Force v Drua Round 6

[Braveheart81]

MESAKE DOGE ISSUED OFFICIAL WARNING

The Super Rugby Pacific Foul Play Review Committee (FPRC) has issued Mesake Doge (Fijian Drua) a Warning after finding him guilty of dangerous play in a ruck in contravention of of Law 9.20a.

Doge was cited for the incident, which occurred in the 80th minute of the match between the Drua and Western Force at HBF Park on 23 March 2025.

In their finding, the FPRC deemed the act of foul play was deliberate but merited only a Warning, as it was close to but did not reach the Red Card threshold.


I think this is reasonable. I think it was absolutely a cheap shot but I also don't think it really reaches red card threshold. Likewise I wouldn't have had an issue if he got suspended for one week for it.

 

[LeCheese]

MESAKE DOGE ISSUED OFFICIAL WARNING

The Super Rugby Pacific Foul Play Review Committee (FPRC) has issued Mesake Doge (Fijian Drua) a Warning after finding him guilty of dangerous play in a ruck in contravention of of Law 9.20a.

Doge was cited for the incident, which occurred in the 80th minute of the match between the Drua and Western Force at HBF Park on 23 March 2025.

In their finding, the FPRC deemed the act of foul play was deliberate but merited only a Warning, as it was close to but did not reach the Red Card threshold.


I think this is reasonable. I think it was absolutely a cheap shot but I also don't think it really reaches red card threshold. Likewise I wouldn't have had an issue if he got suspended for one week for it.

Feels a bit like they’re putting the Drua on notice

 

[Wilson]

The warning feels reasonable, but also seems fairly inconsistent - does it limit the mitigation available to him in the future? Go other players committing yellow card level offences get warnings by default? Do they issue warnings to dangerous tackles that don't meet the red card threshold but went unpunished at the game?

I don't have an issue with the warning itself, and the Drua certainly have a growing discipline problem, but this won't help the perception that they're not getting fair treatment, particularly given what went unpunished and unwarned this weekend.

 

[Strewthcobber]

This is the same as a yellow card for purposes of things like cumulative cards etc.

I've been calling for the Citing process to be issuing a lot more Warnings/yellow cards, so this is good.

I do think there should be way more of them handed out though (there were probably 5 or 6 in Tahs v Brumbies alone)

Appendix 4 of Regulation 17
where a Player has received three Temporary Suspensions and/or Citing Commissioner Warnings (or a combination thereof) in a particular tournament or series and/or five Temporary Suspensions and/or Citing Commissioner Warnings in a season of the World Rugby Sevens Series and the Judicial Officer or Judicial Committee is required to consider whether any further penalty should be imposed by reason of the Player’s persistent Foul Play (Regulations 17.9.5 and 17.37.2(a));

 

[Wilson]

This is the same as a yellow card for purposes of things like cumulative cards etc.

I've been calling for the Citing process to be issuing a lot more Warnings/yellow cards, so this is good.

I do think there should be way more of them handed out though (there were probably 5 or 6 in Tahs v Brumbies alone)

I agree on that, I'd love to see a system of loading/accumulation actually used for these yellow card level incidents, I don't think you can do it piecemeal though. It's got to come in at the start of the season, be applied across all the games, and probably come with an official report for each game citing the warnings out of it.

If that's what they think they're already doing then I don't have a clue what decision framework they're working with.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I agree on that, I'd love to see a system of loading/accumulation actually used for these yellow card level incidents, I don't think you can do it piecemeal though. It's got to come in at the start of the season, be applied across all the games, and probably come with an official report for each game citing the warnings out of it.

If that's what they think they're already doing then I don't have a clue what decision framework they're working with.

Citing commissioners can give warnings already (which is a YC). They just don't. There must be a protocol that means they only look at the Red card threshold level incidents

Edit
Looks like this is the framework

Re-thinking your Red Card belief. You have started with a genuine belief that the matter is likely to be a Red Card level offence but on review you find several contributing factors that mitigate it down from a full citing. The actions are still dangerous and exposed the player to risk so you need to sanction them in some way. This is when you can issue a CCW.

Note. This does not work in the opposite direction. i.e. you review a matter that you thought should have been a penalty and decide that it needed a more serious sanction and you issue a Citing Warning as a result.

 

[Wilson]

Citing commissioners can give warnings already (which is a YC). They just don't. There must be a protocol that means they only look at the Red card threshold level incidents

Looks like this is the framework

Doesn't sound like a consistent or fair system fit for this purpose. Seems like they specifically can't issue off field yellows, unless they come from the thinking that it's a red first:

17.9.3 Citing Commissioners shall be entitled to issue a Citing Commissioner Warning to a Player who has in his opinion committed an act(s) of Foul Play which falls just short of warranting that the Player concerned be Ordered Off in circumstances where the act of Foul Play was not subject to a Temporary Suspension or Ordering Off.

A CCW is not an opportunity to right a wrong from the field and issue a Yellow Card that you believe the Referee should have.


As a CCW is issued only for foul play, it becomes part of the player’s disciplinary record along with red cards and citings. The number of CCW’s a player has received is taken into account when a sanction is considered, it is therefore very important to follow the guide in Regulation 17.9.3 above.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Doesn't sound like a consistent or fair system fit for this purpose.

WR (World Rugby) just don't want 10 warnings issued every game and a plethora of players suspended through the season for cumulative YCs

 

[Wilson]

WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby) just don't want 10 warnings issued every game and a plethora of players suspended through the season for cumulative YCs

I understand where they're coming from, but it feels like this is where they should be really making changes to influence behaviour around player safety - the guy making a bunch of yellow card level tackles is generally a much greater danger from a head injury perspective than one who makes a one off red card level tackle and cops a multi-week ban for it. One red card tackle can be a genuine mistake that's unlikely to re-occur, even without extra disincentive, whereas the repeated infringement is a clear pattern and is unlikely to change without intervention.

Possibly it means they need to tweak the thresholds to make it work, but if there are that many yellow card level incidents getting through that it would be a bad look, it's not something they should just be ignoring.