The brouhaha over Freddie Steward’s red card and its subsequent rescinding places a harsher light on rugby’s laws and application thereof.
The England fullback was sent off in the Grand Slam decider between Ireland and England in Dublin last Saturday, but the red card was overturned on Wednesday by an independent disciplinary commission.
SA referee Jaco Peyper’s decision to show Steward a red card drew wide condemnation as there appears very little the England fullback could have done to avoid contact with Ireland’s Hugo Keenan.
As a collision appeared unavoidable Steward braced himself for impact jumped and turned sideways just before Keenan hurtled into his elbow. No player was injured in the making of that collision, but it was deemed “reckless and dangerous”.
As innocuous as it may seem, two things count against Steward. Once a player is airborne referees consider him out of control. Steward also turned and made no attempt to wrap arms for a tackle.
Once action involving head contact is deemed reckless, no mitigating factors are considered, it constitutes foul play and a red card is the only course of action.
Peyper followed the legal framework provided for head collisions.
In his column in the Telegraph, former top ref Nigel Owens wrote he was confused by the disciplinary commission’s wording in reaching their conclusion to reduce the card from red to yellow. They concede Steward’s action was reckless but still found mitigation. It is important to note the commission operates independently from World Rugby’s referee’s department, who may have a different view.
The match officials in Dublin would have put themselves at risk had they not arrived at the decision they did.
While most observers will be in agreement that Steward’s action carried no malice, the laws of the game now places the accent on whether there had been contact with the head. Equally the laws are less bothered with consequence. Contact to the head may be negligible or innocuous, but often the red end of the sanction spectrum is applied.
As bizarre as it may seem, Peyper and Co arrived at the right decision. They are forced to make deeply unpopular decisions, and end up being the messengers under fire.
The match officials in Dublin would have put themselves at risk had they not arrived at the decision they did.
They are charged with putting into action World Rugby’s aggressive drive to limit head and neck injuries in the game.
Player safety has increasingly come to the fore, especially at a time World Rugby faces litigation from former players who feel aggrieved the game's custodians failed to take reasonable action to protect them from permanent injury caused by repetitive concussion and sub-concussive blows.
Former Wales captain Ryan Jones, erstwhile All Blacks tight head Carl Hayman and England’s 2003 World Cup winning hooker Steve Thompson are part of the group of players diagnosed with early onset dementia and other irreversible neurological impairments.
Earlier this year a group of 225 former professional players have launched legal proceedings against the custodians of the sport, while a separate group of 55 former amateur players have initiated a lawsuit against the game’s controlling bodies in England and Wales, as well as World Rugby.
The laws, especially those involving player safety, are drawn with an abundance of caution.
The Steward saga again illustrated the disconnect between those who make the laws and apply it, from the rest of the sport.
World Rugby needs clearer communication around their laws so that players, coaches, match officials, media practitioners, the public, especially the paying spectator, have a coherent, common understanding of the direction the sport is moving in.
Failure to do so will put this year’s RWC in France, in danger of descending into farce.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.