Why Lions' coach Ackermann is wrong on red cards
Taking red card sanction out of the game would turn rugby into a lawless free-for-all, writes James Harrington.
It’s fair to say Lions’ coach Johan Ackermann is no fan of red cards – particularly when they’re handed out to one of his players. Even if the Lions win.
You may have seen last weekend’s incident, in which hooker Robbie Coetzee was sent off following the gentle application of his knee to the facial area of Kings’ flanker Chris Cloete in the 31st minute of the game after the latter blundered dangerously into a ruck.
Coetzee subsequently received a five-week ban after a SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee ruled his intervention, relatively soft though it looked, was intentional.
Coetzee’s guilty plea, apology and remorse earned him a three-week reduction on an initial eight-week ban. That means he will only miss the Lions’ next Super Rugby match against the Sunwolves on July 1.
But Ackermann believes red cards ‘take the contest’ out of a game, which he clearly believes should feature two sides of 15 players battering the bejaysus out of each other for 80 minutes, plus stoppage time for injuries. Forget the referee, he’s intimating, picking the bones out of the resulting bloody mess should be a job for the disciplinary body.
Ackermann said after the citing commission’s decision: “I believe there is enough time after a match to do the whole process of issuing red cards. Giving a player a yellow card during the game is a solution, but a red card takes the contest away, especially at Test match level.”
Never mind that his side walked the match 54-10 despite playing with 14 men for 50 minutes. Which really has Ackermann’s contest argument bang to rights, from the outset.
But, in case he needs further evidence. On the same weekend, Clermont scored twice after Flip van der Merwe was sent off for doing his best to decapitate Teddy Thomas early in the second half of their semi-final victory over Racing 92. Tom Wood’s red did not stop Northampton coming from behind to beat Stade Francais in a Champions Cup qualifying play-off. La Rochelle were minutes away from beating Toulon in their Top 14 semifinal, despite losing Pierre Aguillon after he tried to use James O’Connor’s bleached head as a pneumatic drill in the middle of the pitch.
As for Test matches, England beat Argentina at Twickenham in November 2016 even after Elliot Daly got his marching orders early on.
So, no, red cards don’t always decide games. And they definitely do not ‘take away the contest’.
Ackermann argued these incidents should merit a yellow card only, with any additional sanctions decided after the game. But why should players who do something dangerous or illegal not face immediate sanction? And why should teams whose players do something dangerous or illegal not face the consequences of those sanctions where and when it matters – that is to say, during the game?
Next season’s head coach at Gloucester said: “I know Robbie didn’t mean to hurt the Kings player, he was merely reacting to what was happening in front of him. Robbie is not a dirty player and he’s not that sort of person.”
When World Rugby tightened the tackle laws came in at the turn of the year, there was concern that their outcome-led application robbed referees of discretion to employ common sense.
With some justification. A deterrent only works if it stops intentional actions. Similarly, numerous dangerous-tackle red cards so far in 2017 came after the ball-carrier slipped, or dipped into a tackle.
But referees are beginning to make the distinction between a genuine high tackle – an Aguillon-level clothesline, for example, as opposed to a player’s arm slipping up in a tackle, or the ball-carrier stumbling at an unfortunate moment. Accidentally high tackles are increasingly being taken into consideration.
Sometimes referees get it wrong. Quade Cooper was perhaps unfortunate to see red for a swinging arm in March when his Reds lost, ironically, to the Lions. And that’s unfortunate.
But errors of interpretation, or the polar opposite opinions of protective head coaches to the decisions of referees, is no reason to take away the strongest sanction in a referee’s armoury.
World Rugby made players’ heads no-go areas for a reason – to cut down on the unsustainable rate of concussions in the game. And Coetzee committed an illegal act: he kneed an opposition player in the head. Deliberately. Right in front of the referee. Who was Jaco Peyper. That he isn’t a dirty player and was ‘merely reacting’ to what was happening in front of him is irrelevant – except in mitigation at a later hearing. Besides, it was neither accidental nor unintentional.
Comments on RugbyPass
Four Kiwis in that backline. A solid statement on the lack of invention, risk-taking and joy in the NH game; game of attrition and head- banging tedium. Longterm medical problems aplenty in the future!
1 Go to commentsGood article, I learnt quite a lot. A big sliding door moment was in the mid 00s when they rejected Steve Anderson's long term transformation and he wrote Ireland's strategy instead.
2 Go to commentsHi Dr Nick! I'm worried that I've started to enjoy watching England and have actually wanted them to win their last two games. What would you prescribe? On a more serious note, I've noticed that the standard of play in March is often better than early February. Do you think this is because of the weather or because the players have been together for longer?
10 Go to commentsMy question in all this brett is who is going to wear the consequences of these actions? Surely just getting the sack isn’t sufficient? A teenager working the till at woolies would probably get taken to court if they took $20 out of the till. You mean to tell me that someone can spend $2.6 million and get away with it? Where was it spent? What companies/people were the beneficiaries etc? How is it just being talked about as an ‘oopsie’ and we all just move on and not a matter of the court for gross negligence, fraud, take your pick…
18 Go to commentslove Manu too but England have relied on him coming back from injury for far too long and not sorted the position with someone else long term . It will be a blessing he has gone . Huge shame he was so injury prone . God speed Manu .
3 Go to commentsI agree with Ben Smith about Brett Cameron. The No. 6 position has to be a monster and a genuine lineout option, like Ollivon, Lawes (now Chessum), Du Toit, etc. The only player who fits that bill right now is Scott Barrett. A fit and fizzing Tuipolotu together with one of the young towers, Sam Darry or Josh Lord, would give Razor the freedom to play Barret at 6.
16 Go to commentsOutstanding article, Graham. Agree with all of it. And enjoy the style of writing too (particularly Grand Slap!).
2 Go to commentsI wouldn't pay a cent for that loafer. He just stands around, waiting for play to come his way. He won't make the Wallabies.
1 Go to commentsGood bit of te reo maori Nic. Or is that Niko or Nikora? On the theme of trees the Oaks v Totara. Game plan would be key. I have one but it would cost you.
10 Go to comments> Shaun Edwards’ You should not have to score 30 points to win a game, as exciting as it is. This statement was surprising to me. It is nonsensical .I guess it is a defence coach speaking. But head coach, defence and attacking coaches all work together. They are inseparable. You score more than the opposition to win. It only needs to be one score. You score whatever the game demands, whatever the opposition demand. You defend whatever it takes. The attack coach needs to be able to clock up 30pts if need be.
10 Go to commentsWho’d have thought, not having Farrell & Youngs kicking the ball at every possible opportunity and playing flat and allowing your centres to run and pass would pay off? No one could possibly have seen this coming. FML. It took a LONG time coming but at least that time has finally come. England need to find a backup to Lawrence. Freeman is the best candidate for me, I see no reason why he can't play 12. He's big, strong, fast and has great hands.
10 Go to commentsLove Manu but he's not the player he was and I imagine Bayonne have paid too much money for him.
3 Go to commentsNew Zealand have not beaten England since 2018 and even that was a pretty close shave.
1 Go to comments“a renewed focus on Scottish-qualified players” Scottish-qualified is another way of saying English. England has development more players for the Scotland national Rugby team in the last 4 years, than Scotland has.
2 Go to commentsThis sounds a lot like the old Welsh rugby proverb “Wales never lose. Other teams just score more points.”
5 Go to commentsFinally,at last, Borthwick has done what the whole of England have been crying out for. Ditch the kick chase and let the players have freedom to attack and run with the ball. It was great to see. Ford played really well and for the first time in ages was 5 yards closer to the gainline which then allowed a more attacking position . Pity it has taken 90 odd caps to do so. However, this has to continue and not be a false dawn . One issue. Marcus. With Ford having one really good game in 5 ,is he the answer long term . Smith puts bums on seats and is terrific to watch . How can you leave him out before he departs for France in disillusion . England are in danger of Simmons , Alex Goode , Cipriani , Mercer and now Smith being unable to get a selection ahead of “favourites” of the management regardless of form . Great to see England play so well .
2 Go to commentsCockerill was an abrasive player in the mould of a Georgian front rower who will have the respect of that pack. Looking forward to seeing what he can do with this exciting team, hopefully they can send a message to unions like Wales that money alone doesn't buy you wins.
2 Go to commentsI like the look of those July matches. Hopefully they'll get some good tests in November too.
2 Go to commentsThis is a poor article, essentially just trolling six nations teams
22 Go to commentsConnaught man? How you can write that without blushing.
6 Go to comments