It's been an incredibly entertaining November international window with many talking points across highly competitive games.
Unfortunately, chief amongst those talking points is the decision-making process with regards to foul play.
What follows from here is not a shot at the referees themselves, but a frustration with the game, the lawmakers and the decision-makers behind closed doors.
Our game is now more confusing than ever and the stakeholders within the game are lost. When coaches, supporters, referees and other stakeholders all have differing opinions on what happened in the same picture shown in front of them, you must stop and wonder how we got here.
Three weeks in a row, there were various incidents of contact to the head of the opposition player. The nuances of these different high contacts are important; however, they include the same laws interpreted much differently on many occasions.
As a coach, I’m trying desperately to be open to the changes being made because of the underlying greater good and safety of the game, which is paramount for the game to survive.
"Player of the match should have went to the referee, to be honest, he was the centre of attention throughout the whole game."
— RTÉ Sport (@RTEsport) November 22, 2025
Stephen Ferris was unhappy with the performance of Matthew Carley at the Aviva Stadium. pic.twitter.com/HhVd6ZTq5p
At this stage I don’t know which decisions I’m in agreement with and which I’m not. I thought I knew where I stood, now I find myself questioning my own reading of the game based on decisions being made on the pitch, those made by the TMO and by the reviewing officers in the bunker.
Before this is misinterpreted further, Ireland were beaten hands down last weekend. They were physically dominated. And while they stopped a complete disaster with pride, resilience and impressive fitness levels, they were surviving for many parts of the game. It’s a credit to them that they were one converted opportunity from a grandstand finish.
Matthew Carley had a very strong performance. He wasn’t the reason that Ireland were dominated physically and he got most decisions right in a game that had an enormous amount of action. That can be true, while still being confused about certain decisions.
In Ireland’s early moments of exchanging shots with South Africa, Tommy O’ Brien was hit by a second defender with no arm wrap. It was a direct contact to the head with arguable mitigation.
In the previous number of weeks, the refereeing team stuck to the letter of the law and discounted any mitigation due to the tackle effort always being illegal. That’s what it means when a player fails to wrap their arm in the tackle. The tackle never started with an attempt to wrap and therefore there is no reason to mitigate.
Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu put himself in a dangerous position when making the tackle. His tackle technique meant that his head was on the wrong side of the tackle. His choices were to duck out slightly, which resulted in swinging his shoulder into the contact and he hit Tommy O’Brien dangerously, which sparked a reaction from Garry Ringrose.
Had the South African playmaker continued to hit with that shoulder with a firm arm wrap he would have needed to put his head on the wrong side of Tommy O’Brien’s body and he would have caused serious damage to himself. The collision would have been at high velocity.
Defenders are so desperate to make dominant hits and give no advantage to their opposition that they’re never willing to reduce their force for safety reasons. Feinberg-Mngomezulu could have pushed O’Brien downwards or he could have been more passive in the double tackle.
The game is played at ferocious speed and players don’t always have time to think when entering the contact area. However, it’s still a case of poor tackle technique and poor decision-making at high speeds in the heat of the battle. We’re critical of players that can’t run, pass or kick with the right decision at high speeds, this skill is no different only it can cause serious injury.
That is why referees have been encouraged to back player safety.
Feinberg-Mngomezulu was only reprimanded with a penalty. A moment that I feel has taken the understanding of the laws of the game at least two steps backwards.
To change tackle behaviours, referees have made incredibly unpopular, but correct, decisions. Once these are made consistently, behaviour will change and there’ll be less contentious moments within the game. We won’t stamp out every controversial action, but we can reduce them.
Unfortunately, this will have a detrimental effect on understanding the next high tackle. We now have no idea what the next outcome will be.
Lood de Jager was red carded for a similar tackle with no arm wrap as a secondary defender. The difference is he was incredibly low and he’s a huge man. Feinberg-Mngomezulu made a tackle in a different plane and in slightly different circumstances, but how can it be any different?
I don’t want to see players sin-binned or sent off. However, that’s dependent on the behaviours that are within their control.
I don’t disagree with the cards that Ireland received. You could argue one or two moments but, on the balance, they were deserving of their cards based on the actions that were within their control.
In fact, there could have been more, including O’Brien’s tackle on Canan Moodie. He got caught upright and looked like he was between two attackers. He came off a lot worse than Moodie did, but his action was still high.
If we want the game to remain safe and well understood by the many stakeholders, then we need to reduce the amount of confusion surrounding decisions.
If Feinberg-Mngomezulu left the field for a minimum of 10 minutes, I have no doubt that it would have changed how the game played out. I still don’t believe that Ireland would have won the game.
South Africa became obsessed with physically punishing Ireland. It served a purpose. I’m sure it will live long in the memory of Irish players, staff and supporters. It will be notched into the South African psyche. The result and outcome should never be disputed. Irish people need to suck it up and find answers.
The question remains though, where is this game going? How is this level of confusion helping anyone? It certainly doesn’t serve the referees. They’ve been plotted in the centre of a sport that is confused at its core.
We make strong decisions that force change based on player safety. We then shy away from those decisions and water down the effects by taking a weaker stance, just as change was being somewhat accepted.
A scuffle breaks out after Feinberg-Mngomezulu's tackle on Tommy O'Brien. The Springbok fortunate to escape further sanction there.
— RTÉ Sport (@RTEsport) November 22, 2025
📺 RTÉ2
💻 https://t.co/b2OI4OoWVJ
🖥️ https://t.co/NrozQUQj71 pic.twitter.com/z6is37u9iF
It also doesn’t help that most disciplinary hearings result in a lighter sanction, including taking statements from opposition players. The laws need to stand objectively.
It shouldn’t matter if a player feels it was harsh and that there was no intent by their infringing opponent. The game is trying to mitigate against what might happen if these unintended actions go badly wrong.
For example, Sam Warburton was involved in a highly controversial decision at the 2011 World Cup. His tip tackle was the moment when the game changed, and a decision was made in a high-profile game.
Everyone has now accepted that players should never be brought above the horizontal in the contact area. There’s rarely an argument. It’s a dangerous action that gets punished, but it’s seen very infrequently
Why do we continue to take a backwards step when it comes to high contact?
Not every decision will be straight forward and there’ll always be discussion. However, if we want the game to survive from a safety perspective, as well as from an entertainment viewpoint, we really need more consistency. Not only in the decisions, but also in the driving forces behind those decisions.
Confusion is now, arguably, at an all-time high.
