The 16th Man
by Ben Darwin | 05 February 2010 (11:19)
The Guinness Premiership issue of Lee Byrne coming on as the 16th man brings up one of the very grey areas of rugby – one that does not seem to have any uniformity to it in terms of punishment along with the cause and effect of the situation.
Ospreys was handed a €25,000 fine while Byrne was given a 2 week suspension.
In this particular case Byrne returned to the field from a blood bin injury when reserve member Sonny Parker had not come off the field. Byrne then went on to make a tackle that could have theoretically changed the result of the match.
Ospreys should have gone through the 4th official in putting Byrne back on the field.
Lets have a look at the things that may happen from here.
The judiciary had at its disposal the opportunity to fine teams or individuals as well as the option of playing the match again. I am unaware of whether the end result would change, but Leicester had been pushing for a replay of the game.
In terms of the punishment or repercussions of these issues I think that replays are not really an option. If this game was a semi final of the Heineken cup then holding the game again would give the other team in the final such an enormous advantage that it could plausibly ruin the final if it had to be done within the week.
So the judiciary has fined the teams and the points remain, as the tackle did not affect the result of the game. However, that does go by the notion that all other subsequent actions are also equal. They never are though. What if the 16th man injured the most important player on the field for Leicester and the effect of this was a 30-point win for Ospreys? Theoretically the judiciary must also take into effect the change that it has on a psyche of the opposition team.
Just because Byrne made the tackle does not mean that it did not affect the outcome of the game. If the Leicester attack was assessing the defensive line, then a gap that would be there, which is taken up by a 16th player and so decisions and consequences change.
The notion of punishing teams must be an extremely difficult process. England was fined for the same issue when playing Samoa in the 2003 World Cup and the replacement was deemed to have no effect materially on the result.
One thing that concerns me the most is when a player is fined personally for a decision that was not his or was ever his to make in the first place. If the player is told by a coach to go on, should he be fined? Would a player lie to protect a coach and the club? Theoretically, a player will always be fined less than a club would be and so, in return for a future contract, would be happy to take a fine.
I am not blaming nor implicating any players in question but fining players may lead to the players or the parties actually at fault being protected. Perhaps of only the club alone should be fined and if they feel the player is truly at fault then they can pass a fine on. These are the kinds of risk a club takes on at the time of signing a player.
One day a 16th man will change the nature of a tournament so let’s hope the player will not be vilified or hung out to dry by his club for the action.
