The views expressed in this article are those of senior rugby writer Brenden Nel, and do not necessarily reflect those of SuperSport
It would be an understatement to say the red card to Springbok lock Lood de Jager has divided rugby fans and pundits across the globe, but the way it was handled raises so many more questions about World Rugby’s push to punish head high shots than it does the actual incident in the game.
To begin with, let’s state a few facts. Nobody wants players injured in rugby games, and nobody wants a player to sit with dementia or any other consequence of knocks to the head after their rugby career.
Rugby needs to be safer, and that in itself is a worthy cause, but the way the game has tacked head shots has often been without common sense and left fans, coaches and players shaking their heads in disbelief.
As with Tadhg Beirne’s red card in the Ireland-New Zealand game, Lood de Jager was red carded for an incident that took place in a split second and left his team with 14 men for the rest of the match.
If De Jager had any fault in the incident, it was that his left arm was wrapped in the shoulder and on the slow motion replays at least, played in front of a ferocious and partisan crowd, it looked 10 times worse than it was.
Laws 101: What’s the difference between a full & 20 minute red card? Emirates World Rugby referee Angus Gardner explains pic.twitter.com/xQSbuyQ0Ky
— World Rugby Media (@worldrugbymedia) November 8, 2025
COLLISION SPORT
This is not downplaying head injury protocols, but we must remember that rugby is a collision sport. Referees are told to ref according to a certain protocol, and in both red card incidents above, a grey area means that it incenses fans, confounds others and leaves players wondering what they could have done differently.
In Beirne’s case, there was head contact after Beauden Barrett took the ball flat (or from a forward pass as Andy Farrell put it). The flanker had no time to react, and bumped (what better word is there for it) into Barrett, causing a head clash and officials to immediately review it.
Now here comes the rub. Technically - and unfortunately this is what officials have to work with - Beirne ticked all the boxes for a bunker review and a red. He was upright, there was force in the collision and there was head contact.
While it looked ridiculous, those boxes were ticked and the 20-minute red was given.
In De Jager’s case, Cobus Reinach made a tackle on Thomas Ramos, and as he was falling De Jager went in to tackle, and his shoulder collided with the head.
TALKED INTO A RED
For those in the stands, being whipped up by endless replays, there was only one outcome.
Referee Angus Gardner, who was clear and concise, was leaning into sending De Jager for a bunker review, but was talked into a red by his assistant refs.
He gave a permanent red, and De Jager was dispatched.
What the replays also showed was that Ramos was on the floor, De Jager was bent and couldn’t go any lower, and another tackler was involved. As bad as De Jager’s shoulder looked in the slow-motion or stop frame incident, that type of tackle happens 100 times in a game.
There was certainly some common-sense mitigation, but by issuing a permanent red card, that couldn’t be taken into account. The explanation was that his action, by tucking the arm, was always illegal, so no mitigation comes into play.
But that’s the problem there. Rugby is not cut and dried, black and white. It is dynamic, and players are being asked to make a split-second decision, which in De Jager’s case, he did and bent to tackle, and the outcomes are being judged by slow motion as if there was any time to do anything differently.
Screenshots have surfaced that Ramos’ arm collided with De Jager’s shoulder before it hit his head, meaning the first point of contact was the arm, and not the head. But that, in the baying boos of Stade de France, with two assistant referees convinced, did nothing to sway the decision.
CARD DOESN’T MAKE SENSE BY WORLD RUGBY’S OWN EXPLANATION
What makes it more perplexing is World Rugby’s own explanations for the difference between a 20-minute red card and a permanent red card. We were sold the idea that a permanent red card was for thuggery - ie, a head butt, punch, or something that meets that standard.
World Rugby - always keen to enter the debate but never to sort out the issues - posted a video on Twitter during the game where the difference was explained.
The irony is that it was Gardner explaining the difference in their video. So consider what he said and apply it to the De Jager conversation.
“The permanent red card is your act of thuggery. It's the dirty act that we see in the game and it's the first view that the referee would be referred to, and that player is removed for the game,” Gardner says in the video.
“The 20-minute red card is as a result of a yellow card and an off-field review and the 20-minute red card is an upgrade decision made by the foul play review officer. That player has been red carded and then for the next 20 minutes, the team must play with 14 players. After the 20 minutes expires they can use a new player to come back onto the pitch.
TECHNICAL OFFENSES GET 20-MINUTE RED
“The 20-minute red card is for a more technical offence. A player gets it wrong in a tackle, upright tackle, it's the head contact process - those types of instances in the game and the foul play review officer is the person that makes a decision on whether the off-field review and yellow card is upgraded to 20 minutes.
"One thing to note is that the foul play review officer cannot upgrade to a permanent red card, that must be done by the referee on the pitch.”
I don’t think there is any doubt that from Gardner’s own explanation on World Rugby’s social media feed the incident was more a “technical” one where a player gets the tackle wrong. By that alone it should have been a yellow card bunker review decision which may still have ended up red.
But by taking that out of the equation, De Jager was dispatched and his team could not replace him.
The officials got it wrong in real time. Gardner was brow-beaten into giving the permanent red, and it left everyone gobsmacked.
This was echoed in far corners, with even the Kiwi pundits on the Breakdown agreeing it was handled badly.
CONFOUNDED PUNDITS ACROSS THE GLOBE
Former fly-half Stephen Donald said slow-motion replays exaggerated the incident.
“In real time it looks completely different to slow-mo. He’d already dipped and committed to that tackle height. Slow it down and Ramos is on his knees and looks a sitting duck – real time tells another story,” Donald said.
Ex-All Blacks centurion Mils Muliaina agreed that the red-card process lacked clarity.
“I don’t like that we ended up with a straight red you can’t replace, but the pathway to get there was messy,” he said.
On SuperSport, former Bok Schalk Burger also questioned the permanent red.
“It’s just a rugby incident,” Burger said at halftime.
“Look, his knee is touching the ground, the straight, permanent red is where I get confused. It is a ‘high level of danger’, but not dangerous enough to send Ramos for a HIA, which Siya Kolisi correctly said to Angus Gardner, ‘Why isn’t he going off for an HIA?’
“And what got him was the tucked left shoulder. Ramos is down, and you’ve got to feel for Lood. You look at it in real time, that tackle happens 90 times a weekend. And if you slow it down, it’s just that left shoulder where he tucked.
“Often, you tuck your left shoulder when there is already someone in the tackle; it’s a natural instinct. You don’t put it out. Straight red? I can’t agree with that.”
WORLD RUGBY HAS A PROBLEM
World Rugby has a problem. Their simple protocol for head contact and their own processes are only as good as the referees who follow them. In the heat of the moment, in front of a partisan crowd, these lines can be blurred as they were on Saturday.
Luckily for the Boks they found a way to negate the loss and still won handsomely, but all rugby fans want is clarity and consistency.
These blurred lines that saw De Jager marched off and the Boks permanently reduced to 14 didn’t make sense - by Gardner and World Rugby’s own protocol.
Rugby has to find a way of solving this, or frustration, anger and irritation will carry on, often targeted at the referees. And teams will cry foul with reason.
Nobody wants players to be hurt, but as with both red cards in the last two weeks, it leaves a stain on the game’s credibility, and instead of celebrating performances on the field, we’re left with a bad taste discussing incidents that should have been handled differently.