In the days since the All Blacks’ defeat at the hands of the Springboks in the climactic Rugby World Cup final, Wayne Barnes, the match referee, and Television Match Official (TMO) Tom Foley, have been under a microscope for their decision to upgrade a yellow card shown to Sam Cane to a red one. They have been the unfortunate target of critique due, in part, to a common misunderstanding of the decision-making process for such circumstances. It isn’t the referee or the TMO who has the final say in such incidents, but rather, the Foul Player Review Bunker and the appointed Foul Play Review Official (FPRO).
The question may arise, “What sets the FPRO apart from a TMO?” World Rugby posits an eloquent explanation, allowing the referee to remain the leading decision-maker throughout a match but empowering him with the means to refer any foul play incidents, that do not conclusively merit a red card after two big screen replays, to the FPRO stationed in the ‘Bunker’. If the referee deems an incident to fulfil at least the requirement for a yellow card, he will conspicuously cross his arms – a motion for a formal review – and the player in question will be banished to the sidelines for a ten-minute sin-bin period. This allows the FPRO to meticulously analyse the incident, availing himself of every available footage and state-of-the-art tech tools, including a split screen and zoom facility by Hawk-Eye, to ascertain the legitimacy of the referee’s decision. The conclusion then reaches the match officials who either reaffirm the yellow card, allowing the player to reenter the game, or escalate it to a red card, spelling the end of that player’s involvement for the rest of the match. These verdicts are then made public, exhibited on the big screens in the stadiums and marked on broadcast graphics.
However, the difference between a TMO and an FPRO is intrinsic to the role. A TMO’s responsibility lies in reviewing and adjudicating events during the match while the game continues. An FPRO, on the other hand, decides whether a serious offense merits a red card.
For the Rugby World Cup final, the FPRO was stationed at a Bunker, a good 15 kilometres away from the hallowed turf of Roland Garros. As for who had the final say in the decision-making process, it remains shrouded in mystery. It is known, however, that the FPRO was chosen from the team of TMOs forming part of the tournament’s officiating crew. They narrowed it down to either Brian MacNeice of Ireland, Ben Whitehouse from Wales, Brett Cronan from Australia, or Ireland’s Joy Neville.
Sam Cane’s tackle on South Africa’s Jesse Kriel was sighted by TMO Foley, who believed it was beyond doubt that it deserved at least a yellow card on grounds of “direct head contact”. The path became murkier when trying to determine whether it constituted a red card offense, setting the eight-minute countdown for a decision by the FPRO in motion.
The anonymous FPRO, through the lens of World Rugby’s Head Contact Process law application, declared the tackle as being heightened in danger and unmitigated. The call was, also, by the technical interpretation of the laws, deemed to be correct. Yet, one could assess a degree of mitigation in that Kriel was bent over when the contact occurred and the force involved was quite minimal. Although Kriel was unmoved by the impact and didn’t require a head injury assessment (HIA), the laws demand a “sudden/significant” drop in height for it to be justified.
Another questionable call by the FPRO was the non-upgrading of a yellow card shown to Springboks captain, Siya Kolisi after a head-to-head clash with Ardie Savea. Working in Kolisi’s favour was that there was deemed to have been a “change in dynamics in the tackle” by another player’s entry into contact. First, there was contact with Savea’s shoulder followed by the head, and Kolisi had lowered his hips a fair deal more than Cane.
In retrospect, one may argue that it was the right call. However, as with many such instances, the decision was filled with contention, given numerous similar instances have resulted in a red card either being given straight away or upgraded from yellow. Once again, the sport’s laws and their implementation fall under the dissecting gaze of scrutiny. Reflection should lead to clarity and a considered understanding of the system and the complexity of the decision-making process. One thing is clear, though: the stakes are always high in the high-intensity sport of rugby.
