In the Wales vs Argentina Test, we saw one of the clearest examples of why fans have stopped trusting World Rugby’s decision-making.
Pablo Matera cleans out Ben Thomas and holds him on the ground, which Thomas clearly dislikes. As he gets up, Thomas looks directly at Matera’s head, has time to think about his actions, and then throws a kick toward Matera’s head. Matera immediately reacts by touching the spot where the contact occurred, suggesting he felt something.
Play continues, but the incident is reviewed afterwards.
This is where the situation becomes unbelievable.
The TMO chooses poor angles that don’t clearly show whether contact to the head was made. However, what is completely clear is the intent. Ben Thomas intentionally attempts to kick the head of an opposition player. In rugby, intent to strike the head is an always-illegal action and should result in a permanent red card every single time, even without visible force or clear contact.
Instead of focusing on the intent, the review team keeps looking for “clear contact” to determine mitigation. But how can you apply mitigation to a player intentionally trying to kick someone in the head?
The result: only a yellow card.
This becomes even more absurd when compared to the France vs South Africa match, where Lood de Jager received a permanent red card because the officials claimed he had performed an “always illegal action,” removing any chance for mitigation—even though the ball carrier dipped drastically and there was clear mitigation available.
So how does intentional head-kicking get mitigation, but a tackle with significant mitigation does not?
Officiating team:
Referee: Ben O’Keeffe (NZ)
Assistant Referees: Karl Dickson (Eng) & Anthony Woodthorpe (Eng)
TMO: Quinton Immelman (SA)
FPRO: Eric Gauzins (Fra)
These inconsistencies are exactly why fans are losing faith in World Rugby and its decision-making framework.
Thanks to VHA Accounting Solutions for their support of this channel. It allows us to produce the content that we produce!
Under Section 12 of the Copyright Act No. 98 of 1978 (as amended), allowance is made for “Fair Dealing” for purposes such as criticism, review, education, and commentary. Fair Dealing is a use permitted by law that might otherwise be infringing.
The footage used in this video remains the copyright of its respective broadcast rights holders. TASanalytics does not assert any claim of ownership over such material. All clips are used in a transformative manner, incorporating original commentary, telestration, and analysis, and only the minimum necessary portions are shown to illustrate refereeing decisions.
TASanalytics is an independent channel and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to any broadcaster or rights holder. The views expressed in this video are solely those of TASanalytics.