A change in the guidelines around 20-minute red cards is the reason why Springboks lock Lood de Jager was issued with a permanent red card.
“I think it was a red card, but I don’t know if it was a permanent red or a 20-minute red. That’s probably debatable,” Bok boss Rassie Erasmus said in the post-match press conference after South Africa’s late surge saw them crush France 32-17.
The back-to-back world champions secured the win despite De Jager’s 39th-minute exit after referee Angus Gardner deemed that his dangerous tackle warranted a full red card and did not feel it was necessary to send the incident for a review by the Foul Play Review Officer.
The 20-minute red card
In May this year, World Rugby approved the introduction of a Global Law Trial to allow a 20-minute red card replacement in elite rugby.
“The 20-minute red card aims to maintain the spectacle and competitive integrity of elite matches, while upholding rugby’s unwavering commitment to player welfare. The trial will operate in all elite competitions ahead of a final decision on permanent adoption in 2026,” A statement from the game’s governing body read.
“Under this trial, a player who commits foul play that is not deemed deliberate or intentional will receive a red card and be permanently removed from the game. However, their team may return to a full complement after 20 minutes by bringing on one of their available replacements. This ensures that individual players – not the contest as a whole – bear the consequence of reckless actions.
“Importantly, referees retain the authority to issue a full and permanent red card for any foul play considered deliberate and highly dangerous. Two yellow cards will constitute a 20-minute red card, unless the second offence meets the threshold for a full red card.”
Under the initial adoption of the 20-minute red card, Gardner would have issued a yellow card to De Jager and sent the incident to be reviewed by the Foul Play Review Officer [FPRO] as the tackle met the yellow card threshold.
The FPRO, a fifth official, not the TMO as they are often mistaken for, would then have up to eight minutes to review the incident using all available footage and technology.
They will then advise the referee at the appropriate time that the card should remain a yellow card or be upgraded to a 20-minute red card. An FPRO cannot recommend a permanent red card.
We saw this process play out during the clash between Ireland and the All Blacks in Chicago, with Tadhg Beirne’s tackle on Beauden Barrett.
Springboks: When Lood de Jager will learn his suspension fate and how long the ban could be
Why De Jager’s case is different
So why wasn’t De Jager afforded the same process?
Following the July internationals this year, the protocol was updated, without being disclosed, to include acts of foul play that were always illegal.
“The difference between a permanent red card and a 20-minute red card,” Gardner explains in a World Rugby explainer posted on social media platform X.
“Your permanent red card is your act of thuggery, it’s the dirty acts we see in the game, and it’s the first view that the referee is referred to, and the player is removed from the game.
“The 20-minute red card is a result of a yellow card and an off-field review, and a 20-minute red card is an upgrade decision made by the Foul Play Review Officer.”
He adds: “The 20-minute red card is a more technical offence, a player gets it wrong and is too upright in a tackle, those types of instances.”
While he does a good job in summing up the process, the use of the word ‘thuggery’ is somewhat misleading as it suggests that it’s merely for actions like punching, biting, eye gouging, stamping and so on under Law 9.12.
This was the case initially, but the tweak World Rugby made to the process now includes incidents where the player is deemed to be committing an offence that is ‘always an illegal action with a high degree of danger’.
So when Gardner reviewed De Jager’s tackle attempt, he had to follow the World Rugby Head Contact Process.
If we follow the process, these are the answers that Gardner would have come to:
– Was there head contact? YES
– Is there Foul Play? YES – He is not wrapping his tackling arm. While he makes an attempt with his right, it is the left that makes contact and where he should be wrapping.
– Degree of Danger? HIGH. He makes direct contact with the head of Ramoas with high force.
– Mitigation? NO. This is the pivotal call, because De Jager’s arm is tucked, and makes direct contact with Ramos’ head, mitigation is not considered, as it was always an illegal action. Therefore, no mitigation can be applied, like Ramos’ drop in height and how low De Jager was when going into the tackle.
The crux of it
Had the Springboks lock attempted a wrap with his left arm, he may have escaped with a 20-minute red card, and South Africa would have been able to replace him after that sin-binning period. In fact, he may have even escaped with a lesser punishment, as mitigation would have been considered because he was then doing everything he could to execute a legal tackle (bent down low and wrapping his arm).
The 20-minute red card was introduced with the aim of not punishing teams too severely for players simply getting it wrong, and unfortunately for De Jager, the fact that he leads with his shoulder and a tucked arm means he was never in a position to execute a legal action. The tweak is essentially a change in the application of the law rather than a change in the law to better align with the Head Contact Process.
It’s entirely possible that De Jager would have wrapped his left arm had he made contact with Ramos’ torso instead. Similar styled tackles are made in every single rugby match without punishment because there is no head contact. But much like a player throwing one hand out in an attempt to intercept the ball, tackling in this manner comes with its risks, and it was a bust for the Bok second rower.
The laws are designed to punish outcomes, not intent, and ultimately, the outcome of De Jager’s tackle was that he made a dangerous and always illegal hit in the view of the official.
Planet Rugby reached out to a current elite professional match official to ensure that the technicalities and law interpretations expressed in this article were accurate and fair – which they were.