{"id":199519,"date":"2025-06-20T09:35:19","date_gmt":"2025-06-20T09:35:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/199519\/"},"modified":"2025-06-20T09:35:19","modified_gmt":"2025-06-20T09:35:19","slug":"explaining-the-new-off-field-sanction-process-in-effect-for-the-lions-tour-and-july-tests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/199519\/","title":{"rendered":"Explaining the new off-field sanction process in effect for the Lions tour and July Tests"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Closely mirroring the southern hemisphere disciplinary process, a new off-field sanction process has been approved as a closed trial across World Rugby competitions, the British and Irish Lions<\/a> tour, and the upcoming international window starting on 21st June with the England<\/a> XV v France<\/a> XV game.<\/p>\n

Brian Hammond, legal counsel at World Rugby, explains the background to the changes and what we can expect to see in the coming weeks of Test action.<\/p>\n

So, a new Foul Play Review Committee (FPRC) is being introduced, what was the thinking behind that?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The main focus is to streamline the disciplinary process and speed it up in what we hope will be the majority of the cases, while also cutting out the white noise that fills the vacuum in what can be a four-day period between a very public red card and a disciplinary decision being published. That\u2019s the feedback we\u2019ve had from the game.<\/p>\n

\"Fiji,A 20-minute red card has already been introduced at international level, chiefly for non-deliberate acts of foul play (Photo by Dan Mullan\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n

To give you a bit of legal context, the disciplinary process mirrored the English legal system, so it ran like a mini trial, just less adversarial. The player gives evidence and we can respond to it. The feeling was there\u2019s more formality than the modern game needs. This new approach makes dealing with issues more rugby focused, in essence without getting tied up in time-consuming legalese.<\/p>\n

Is this related to the 20-minute red card that\u2019s been rolled out in the past year?<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is crossover because the 20-minute red card and off-field sanctioning changes were being considered by World Rugby Council together initially, but while the 20-minute red card went to closed trial a little earlier, the off-field sanctioning needed a bit more time. A year on, we\u2019re now ready to roll out the changes ahead the Lions tour to Australia, the U20 World Championships, the July International Window, the Pacific Nations Cup, and the Women\u2019s World Cup, over a trial period the results of which will be reviewed before 2026. In that time there will be plenty of feedback on what works, what doesn\u2019t and we can tweak certain areas before it goes to global trial.<\/p>\n

Was it a race against time to get it rolled out before the Lions tour?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Not really, no, the Lions came to us to ask us to manage the disciplinary programme which we have been doing for multiple Lions series. This includes disciplinary arrangements, appointing match officials and appointing citing commissioners.<\/p>\n

\"\"Andy Farrell\u2019s British and Irish Lions will play under the new process on tour in Australia (Photo by PA)<\/p>\n

For clarity, on this Lions tour we have appointed seven members of the World Rugby Judicial Panel to sit on the Foul Play Review Committee \u2013 two judicial officers and five panel members. The majority have been involved in foul-play review committees with Super Rugby Pacific<\/a> and are all hugely experienced.<\/p>\n

Remind us, how did the \u2018old\u2019 system work?<\/strong><\/p>\n

If we take the Lions, there have been a few contentious incidents over the years. James Horwill<\/a> was cited in 2013. We saw a red card for Sonny Bill Williams<\/a> for a high shot on Anthony Watson<\/a> in the second Test in 2017 and there was controversy about whether Cheslin Kolbe<\/a> ought to have been cited for making contact with Conor Murray<\/a> in the air on the most recent tour four years ago, but let\u2019s talk hypothetically for now.<\/p>\n

\"\"Then-Australia captain James Horwill was cited after the Wallabies lost the first Test to the 2013 Lions (Photo by Cameron Spencer\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n

Say a Lions player got a red card in the first Test, he would be required to appear at a full disciplinary hearing before a three-person panel (one is a judicial officer who is legally qualified, and the other two are highly experienced rugby people, for example ex-players or ex-coaches). This could ordinarily take two days to schedule depending on the player\u2019s availability. The player or his legal representative would have the right to send in a written submission as to why he doesn\u2019t think it\u2019s a red card and why he doesn\u2019t think it\u2019s foul play. We go into a hearing which can take a couple of hours, we look at clips and all evidence from the match official reports, including any submissions the player or his legal representative wishes to make. Then the panel retires to consider everything they\u2019ve heard and seen and come back in and to deliver their decision.<\/p>\n

What is going to change with the new FPRC process?<\/strong><\/p>\n

What this now looks like is shortly after the final whistle a foul play review committee comprised of one legally qualified Judicial Officer and two other highly experienced rugby people will convene if there\u2019s been a red card or citing. The player can provide their submission on what they say happened and we as World Rugby don\u2019t reply to it. If you take that Lions player example, if he gets a red card for a high tackle, and it\u2019s what we\u2019d call a technique error, something like a fatigued tackle, and the FPRC proposes a three-match sanction, he may decide to accept that proposed sanction and there is no further need for a hearing.<\/p>\n

Are we looking at technique failures more than serious offences?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Not exactly, they will look at all foul play but for the more serious incidents, they may decide to refer it for a full hearing to get the full facts. The foul play committee in this example would meet on the following day, the player could send in a statement to say, \u201cthere was a change in body height, I didn\u2019t mean to do it\u201d, or whatever he says the mitigation should be.<\/p>\n

\"\"Tempers flared after Cheslin Kolbe\u2019s challenge on Conor Murray during the 2021 series in South Africa (Photo by David Rogers\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n

The committee would look at the statements, the match clips, and no-one else would be present in the room. They\u2019d say, \u201cit looks like a three-match suspension, but we can offer him three, with one off for the coaching intervention\u201d. That comes back to the World Rugby Disciplinary Officer, which is basically me, and I would then speak to the team manager, to say, \u201cthe foul play committee has proposed a sanction of three down to two, does the player accept it?\u201d If the player says, \u201cfine, I accept that\u201d, perfect. He can go off to do a coaching intervention course and it\u2019s case closed. The sanction starts immediately. It doesn\u2019t have to go to a hearing and all the complications that entails in a game week.<\/p>\n

However, if he appeals it and says, \u201cno, I don\u2019t agree with that, I don\u2019t think that\u2019s right\u201d, it will then go to the more traditional disciplinary hearing. That option is still available to a player.<\/p>\n

Okay, makes sense, what is the nub of rolling out this new FPRC?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The whole purpose is to expedite the process. It emerged from the Shape of the Game conference in 2024. It was agreed then the process needed to be more efficient and the recent Council decision is where we ended up. The idea you could have a disciplinary hearing three or four days after a match is just not conducive to modern sport. When you factor in an appeal, there\u2019s a chance players could be finding out the final decision the night before the next match. That\u2019s simply not good for anybody.<\/p>\n

If the player and team manager decide that the outcome before a disciplinary committee is likely to be the same as the FPRC decision, they are more likely to say, \u201clet\u2019s just accept it and move on\u201d, helping the coach with clarity on selection policy and training arrangements ahead of the next game. The names of the FPRC members will be on the public decision for full transparency.<\/p>\n

What other benefits does the FPRC have?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Most importantly, it fills that vacuum created by media and fans, because once you put out a press release to say there\u2019s a hearing on Tuesday, you have three days of claim and counter claim, all played out in the media, mass confusion and social media dis- or mis-information, with screengrabs, different angles and the like. It can be trial by social media and doesn\u2019t help a fair process for the player.<\/p>\n

\"OwenMedia speculation was rife when England kingpin Owen Farrell<\/a> was sent off, sparking a lengthy disciplinary process, against Wales<\/a> a month before Rugby World Cup<\/a> 2023 (Photo David Rogers\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n

Over the next 12 months, we hope to get credible data which shows that a high percentage of disciplinary issues can be sorted out in 24-36 hours, rather than rumbling on into midweek.<\/p>\n

Are there any precedents?<\/strong><\/p>\n

We had seven cards and citings across last year\u2019s U20 World Championship and Trophy, PNC and the WXV, and even though it was a slightly different system \u2013 we had two and four-match sanction options \u2013 all of them were accepted and no one appealed, which indicated to me at least, that there was a willingness to get it done and dusted swiftly.<\/p>\n

How about any areas where the FPRC cannot act?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The committee can recommend a sanction, they can issue a warning, or they can refer a matter to a full hearing. However, if it\u2019s something more serious, for example serious foul play or match official abuse, then it\u2019s highly likely the FPRC would refer it to a disciplinary committee for a full hearing.<\/p>\n

Are there any other changes we need to know about?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Well, the FPRC cannot overturn red cards. If they want to overturn a card or citing, it has to be referred to the disciplinary committee, who will consider it. Other details of note include the citing window being reduced to 12 hours with teams having four hours for referrals to the citing commissioner which will facilitate earlier meetings of the FPRC.<\/p>\n

While the timings of FPRC meetings for each competition and fixture will vary, for the Lions tour the FPRC will meet within 17 hours of the final whistle and any hearings will be completed within 48 hours, reflecting the midweek games and single nation nature of the tour. I have full confidence the FPRC will run smoothly, so fingers crossed it helps the modern game.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Closely mirroring the southern hemisphere disciplinary process, a new off-field sanction process has been approved as a closed…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":199520,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4102],"tags":[4151,79,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-199519","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-rugby","8":"tag-rugby","9":"tag-sports","10":"tag-uk","11":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114715015789840819","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199519","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=199519"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199519\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/199520"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199519"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199519"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199519"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}