Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

The Nigel Owens verdict on 'always illegal' Sam Prendergast yellow

Ireland's Sam Prendergast looks on from the sin bin last Saturday (Photo by Ben McShane/Sportsfile via Getty Images)

Retired Test referee Nigel Owens has delivered his verdict on the much-debated yellow card brandished last Saturday to Ireland’s Sam Prendergast. The 21-year-old was sin-binned by referee Hollie Davidson just eight minutes into his first international start for his shoulder-to-head contact with Fiji’s Kitione Salawa.

ADVERTISEMENT

The incident was the reviewed in the foul play bunker and the decision was taken that the punishment should remain at a yellow card. This outcome infuriated Fiji coach Mick Byrne, who believed that Prendergast, who came back on to help Ireland to their 52-17 win, should have seen red.

Reviewing the collision on the latest edition of Whistle Watch, Owens explained why the decision was reached to leave the sanction at a yellow card, claiming there was a low degree of danger in the head contact which mitigated the punishment down from a straight red card.

Video Spacer

Boks Office – Looking ahead to 2025 | RPTV

The Boks Office crew look ahead to what’s next for the Springboks in 2025. Watch the full show on RugbyPass TV now

Watch now

Video Spacer

Boks Office – Looking ahead to 2025 | RPTV

The Boks Office crew look ahead to what’s next for the Springboks in 2025. Watch the full show on RugbyPass TV now

Watch now

However, he acknowledged why there was much debate that the ‘tackle’ wasn’t judged to be a 20-minute red card, which would have meant Prendergast would have been unable to return to the field of play but Ireland would have eventually been able to replace him and restore the match to a 15-versus-15 contest.

“A lot of you have been talking about the Prendergast shoulder-to-head tackle,” began Owens on the World Rugby video series. “Do we have direct contact with the head? Yes, we certainly do, so we have foul play. What we also have here as well is an illegal action and this is probably now what has caused a lot of the debate between whether it should be a red or should be a yellow.

Fixture
Internationals
Ireland
52 - 17
Full-time
Fiji
All Stats and Data

“Because the actions are always illegal, so he goes in with a shoulder tucked in, there is no legal time to wrap so mitigation does not play a part, so the question all of you are asking now is does this reach the yellow card threshold? Yes, it certainly does and it goes to the bunker.

“But the big question is, why was it not a red card? So can you have a yellow card even though it’s foul play, there is no mitigation because the action is always illegal? Well, the answer is yes you can. It all comes down on the day to whether officials feel that the actual contact with the head was a high degree of danger. So if it’s a high degree of danger there is no debate whatsoever, it will be a red card.

ADVERTISEMENT

“But because the officials felt that even though it was always illegal and there is contact with the head, they didn’t feel it was a high degree of danger and therefore that is how it remained at a yellow card. But it all comes down to do you think that the high degree of danger was enough to warrant a 20-minute red card?

“Hmmm, well a lot of you think it is and you are not wrong although others of you think it’s a low degree of danger and therefore, like the officials on the day, it remained at the yellow card.”

Watch the highly acclaimed five-part documentary Chasing the Sun 2, chronicling the journey of the Springboks as they strive to successfully defend the Rugby World Cup, free on RugbyPass TV (*unavailable in Africa)

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

7 Comments
E
Ed the Duck 11 days ago

Inconsistency is the issue that plagues world rugby. Compare the Prendergast decision with Scott Cummings recent 20 min red vs SA. SC was deflected in his clear out by a Bok player standing up on the wrong side as Cummings came over the top of him mid clear out. As a result of the deflection Cummings fell off the side of the player he was clearing out and landed on that players lower leg. It wasn’t a serious injury so there was evidently no high degree of danger, similar to prendergast’s contact to the Fiji players head. If anything prendergasts’ action was worse since it was never legal but Cummings started his clear out legally and only moved to illegal inadvertently as a result of an opposition players illegal actions.


How difficult can it be to have some measure in consistent application of the laws…???

t
tt 11 days ago

The difference should be about intent. Prendergast always intended to shoulder charge and opponents head. Even if it was just a glancing blow it was done to deliberately harm the player. Cummings was accidental but still foul play because he still managed a croc roll. The latter is a yellow but regardless of degree of danger the former should have been a red, if not a full red.

B
Bull Shark 11 days ago

Nigel fails to mention that, in addition to whether the act had a high degree of danger of injury to the Fijian player - which it was correctly deemed not to - upgrading to a red would present a high degree of danger to the Irish team’s overall performance.


So it wasn’t upgraded to red.

t
tt 11 days ago

Disagree. The safety of the Irish team must be a consideration for the player who committed foul play.

T
TM 12 days ago

The real problem is, Radradra getting his yellow card upgraded to red while Prendergast stayed at yellow, this is the TMO responsibility. Fiji would have felt very unfairly treated. I thought the referee (Holly Davidson I believe), seemed to favour Ireland on any 50-50 calls in the first half, especially when penalizing Fiji at a scrum, when they were moving forward. It felt like someone had a word at half time, because for the first 15 minutes of the second half, she seemed to favour Fiji with the 50-50 decisions, including a scrum penalty that should have gone to Ireland, until reverting back to Ireland for the final 25 minutes.

J
Jon 12 days ago

Nigel didn't say what he thought. Was it a high degree of danger or not? Red or Yellow???

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 50 minutes ago
'It doesn’t make sense for New Zealand to deny itself access to world-class players'

There are a couple of inadequacies in this articles points as well.


First

Robertson, in what he has said publicly, is building his argument for change as a means to close the gap that is increasing between the All Blacks and South Africa.

Based on recent performances, the All Blacks are better than the Springboks.


Second

Both games saw the All Blacks lead coming into the last 30 minutes, only for the momentum to shift dramatically once the two sides emptied their respective benches.

The failings of the second half were game plan related, they happened regardless of whether the bench had yet (play got worse very early in the half, even in the first half) been used or not.


And third

Robertson’s view is that because the Boks don’t lose access to their experienced players when they head offshore, it gives them an advantage

Didn't Razor have the most experienced team all year?


Also

“Sam Cane and Ardie Savea with Wallace Siti, what a balance that is.

This is part of Razor's problem. That's a terrible balance. You instead want something like Sam Cane, Hoskins Sotutu, Wallace Sititi. Or Ardie Savea, Sititi, Scott Barrett. Dalton Papaili'i, Savea, Finau. That is balance, not two old struggling to keep up players and an absolute rookie.

It has changed. Not many go north, more go to Japan, so how do we get the balance right to ensure that players who have given loyalty, longevity and who are still playing well

Experience is a priceless commodity in international rugby and New Zealand has a system where it throws away players precisely when they are at their most valuable.

You mean how do we take advantage of this new environment, because nothing has effectively changed has it. It's simply Japan now instead of Europe. What's it going to be like in the future, how is the new American league going to change things?


Mo'unga is the only real valid reason for debating change, but what's far more important is the wide discussion happening that's taking the whole game into account. The current modem throws players away because they decided to go with a 5 team model rather than a 12 or 14 team model. Players have to be asked to leave at the point were we know they aren't going to be All Blacks, when they are playing their best rugby, reached their peak. In order to reset, and see if the next guy coming through can improve on the 'peak' of the last guy. Of course it's going to take years before they even reach the departing players standards, let alone see if they can pass them.


What if there can be a change that enables New Zealand to have a model were players like Jamison Gibson-Park, James Lowe, Bundee Aki, Chandler Cunningham-South, Ethan Roots, Warner Dearns are All Blacks that make their experienced and youth developemnt the envy of the World. That is the discussion that really needs to be had, not how easy it is to allow Mo'unga to play again. That's how the All Blacks end up winning 3 World Cups in a row.

29 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'Razor's conservatism is in danger of halting New Zealand's progress' 'Razor's conservatism is in danger of halting New Zealand's progress'
Search