The use of the yellow card

Just the professional foul?

Our wise man from Cheltenham watched Northampton Saints play Gloucester last Saturday and listened to the television commentary. He came up with a report of what happened and what was said, mainly with thoughts on the use of the yellow card.

There was an unusual incident in the Northampton vs Gloucester game.

The referee was playing penalty advantage to Northampton, who tried to spin the ball wide, but got pushed back and lost the ball.

He called play back and turned to run back and mark the spot. The Northampton full back, Bruce Reihana, jogged up with the ball, perhaps to take a quick tap. Olivier Azam, the Gloucester hooker, presumably did not like that idea and so he body-checked Reihana, knocking him to the floor.

This was behind the referee's back, but the touch judge spotted it and indicated the foul.

Here is a transcript of what was then said:

Commentator 1: That's a card. That has to be a card. I'm not sure the referee saw it as he was running away. The touch judge on that far side has seen it. It was silly, cynical, but above all silly.

Touch judge: ... knock him over. The penalty is going to be where it was anyway, I'd just bring him over. You might want a word with number two, and certainly in my opinion...

Referee: Just a word? He's not going to take it that quickly anyway.

Captains, please, captain and 2.

Commentator 1: Well, it sounds like just a word.

Referee: OK, OK, OK let's just relax on this one, fellows.

(To Azam) What you've done is very silly, very silly. You tripped a man up over there off-the-ball, OK? The ball wasn't in play. So we are going to go with the same penalty but you need to be very, very careful, because if you continue to do that, you'll go off. Understand?

Commentator 2: Well, that's lax and I'm not up for a touch judge deciding if it's going to be a quick tap or not. Look.

(Replay starts)

He body-checks him. Reihana is running over there. Northampton should have the option of going quick or not. And then you've got the touch judge saying that he isn't going to.

I'm sorry, touch judge, that's not your decision. That is up to Northampton because they've got the penalty.

Commentator 1: The point is we'll never know. You are right. The officials just can't surmise the situation on the field like that but what they can do is say that is what a yellow-card is for, that kind of cynical play. Northampton will never know. Reihana looked like a man who wanted to take a quick one to me.

Commentator 2: Alas, it's not what the yellow-card seems to be for any more. It's a cop-out when there's violent play and they're not quite certain whether it's red or not.

It seems to me the commentators have got a couple of things wrong.

(1) It is curious that they feel the officials should not try to judge what was going to happen, yet feel able to comment that "Reihana looked like a man who wanted to take a quick one to me." What is the difference? The officials have no option but to try and assess the significance of the offence. Reihana could not take a tap penalty until the referee had marked the spot. So if he said there was not going to be a quick penalty, he would necessarily be right. A dead-ball penalty is awarded where the ball would next come into play, so the spot was going to be the same.

(2) They agreed with the referee that the foul was "very silly". It was clearly deliberate, the player was in effect penalised, and given a stern admonishment. Nobody suggested the play was dangerous. It was what people call a "professional foul", though the term does not appear in the law book.

The ONLY law that provides for a yellow card is Law 10 Foul Play. This offence could come under 10.2 (a) Intentional Offending, for which a penalty, caution, or sending-off are possible. It is even more specific in Law 10.4 (l) Misconduct while the ball is out of play. There had been no previous incidents, and referees do not usually go straight to cards without strong reasons.

Azam was probably lucky, but it was by no means as clear-cut as the commentators would have us believe. In fact it never was true that yellow cards were in law intended for "professional fouls". They have been in use for four years now, during which time commentators have constantly missed this point. You might have thought they would have cottoned on by now!