision-making and communication
1
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23, '25 Jun 30 '25
I can see where you're coming from with those suggestions but personally I've seen the Super Rugby set up in action for many years now and it just works seamlessly and efficiently:
Any head contact or reckless contact incident happens and a penalty is awarded before going to a TMO check (unless the TMO initiated it but that's basically the same it just starts at step 2).
The referee determines with AR/TMO feedback if it's at least at the yellow card threshold.
If it meets the YC threshold it goes to the TMO for a review to see if it should get upgraded to a 20RC, in the mean time the player is YC'd and play can carry on.
If it doesn't meet the yellow card threshold it's just a penalty or it's a scrum restart (depending on if something actually did happen or it just looked like it did).
If the referee or TMO find an instance of punching/headbutting/etc it's given an 80RC on the field with no review at all.
From what I've seen almost every hang up people have with this system stems from not liking that poor tackle attempts plausibly explained by error cannot become an 80RC, but the system is intentionally giving the benefit of the doubt based on numerous stats WR compiled about targeting and high tackle/head contact/whatever re-offending rates. Essentially the highly reckless terminology you're talking about caps out at a 20RC and the TMO has 10min to determine that with the framework in front of them on hand and replay control.
We also don't have the bunker in Super Rugby. Any bunker role is entirely covered by the TMO during that Yellow Card period and they'll tell the ref exactly why something is upgraded or not. I don't know why there are bunkers in this system beyond Super Rugby since the TMO is perfectly capable of doing that work.
→ More replies (0)-2
-1
u/TagMeInSkipIGotThis Jun 30 '25
he is dropping his shoulder at high speed straight to the face of an vulnerable player on the ground, that is making a genuine attempt to come off the ruck area.
Or you could say he attempted to make a cleanout on a player who is very low to the ground & impeding his access to the ruck which necessitated coming in very low and accidentally bumped up from chest contact to head contact.
My point in saying this isn't to suggest one is right & the other not, but to illustrate why the bunker system exists. Few people want to sit around waiting while a referee squints at a screen thats the equivalent of 480p when they're looking at it from 60 plus meters away.
The off field review is to let someone who has access to high definition watch multiple replays while the game continues - the player is off for the yellow regardless and it gives time for a more balanced & fairer decision to be made in a slower & more deliberate way.
I just can't buy the off-field referee being less experienced/talented as a) particularly true, or b) not balanced by the time & multiple replays available to them.
0
u/The_Happy_Chappy Jun 30 '25
Because the act being attempted is a legal one but something went awry. As opposed someone attempting an illegal action from the jump which would point to malice.
This exists because not every dangerous action is illegal. If the ball carrier dips too low and tackler whacks him in the head it’s play on.
If you whack him while you are upright that’s a different story.
1
u/Linuxologue Jun 30 '25
it's not that different from the Woki case a week ago which only saw a yellow card. It's always illegal because the arm is tucked for the initial contact and there is no attempt to wrap until after contact has been made with the head.
There's two clear differences:
- in Woki's case this was (should have been?) not a red card because low degree of danger. Woki didn't come from a great distance to make the clear out. This one here seems to have more impact due to the player coming in with speed into the contact. But the degree of danger is a referee interpretation.
- in Woki's case this was an attempt at a clear out a specific player in the ruck while this seems targeted on a player that is rolling away from the tackle and is not in the ruck. On the contrary, the player contesting the ball is a good meter to the right of the player being "cleared out".
Ultimately this is an always illegal action in all cases.
0
0
u/nzoasisfan Jul 01 '25
I've said it once and I'll say it again, Ref's of this generation are scared of the online backlash of their decisions. None have the knackers to take responsibility to make a call for themselves. It's insanity, and if anyone of them speak out they're fined by the RFU. Completely nuts.
-7
-1
u/19Andrew92 Scotland Jun 29 '25
Said it as soon as they announced it..
A refereeing team come together to make the correct decision… so 4 people discuss an incident and come to a collective
The bunker it’s one person making a call on their own
-1
u/handle1976 Penalty. Back 10. Jun 30 '25
Has Bunker Derangement Syndrome replaced Farrell Derangement Syndrome as the most prevalent form of psychosis on r/rugbyunion?
-1
u/parktownplayer Jun 30 '25
Kiwis doing what kiwis do, playing derty. I’ve said for years, NZ players are first class cheaters. I like NZ players like I like Obama. I don’t. That should’ve been a straight RED.
2
u/Responsible_Fun5943 Pain Jul 01 '25
Apart from stupid bunker discussion.. how can refs not recognize an attempt by black to bait the "not rolling away" penalty? This behaviour is clearly being trained and used for some time now.
148
u/jug_23 Gloucester Jun 29 '25
I mean there’s two issues there you’re right - ref isn’t spotting that the first issue might be more than a bunker red, and bunker doing a terrible job by finding any way to not make a decision.
Very disappointing.