1
'Everyone blames us': Kiwi ref's take on the Ewels' red card
By Ben Smith
Englandās second-minute red card to Charlie Ewels against Ireland has raised conjecture around the punishment for high tackles, with ex-All Black John Kirwan calling for the 20-minute red card rule to be re-introduced globally.
ADVERTISEMENT
Referee Ben OāKeeffe, a guest panelist on The Breakdown, largely agreed with Kirwanās view and offered in an insight into the processes the referee must go through to make the decision.
āI keep saying, itās about the rules and how we need to get rid of some and change some,ā Kirwan said.
Video Player is loading.
āThe red card on the weekend is just another moment where people are paying decent money going to a game and itās being wrecked.
āThe Northern Hemisphere did not want the 20-minute rule. I just think it ruins the game of rugby.ā
Trialled in Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship last year, a team receiving a red card would be reduced to 14 men for 20 minutes, and that player could be replaced by a reserve. The infringing player would not be able to return to the field.
OāKeeffe agreed with Kirwanās assertion that the outcome of a red card should change, but noted the on-field decision in the England game was correct as that is how the officials have been told to referee.
ADVERTISEMENT
āIf we look at this clip here [of the Ewels tackle], itās less than two minutes into the game and it is a red card,ā OāKeeffe explained.
āItās one of the biggest games of the year in the Six Nations. As referees, we are told how we are going to referee these types of tackles.
āWhen a player isnāt in a legitimate position to make a tackle, not bent at the hips, they donāt have their arms up when they are upright, theyāve got to take responsibility of their outcomes and actions.
āThe outcome of that [Ewels tackle], there was direct contact to the head, with force, there was no mitigation. Therefore, the referee has no other option but to issue a red card.
ADVERTISEMENT
āThat would have been a red card in the 78th minute, and unfortunately it was the second minute of that game.
āNow everyone is talking about how it was a great game, but it should have been a great game with 15 on 15.
āIt puts pressure on us because everyone blames us for ruining the spectacle, ruining the games. Itās just the laws at the moment.ā
18 months before the last World Cup, OāKeeffe was part of the group of referees who were consulted about the changes made and the implementation of the high-tackle framework.
The changes caused widespread controversy as the number of cards issued began to rise dramatically. OāKeeffe believes the changes were rolled out too close to the showpiece event for everyone to become familiar with the new laws.
āWe all know that cards impact a game heavily. As referees we donāt want to impact the game but we have got to referee the laws,ā OāKeeffe told The Breakdown.
āBefore 2019, we had a high-tackle framework come out, six weeks out before a competition, the World Cup.
āPlayers didnāt have time to adjust. Referees, we didnāt really have time to probably get that correct either. In the first few rounds, I was involved in a few as well.
āThere was a lot of controversy. We shouldnāt be having controversy in a World Cup. It should be about the players and the teams.ā
OāKeeffe said the new high contact process has a lot more understanding among players and referees alike which has some flexibility and potential mitigation around contact to the head.
Not every incident will result in a red card now, whereas, previously, any contact deemed to touch the head would have been. By the time the World Cup arrives, OāKeeffe believes there will be a better understanding than last time.
āWhatās changed now? So, we are 18 games away, weāve got a high contact process now, which is slightly different, where we go through the points: Is there foul play? Is there head contact? If there is, how much force? is there any mitigation?
āThere is a lot more understanding around if, āOkay, the force is low, it doesnāt always need to be a red card if there is contact to the headā.
āWhereas, a few years ago, if there is contact to the head, it is pretty much automatically a red card, so there is a shift there. There is better understanding from the referees. I think there is better technique from the players, they understand that better.
āI do believe by the time we get to the next World Cup, we are not going to drop too many changes and we should all be better for it.ā
In other refereeing matters, there are growing concerns over the duration of a fixture with the number of incidents that get reviewed in a game.
Queensland Reds coach Brad Thorn was vocal about changes to the game to speed the process up after the first half against the Fijian Drua dragged on for over an hour.
25 penalties were blown by referee Jordan Way, while three yellow cards were given for three separate incidents inside 30 seconds during one lengthy stoppage before halftime.
The approach in Australia contrasts with the initiative underway in New Zealand as the officials actively try to speed up a game by referring less decisions to the TMO.
OāKeeffe says there has been a measurable impact in the difference between the games across the Tasman.
āI agree, we do need to speed the game up, the great thing we have been doing for Super Rugby is we as referees have been doing that,ā he said.
āUp until the rounds so far, there has been about one TMO intervention per game on average in New Zealand where there is about three and a half in Australia, so already there is a difference.
āWe are already saving four minutes of rugby, so we are going in the right direction to speed the game up, but still we need to work on the outcomes of these [red card] decisions.ā
And what about James Ryan who missed the game and will miss the next one. YOu WANT EWELL TO COME BACK ON AFTER 20 minutes
I am English correct decision on red card.
Bad technique head on head not a deliberate shoulder etc.
Referees must take control of decisions. Cut out advising players what they should be doing.
Players must have greater self discipline.
Stop unnecessary TMO and running incident 10 15 times.
STOP players questioning decisions.
TV has a responsibility to stop over analysing decisions.
Eddie Jones stick to coaching.???
Let's see rules that encourage open play and not physical brutal forward domination.
Might then get back to what we all want to see a spectical of exciting competitive rugby š not a focus on referee's.
Rugby is a contact sport and as such players go into the sport knowing the risks involved.. we have to decide if we want the game to improve or player safety we canāt have our cake and eat it.. we donāt change formula 1 so drivers are 100% safe because then we wouldnāt have motor sport.. this may be harsh but the game is completely different to how it was even 10 years ago. The sport is the safest itās been but we risk ruining the game completely in the pursuit of safety.. the game could turn into a touch version. This incident was completely accidental and actually there are more concussion related incidents with players going in too low. Come on WR letās get some common sense here, there is a fear that WR will be sued like the NFL but it was completely different as the NFL hid thier findings from the players and allowed them to play without knowing the risks
Ewell shouldnt be allowed to play til James Ryan can play
Well done for the cliched they're professionals and know the risks comment. Firstly formula 1 has changed for safety - the most obvious example being the halo device but also this years cars have been strengthened for safety making them heavier and slower, no more in race refuelling to reduce risk of fire in the pit lane etc.
In terms of tackling lower being a greater risk of concussion you're right a player using poor technique and getting his head on the wrong side like Tom Davies in the Wales game puts himself at risk but the risk is only to himself. Ryan was taken out the game by Ewels dangerous tackle, and will likely miss a large chunk of time now and yet you say the tackler should be allowed to stay on the field.
The problem is the layering of rule upon rule, so over time we are making the game more complicated and harder for the referee to adjudicate.
When I was playing in the 70's we had the self policing mobile ruck which sucked in the forwards, simplified the game, and backs were backs and forwards were forwards.
Simple: All you heard was the referees whistle for offside, knockon or forward pass.
We didn't hear commands from the referee "use it!" (thank goodness!) or have stoppages to go "upstairs".
The game needs to be simplified to benefit the players, the ref and the spectators!!!
The tackling quality is poor - "around the legs" is still the most effective and safest.