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 Nick The loss of players to OS, injury and retirement is certainly not helping the Crusaders. Ditto the coach. IMO Penny is there to hold the fort and cop the flak until new players and a new coach come through,…and that's understood and accepted by Penny and the Crusaders hierarchy. I think though that what is happening with the Crusaders is an indicator of what is happening with the other NZ SRP teams…..and the other SRP teams for that matter. Not enough money. The money has come via the SR competition and it’s not there anymore. It's in France, Japan and England. Unless or until something is done to make SR more SELLABLE to the NZ/Australia Rugby market AND the world rugby market the $s to keep both the very best players and the next rung down won't be there. They will play away from NZ more and more. I think though that NZ will continue to produce the players and the coaches of sufficient strength for NZ to have the capacity to stay at the top. Whether they do stay at the top as an international team will depend upon whether the money flowing to SRP is somehow restored, or NZ teams play in the Japan comp, or NZ opts to pick from anywhere. As a follower of many sports I’d have to say that the organisation and promotion of Super Rugby has been for the last 20 years closest to the worst I’ve ever seen. This hasn't necessarily been caused by NZ, but it’s happened. Perhaps it can be fixed, perhaps not. The Crusaders are I think a symptom of this, not the cause
6 Go to commentsNo way. If you are trying to picture New Zealand rugby with an All Blacks mindset, there have been two factors instrumental to the decline of NZ rugby to date. Those are the horror that the Blues have become and, probably more so, the fixture that the Crusaders became. I don’t think it was healthy to have one team so dominant for so long, both for lack of proper representation of players from outside that environment and on the over reliance on players from within it. If you are another international side, like Ireland for example, sure. You can copy paste something succinct from one level to the next and experience a huge increase in standards, but ultimately you will not be maximizing it, which is what you need to perform to the level the ABs do. Added to that is the apathy that develops in the whole game as a result of one sides dominance. NZ, Super, and Championship rugby should all experience a boom as a result of things balancing out. That said, there is a lot of bad news happening in NZ rugby recently, and I’m not sure the game can be handled well enough here to postpone the always-there feeling of inevitable decline of rugby.
6 Go to commentsNo SA supporter miss Super Rugby - a product that is experiencing significant head wind in ANZ - the competition from rival codes are intense, match attendance figures are at a historical low and the negativity of commentators such as Kirwan and Wilson have accelerated the downward spiral in NZ. After the next RWC in 2027 sponsors will follow Qantas and start leaving in droves.
2 Go to commentsLike others, I am not seeing the connection between this edition of the Crusaders and the All Blacks future prospects under Razor. I think the analysis of the Crusaders attack recently is helpful because Razor and his coaching team used to be able to slot new guys in to their systems and see them succeed. Several of Razor’s coaches are still there so it would be surprising if the current attack and set piece has been overhauled to a great extent - but based on that analysis, it may have been. Whether it is too many new guys due to injuries or retirement or a failure of current Crusaders systems is the main question to be answered imo. It doesn’t seem relevant for the ABs.
6 Go to commentsharry potter is set in stone. he creates stability and finishes well. exactly what schmidt likes. he’s the ben smith of australian rugby. i think it could quite easily be potter toole and kellaway for the foreseeable future.
5 Go to commentsThis is short sighted from Clayton if you ask me, smacks of too much preseason planning and no adaptability. What if DMac is out for a must win match, are they still only going to bring their best first five and playmaker on late in the game? Trusting the game to someone who wasn’t even part of planning (they would have had Trask pinned in as Jacomb preseason). Perhaps if the Crusaders were better they would not have done this, but either way imo you take this opportunity to play a guy you might need starting in a final rather than having their 12th game getting comfortable coming off the bench.
1 Go to commentsThanks Brett.. At last a positive article on the potential of Wallaby candidates, great to read. Schmidt’s record as an international rugby coach speaks for itself, I’m somewhat confident he will turn the Wallaby’s fortunes around …. on the field. It will be up to others to steady the ship off the paddock. But is there a flaw in my optimism? We have known all along that Australia has the players to be very competitive with their international rivals. We know that because everyone keeps telling us. So why the poor results? A question that requires a definitive answer before the turn around can occur. Joe Schmidt signed on for 2 years, time to encompass the Lions tour of 2025. By all accounts he puts family first and that’s fair enough, but I would wager that his 2 year contract will be extended if the next 18 months or so shows the statement “Australia has the players” proves to be correct. The new coach does not have a lot of time to meld together an outfit that will be competitive in the Rugby Championship - it will be interesting to see what happens. It will be interesting to see what happens with Giteau law, the new Wallaby coach has already verbalised that he would to prefer to select from those who play their rugby in Australia. His first test in charge is in July just over 3 months away .. not a long time. I for one wish him well .. heaven knows Australia needs some positive vibes.
21 Go to commentsWhat a load of bollocks. The author has forgotten to mention the fact that the Crusaders have a huge injury toll with top world class players out. Not to mention the fact that they are obviously in a transition period. No this will not spark a slow death for NZ rugby, but it does mean there will be a new Super Rugby champion. Anyone who knows anything about NZ rugby knows that there is some serious talent here, it just isn’t all at the Crusaders.
6 Go to commentsI wouldn’t spend the time on Nawaqanitawase! No point in having him filling in a jersey when he’s committed to leave Union. Give the jersey to a young prospect who will be here in the future.
5 Go to commentsIt was a pleasure to watch those guys playing with such confidence. That trio can all be infuriating for different reasons and I can see why Jones might have decided against them. No way to justify leaving Ikitau out though. Jorgensen and him were both scheduled to return at the same time. Only one of them plays for Randwick and has a dad who is great mates with the national coach though.
53 Go to commentsBrayden Iose and Peter Lakai are very exciting Super Rugby players but are too short and too light to ever be a Test 8 vs South Africa, France, Ireland, and England, Lakai could potentially be a Test player at 7 if he is allowed to focus on 7 for Hurricanes.
7 Go to commentsPencils “Thomas du Toit” into possible 2027 Bok squad.
1 Go to commentsDon’t see why Harrison makes the bench. Jones can play at 10 if needed, and there is a good case for starting her there to begin with if testing combinations. That would leave room for Sing on the bench
1 Go to commentsWhat a load of old bull!
1 Go to commentsOf the rugby I’ve born witness to in my lifetime - 1990 to date - I recognize great players throughout those years. But I have no doubt the game and the players are on average better today. So I doubt going back further is going to prove me wrong. The technical components of the game, set pieces, scrums, kicks, kicks at goal. And in general tactics employed are far more efficient, accurate and polished. Professional athletes that have invested countless hours on being accurate. There is one nation though that may be fairly competitive in any era - and that for me is the all blacks. And New Zealand players in general. NZ produces startling athletes who have fantastic ball skills. And then the odd phenomenon like Brooke. Lomu. Mcaw. Carter. Better than comparing players and teams across eras - I’ve often had this thought - that it would be very interesting to have a version of the game that is closer to its original form. What would the game look like today if the rules were rolled back. Not rules that promote safety obviously - but rules like: - a try being worth 1 point and conversion 2 points. Hence the term “try”. Earning a try at goals. Would we see more attacking play? - no lifting in the lineouts. - rucks and break down laws in general. They looked like wrestling matches in bygone eras. I wonder what a game applying 1995 rules would look like with modern players. It may be a daft exercise, but it would make for an interesting spectacle celebrating “purer” forms of the game that roll back the rules dramatically by a few versions. Would we come to learn that some of the rules/combinations of the rules we see today have actually made the game less attractive? I’d love to see an exhibition match like that.
29 Go to commentsIrish Rugby CEO be texting Andy Farrell “Andy, i found our next Kiwi Irishman”
5 Go to commentsI certainly don’t miss drinking beers at 8am in the morning watching rugby games being played in NZ.
2 Go to commentsThis looks like a damage limitation exercise for Wales, keeping back some of their more effective players for the last 20/25 minutes to try and counter England’s fresh legs so the Red Roses don’t rack up a big score.
1 Go to commentsVery unlikely the Bulls will beat Leinster in Dublin. It would be different in Pretoria.
1 Go to commentsI think it is a dangerous path to go down to ban a player for the same period that a player they injured takes to recover. Players would be afraid to tackle anyone. I once tackled my best friend at school in a practice match and sprained his ankle. I paid for it by having to play fly-half instead of full-back for the rest of that season’s fixtures.
5 Go to comments