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
Thanks Brett, love your articles which are alway pertinent. It’s a difficult topic trying to have a panel adjudicating consistently penalties for red card issues. Many of the mitigating reasons raised are judged subjectively, hence the different outcomes. How to take away subjective opinions?
4 Go to commentsYes Sir! Surprising, just like Fraser would also have escaped sanction if he was a few inches lower, even if it was by accident that he missed! Has there really been talk about those sanctions or is this just sensational journalism? I stopped reading, so might have missed any notations.
4 Go to commentsAI is only as good as the information put in, the nuances of the sport, what you see out the corner of the eye, how you sum up in a split second the situation, yes the AI is a tool but will not help win games, more likely contribute to a loss, Rugby Players are not robots, all AI can do if offer a solution not the solution. AI will effect many sports, help train better golfers etc.
45 Go to commentsIt couldn’t have been Ryan Crotty. He wasn’t selected in either World Cup side - they chose Money Bill instead. And Money Bill only cared about himself, and that manager he had, not the team.
26 Go to commentsYawn 🥱 nobody would give a hoot about this new trophy. End of the day we just have to beat Ireland and NZ this year then they can finally shut up 🤐
13 Go to commentsTalking bout Ryan Crotty? Heard Crotty say in a interview once that SBW doesen't care about the team . He went on to say that whenever they lost a big game, SBW would be happy as if nothing happened, according to him someone who cares would look down.. Personally I think Crotty is in the wrong, not for feeling gutted but for expecting others 2 be like him… I have been a bad loser forever as it matters so much to me but good on you SBW for being able to see the bigger picture….
26 Go to commentsThis sounds like a WWE idea so Americans can also get excited about rugby, RUGBY NEEDS A INTERNATIONAL CALENDER .. The rugby Championship and Six Nations can be held at same time, top 3 of six nations and top 3 of Rugby championship (6 nations should include Georgia AND another qualifying country while Fiji, Japan and Samoa/Tonga qualifier should make out 6 Southern teams).. Scrap June internationals and year end tours. Have a Elite top six Cup and the Bottom 6 in a secondary comp….
13 Go to commentsThe rugby championship would be even stronger with Fiji in it… I know it doesen’t fit the long term plans of NZ or Aus but you are robbing a whole nation of being able to see their best players play for Fiji…. Every second player in NZ and AUS teams has Fijian surnames… shame on you!!! World rugby won’t step in either as France and England has now also joined in…. I guess where money is involved it will always be the poor countries missing out….
84 Go to commentsNo surprise there. How hard can it be to pick a ball off the ground and chuck it to a mate? 😂
2 Go to commentsSometimes people just like a moan mate!
4 Go to commentsexcellent idea ! rugby needs this 💪
13 Go to comments9 Brumbies! What a joke! The best performing team in Oz! Ditch Skelton for Swain or Neville. Ryan Lonergan ahead of McDermott any day! Best selection bolter is Toole … amazing player
12 Go to commentsI like this, but ultimately rugby already has enough trophies. Trying to make more games “consequential" might prove to be a fools errand, although this is a less bad idea than some others. Minor quibble with the title of the article; it isn’t very meaningful to say the boks are the unofficial world champions when it would be functionally impossible for the Raeburn trophy not to be held by the world champions. There’s a period of a few months every 4 years when there is no “unofficial” world champion, and the Raeburn trophy is held by the actual world champions.
13 Go to commentsIts a great idea but one that I dont think will have a lot of traction. It will depend on the prestige that they each hold but if you can do that it would be great. When Japan beat the Boks (my team) I was absolutely devestated but I wont deny the great game they played that day. We were outclassed and it was one of the best games of rugby I have seen. Using an idea like this you might just give the the underdog teams more of an opportunity to beat the big teams and I can absolutely see it being a brilliant display of rugby. They beat us because they planned for that game. It was a great moment for Japan. This way we can remove the 4 year wait and give teams something to aim for outside of World Cup years.
13 Go to commentsHi, Dave here. Happy to answer questions 🥰
13 Go to commentsDon’t think that headline is accurate. It’s great to see Aus doing better but I’m not sure they’ve shown much threat to the top of the table. They shouldn’t be inflating wins against the lousy Highlanders and Crusaders either.
3 Go to commentsSuch a shame Roigard and Aumua picked up long term injuries, probably the two form players in the comp. Also, pretty sure Clarke Dermody isn’t their coach. Got it half right though.
3 Go to commentsOh the Aussie media, they never learn. At least Andrew Kellaway is like “Woah, yeah it’s great, but settle down there guys” having endured years of the Aussie media, fans, and often their players getting ahead of themselves only to fall flat on their faces. Have the “We'll win the Bledisloe for sure this year!” headlines started yet? It’s simple to see what’s going on. The Aussie teams are settled, they didn't lose any of their major players overseas. The Crusaders and Chiefs lost key experienced All Blacks, and Razor in the Crusaders case, and clearly neither are anywhere near as strong as last year (The Canes and Blues would probably be 3rd & 4th if they were). The Highlanders are annually average, even more so post-Aaron Smith and a big squad clean out. The two teams at the top? The two nz sides with largely the same settled roster as last year, except Ardie Savea for the Canes. They’ve both got far better coaches now too. If the Aussies are going to win the title, this is the year the kiwi sides will be weakest, so they better take their chance.
3 Go to commentsThe World Cup has to be the gold standard, line in the sand. 113 teams compete for what is the opportunity to make the pool stages, and then the knockout games for the trophy. The concept is sound. This must have been the rationale when the World Cup was created, surely? But I’m all for Looking forward and finding new ways for the SH to dominate the NH into the future. The autumn series needs a change up. Let’s start by having the NH teams come south every odd year for the Autumn/Spring series games?
13 Go to commentsWhat’ll happen when the AI models of the future go back in time and try to destroy the AI models of the past standing in their way of certain victory?
45 Go to comments