Nigel Owens: Super Rugby law trial will result in ‘inconsistent’ ref calls and reward ‘negative acts’
Referee Ben O'Keeffe shows a yellow card during the Super Rugby Pacific match between the Blues and ACT Brumbies and an inset of Nigel Owens.
Former referee Nigel Owens predicts that one Super Rugby Pacific law trial will produce inconsistent referee rulings this season.
The Welshman stated as much, having debated the validity of the law modification with fellow ex-international referee Wayne Barnes.
Super Rugby announced a host of new law modifications and trials ahead of the start of the 2026 season and Owens has taken issue with one in particular despite the weekend’s Six Nations action providing a good example of how it can work effectively.
The law tweak in question is 8.3, with Super Rugby now confirming that it is no longer necessary for a referee to issue a yellow card after awarding a penalty try.
“It will no longer be mandatory for the referee to issue a yellow or red card to a player on the defending team when awarding a penalty try. Any sanction will be at the discretion of the referee,” a statement from the competition organisers read.
Double whammy argument
The fact that it will be at the referee’s discretion is problematic for Owens, who has taken issue with the law in general too as he thinks players will be more cynical in their attempts to stop the attacking team as they are less likely to be yellow-carded.
“Wayne Barnes and I have always had a good debate about this,” Owens said on World Rugby’s Whistle Watch show with former Lions centre Jamie Roberts.
“Barnes had the same view on it as Super Rugby that it shouldn’t have to be a double whammy, but I don’t know.
“What they are doing here now is technically rewarding a negative act. So a player now will decide, unless I go out there and deliberately knock this ball forward or I don’t deliberately throw myself and collapse this maul, they are going to score.
“What is making them think twice is that we’re going to be down to 14 men as well for 10 minutes. Now think about it. If I don’t deliberately knock this ball or fall down there or if I don’t take down this maul illegally, they’re probably going to score.”
Roberts added, “But the ref can still give a yellow. It’s up to the referee’s discretion, right?”
Owens replied: “Yes but then you’re opening up the inconsistency.
“So what you can have then is one maul going down and giving a yellow card and a penalty try, another one going down and giving just a penalty try. For me, this should be a deterrent. What you have now is a player thinking, ‘I’m going to risk it here, the referee may not give a penalty try, and even if he does, we’re still going to be at 15 men’.
“So, I’m not sure what the point of this is. As it is now, I think it’s very consistent. You know, if you commit an act of foul play that prevents a probable try, you go to the bin. So, there’s no inconsistency if they can identify the player.”
Nigel Owens weighs in on Ellis Genge’s headbutt incident amid ‘clear double standards’ accusations
How the law could be applied well
While he is sceptical about the law trial being successful, Owens was able to see the value in it, pointing to Taine Plumtree’s yellow card against England during the opening weekend of the Six Nations.
The Wales replacement made a high tackle on Henry Pollock, who was in the act of scoring, which led to a knock-on. Referee Pierre Brousset awarded the penalty try and issued the yellow card to Plumtree which Owens felt was a bit harsh.
“I can also see a valid point for this trial in one sense, with the tackle at Twickenham with Plumtree,” he said.
“So you’re looking at that, ‘Going oh that’s unlucky’. So now [with this trial] you wouldn’t yellow card that guy because you’re going, ‘that’s not cynical, that’s unlucky’. So it’s not a yellow card.
“So I can see a value in trying this for that reason. Plumtree was unlucky.”
Roberts argued: “But you think it’s unlucky? Would another referee think differently?”
Owens believes that would not be the case with referees likely to have a general view on that decision.
“I don’t think so,” he replied.
“Not with the Plumtree one. I think the general consensus would be that it was unlucky.
“So then what you’ll have here now is that Plumtree won’t be yellow-carded for that under this trial. But then, if the ref feels that a player deliberately took that maul down, you can still yellow-card it. So it will open up a little bit more inconsistency in the decision-making, but I can see the point of it.”
