Gregor Paul: The stats that prove rugby's red card rules aren't working

Red card inflation has been higher than actual inflation, writes Gregor Paul. Photo / Photosport

OPINION:

There was a time when a red card was a rare sighting in a rugby match – the ultimate sanction handed out only for truly heinous acts.

A punch to the face, a stamp to the head and a wandering finger to the eye met the red card threshold and being sent off was something which used to carry a sense of shame and disgrace for having done something reprehensible.

But only occasionally did we see anyone mad or bad enough to indulge in that sort of grotesque nonsense and when they did, no one defended the perpetrator or felt the punishment was unjust.

But in the last five years or so, the definition of foul play has broadened to include high tackles, dangerous cleanouts and collisions in the air.

And as a result, red card inflation has been higher than actual inflation.

The 2019 World Cup, for instance, saw eight red cards brandished, which compares with one in 2015 and two in 2011.

There were five red cards in the 2020 Six Nations and four in 2021, while a total of six had been shown in the 20 years between 2000 and 2019.

Super Rugby so far has already seen seven men sent off and World Rugby's great hope that red cards would ultimately prove to be a deterrent against taking a high body position into collisions, has so far not proven to be the case.

Instead, by lowering the threshold for what constitutes a red card offence, more red cards have been shown.

Hardly any of the red cards shown in the last five years have been for conscious, malicious acts of thuggery and not all of them either have been to punish conscious, avoidable head impacts that were the result of poor technique, poor judgement or laziness.

Some, such as the one shown to Caleb Clarke last weekend at Eden Park, fall into entirely grey areas which are difficult to classify as preventable, careless or reckless.

Blues' Caleb Clarke was sent off for his collision Moana Pasifika's Tomasi Alosio. Photo / Photosport

No one could mount a convincing argument that Clarke had any other intent but to charge down a kick or that it was reasonable for him to process that the consequence of his actions would be to collide with Tomasi Alosio the way that he did.

Not everyone likes this or buys into it, but that particular incident was a freak accident – a consequence of super charged athletes making split-second decisions in a collision sport.

World Rugby has taken the view that player safety, however, can't be compromised in the nuance of legal arguments.

The head is sacrosanct and whether it be struck via a punch, a stamp, a malicious or lazy high tackle, a poorly executed cleanout or a legitimate attempt at a charge-down, the outcome is going to be a red card.

But if rugby wants to remain a valid entertainment option and grow its audience, then it must decide on whether it can balance player safety against the desires of its fan base to see fair and genuine contests.

It can cling to this idea that in time its blanket red card policy will lead to improved techniques, better habits and better decision-making and fewer head collisions.

Or it could process the data to date and conclude that the red card framework is too regularly capturing innocent or blameless victims in its net, and often unnecessarily robbing the paying fan of the legitimate contest they want to see.

The Southern Hemisphere clearly believes the red card has become a heavy-handed, blunt instrument - and that for every genuine offender that is punished, so too is there a victim such as Clarke, which is why Super Rugby is being played under an experimental ruling that a team can replace a player sent off after 20 minutes.

The impact of that has been significant because the team which has suffered the red card has won six of those seven games.

A red card in Super Rugby requires a team to dig deep, to adjust, to battle through a prolonged period where they will be at a numerical disadvantage.

It deepens the intrigue rather than kills the contest, but it's apparent that not everyone is prepared to see it this way.

The Northern Hemisphere rejected the chance to play the Six Nations under the same red card rules and the evidence of Super Rugby is being used to strengthen the argument that the 20-minute ruling is not a viable sanction, especially when we compare the outcomes of games where players can't be replaced after being shown a red card.

Statistically, it has proven almost impossible for a side to win a test if they are shown a red card in the first half or even with 30 minutes of the game left.

Some may see that as justice, but it is a hard argument to make stick if the red card is shown for what many may see as a genuine accident – an unavoidable and acceptable part of a collision sport.

There is then, a big, big decision looming because at some stage between now and the World Cup, the governing body is going to have to decide whether to globally adopt the Super Rugby ruling or continue to risk the wrath of its fan base which is increasingly the real victim of the current red card framework.