22-05-2025
Foul play enabler or deterrent? Rugby's 20-minute red card rule set to be made law
The move to permanently implementing a 20-minute red card in all rugby accelerated this week.
The 20-minute red card, one of the most hotly debated topics in rugby, moved forward this week after World Rugby's Council announced that the system was here to stay for the foreseeable future.
After being trialled in a 'closed' environment — meaning specific tournaments and competitions — the Council approved the use of a 'global' trial in all 'elite competitions' starting with the World Rugby U20 Championships in June.
All elite rugby, including this year's British & Irish Lions series in Australia, will be played with a 20-minute red card, as will the women's World Cup in England later this year.
The 'Global Trial Law', as it will be known, is the final step before the system will be fully implemented and added to the laws — pending a final approval by the Council.
'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,' World Rugby said
'The trial will operate in all elite competitions ahead of a final decision on permanent adoption in 2026. 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.'
For players who commit deliberate acts of foul play, such as punching an opponent, and are red-carded, the team will not be able to send on a replacement at all.
Two yellow cards for foul play will also constitute a red card, and a replacement will be allowed. Unless the second offence meets the threshold of a red card.
World Rugby Chair Brett Robinson said: 'Our mission is to ensure rugby is a compelling sport to play and watch. The 20-minute red card preserves the fairness and drama of elite competition by punishing the individual, not the entire team or the spectacle.
'Player welfare is non-negotiable. We monitor data around head injuries, tackle height, and concussion rigorously — and transparently. If evidence ever indicated this trial posed greater risk, we would end it immediately.'
Closed trial success
The fact that the system has moved to a global trial suggests that the data from the closed trial system, which was implemented in specific tournaments and competitions, has been favourably viewed.
Robinson has alluded to the fact that the data, at the very least, has not shown an increase in dangerous play.
Once it went to closed trial though, it would have required a complete failure not to advance to the next step of undergoing a global trial.
World Rugby's stated ambition with the implementation of a 20-minute red card was a 'reimagining of rugby's entertainment factor as part of a wider mission to grow audience share over the next decade'.
Could the race to grow the sport's audience be a factor in lessening the punishment for foul play?
The 20-minute red card, among other lesser proposals, had their genesis in World Rugby's 'Shape of the Game' forum that was held in February 2024.
Sanzaar, the body that governs rugby in the southern hemisphere, adopted the 20-minute red card policy in Super Rugby in 2021.
The system was also implemented in The Rugby Championship in 2022 and has been in place since.
Critics have argued that being lenient on head contact and injuries by allowing a replacement player after 20 minutes, will not make the game safer. But as ever, it's a juggling act between maintaining the integrity of the contest while balancing player welfare needs.
In the modern game, with more emphasis on lowering tackle heights and more camera angles to observe play, dangerous tackles are seldom the result of outright thuggery. In many cases they are accidental, or at worst, a case of poor technique rather than malice.
Should a match be spoiled if a player makes a genuine error? How often have we seen a ball carrier change height in a split second before a tackle is made, resulting in head contact? Giving the referees some leeway through the red card appears to be sensible.
Enhancer or deterrent?
The position can be understood through the prism of commercial value. Games where one player is sent off in the first minute (or later), are unquestionably marred as a spectacle.
That has consequences for fans, broadcasters, and sponsors who spend money on the 'product'. By introducing the 20-minute red card, World Rugby is attempting to mitigate the impact on the game. Red cards almost exclusively stem from foul play.
There are two major concepts at play here: punishment and behavioural change.
The 20-minute red card is certainly a punishment. Playing a quarter of the match with 14 men in a tight Test match is no small matter. If the red-carded player is the team's most vital performer, it's an additional punishment.
So, on the face of it, the 20-minute red card will act as a deterrent anyway, because it is a severe punishment.
But is a 20-minute red card enough of a deterrent to change behaviour? Most head collisions in the tackle situation are the result of poor technique by the tackler.
Leading with the head or being too upright in the tackle are the major reasons for head contact and resultant red cards. But if the tackler is under instruction to stay upright and attack the ball in the carrier's arms to prevent an offload, that fault must be on the coach.
The chances of head collisions are greater if the tackler is upright and/or leading with his head. That's indisputable. If the risk of employing this technique is possibly playing an entire game with 14 men, the coach might rethink his strategy.
If the consequence is less severe — 20 minutes in the sin bin — the coach might deem the risk acceptable and therefore behavioural change would not happen. DM
