All Blacks v Ireland: Why rugby’s red card system is losing the plot - Gregor Paul

THE KEY FACTS

• Tadhg Beirne’s red card for a head collision with Beauden Barrett sparked debate over rugby’s protocols.
• The incident highlighted inconsistencies in rulings, with calls for more flexibility and empathy in decisions.
• A global trial reducing red cards to 20 minutes preserved the match’s competitiveness and integrity.

Common sense didn’t prevail on the side of the pitch at Soldier Field, but thankfully it did around the World Rugby board table earlier this year to greenlight a global trial for the 20-minute red card and save the test between the All Blacks and Ireland from descending into a catastrophic farce.

As usual, the rugby community has split views about the incident three minutes into the game which saw Irish lock Tadhg Beirne collide with Beauden Barrett, the former’s shoulder making direct contact with the latter’s head.

But those who believe that referee Pierre Brousset and review officer Dan Jones were correct to initially rule yellow and then upgrade to red, are making the arguments of technocrats.

And on this vexed and self-destructive issue of head collisions and the law application framework that referees must follow, rugby doesn’t need to hear any more from the pen-pushers who believe that having the paperwork all in order is significantly more important than the game safely maintaining its physical essence while delivering the promised entertainment factor fans, broadcasters and sponsors are paying top dollar for.

Who rugby needs to hear from and listen to are those who believe greater flexibility needs to be introduced into the protocol so that officials can more easily make empathetic decisions without fear of reprisals from their paymasters.

Or maybe the game just needs better officials, but either way rugby just can’t feel good about itself when a player of Beirne’s calibre and reputational standing is sent off in a fixture designed to showcase the sport to an American audience and drum up interest before the 2031 World Cup, because he was involved in a collision in a collision sport.

This is the entire point of the farce – Beirne was not a willing participant in the collision, and the idea that he was guilty of some gross technical failing for tucking his shoulder as Barrett arrived is nonsense.

The more compelling argument is that Beirne, vastly experienced, reacted as quickly as he could to safely absorb the impact and was doing everything he could do to avoid making contact with Barrett’s head.

If he’d tried to wrap his arms, he’d have made things 100 times worse and so he quite clearly made a split-second decision to protect both himself and Barrett.

Seeing the incident in real time, it was beyond any doubt that Beirne had no realistic timeframe in which to adapt his body position.

Barrett seemingly ran his line with the intent of being a decoy, he went beyond Cam Roigard and was caught by surprise himself when the ball was chucked at him – almost simultaneously as he made contact with Beirne.

Again, the technocrats need to proffer an explanation as to what alternative action they think the 1.98m, 114kg Beirne could have taken, and potentially, too, find some kind of biomechanical expert to prove that it would have been physically possible for the Irishman to have completed the proposed counterfactual.

Or maybe they should just take their lead from Barrett who had a high degree of sympathy for Beirne and quite obviously felt the decision lacked a feel for both the realities of the situation and nature of the game.

“I chatted to him after the game and I had to say sorry,” Barrett said. “He didn’t intentionally try to put a high shot on; it just happened.

“I knew I had a shot to the head, I couldn’t hide from that. I also know he may be punished for it but I’ll support him so it will be mitigated. Hopefully, we’ll see him back sooner than later.”

The only bright spot in this whole ridiculous pantomime is that earlier this year, the leading nations finally made an agreement that red cards should be reduced to a 20-minute sanction rather than the infringing team being permanently reduced to 14 men.

That at least ensured the contest in Chicago retained its integrity and competitiveness, and that no one was forced to endure 77 minutes of inevitability.

But the ability to replace players who have been sent off doesn’t render the whole business of head collision protocol moot.

It’s still nonsensical and damaging for rugby to have such vast discrepancies in the decisions that are reached, and for Siya Kolisi to run 10m and smash into Ardie Savea’s head in the World Cup final and be yellow carded, and Beirne to effectively be run into by someone who wasn’t supposed to have the ball and be red carded.

That’s the bit that maddens fans and upsets players. It’s one ruling today and another tomorrow.

But maybe it’s poignant that there was a controversial red card in Chicago, as it should serve as a warning to World Rugby that if they want Americans to embrace the sport and get behind the 2031 World Cup, they can’t have an uninitiated market trying to decipher what is effectively the Da Vinci Code, and make sense of why collisions which are obviously accidental and unavoidable are branded foul play.

Gregor Paul is one of New Zealand’s most respected rugby writers and columnists. He has won multiple awards for journalism and written several books about sport.