ON THE BALL: The new rules to try and make rugby safer, ignore rule number one: rugby is a contest between two teams of an equal number of players each, says Lucky Maree.
When the Springboks take on the All Blacks in Mbombela this weekend, who will be the most powerful man on the field? Eben Etzebeth? Patrick Tuipulotu? Who is the most influential man on the field? Handré Pollard? Beauden Barrett?
Not even close. The most powerful and the most influential man on the field, will be Australian referee Angus Gardner.
The elaborate new carding system that is being considered and has been implemented in some parts of the world is simply a more complicated version of the system we imported from football in 1995.
The new red card rule calls for a player to get sent off for 20 minutes and he can then be “tactically replaced” by another player. Experts can’t agree if this new version of the red card will make the game safer.
But rugby is a game played by an equal number of players per side. The positions are very specific with most positions having highly specialised tasks.
Forcing a team to play with fewer than a full complement of players distorts and influences the outcome of a game.
There are many examples of cards affecting play, but England lock Charlie Ewels being shown a red card after just 82 seconds against Ireland in the Six Nations in March is a classic example of how a match and a competition can be influenced.
In the sevens semi-final at the Commonwealth Games on Sunday the All Blacks ended up playing with five players for almost the last two minutes of the game. And Fiji won a very closely contested game by one score.
And who makes those decisions? The referee. There is a saying that says if you put a gun in a man’s hand, sooner or later he will pull the trigger.
There are two principles involved. Firstly, without any doubt rugby has to be made safer. Secondly, rugby is a game for an equal number of players per side.
Consider the example from Sunday’s very crucial match that Fiji won in extra time. What if the referee could sight a player rather than send him off? The player keeps playing and a panel of experts decide after the match if the player should be punished and how.
They could dismiss it as a mere rugby incident, or it may lead to a fine or a ban for a period of time.
What a deterrent! Imagine Beauden Barrett being banned for three matches. That would be a massive punishment, but for the next match, the team would be back without him, but with a full team.
And the card system in rugby has progressed to an unnatural level. A player puts out his hands to intercept the ball. If he catches it he is a hero, if he knocks it forward it is described as a deliberate knock-down and results in an automatic (yes, automatic) yellow card.
In a recent match, Jaco Peyper, a ref who seems to have a twitchy trigger finger, was heard on the field-mic saying: “I also don’t like it but it’s the rule.” Correct Mr Peyper, nobody likes it!
What about somebody being tackled in the air? That is foul play, yes, but how did it automatically become deliberate foul play? Why don’t the refs make a distinction between deliberate and accidental?
And more than anything else – can the rule makers, please agree that a game of rugby has an equal number of players on either side!
Image source: @MoneyMan
