Johann van Graan, head of rugby at Bath, openly voiced his frustration on Sunday night regarding what he perceived as inconsistent officiating of high tackles during Bath’s 38-26 defeat to Bordeaux-Bègles in the Champions Cup semi-final.
Van Graan pointed to three specific high tackles on Bath’s number eight, Alfie Barbeary, including hits from Bordeaux captain and player of the match Maxime Lucu, as well as second row Adam Coleman. Despite acknowledging that the better team won, van Graan questioned the process by which these head-high challenges were reviewed—or overlooked.
“I felt the match officials did a fantastic job overall,” said van Graan. “However, there were three instances involving head shots on Alfie [Barbeary] around the 19th, 23rd, and 42nd minutes. What we ask is consistency in identifying these infractions and that officials have the appropriate opportunities to review footage.” He emphasized his respect for referee Nika Amashukeli and TMO Ben Whitehouse, acknowledging the limitations of available camera angles.
READ MORE: Scotland International Chris Harris to Depart Bath Rugby for Newcastle Red Bulls Return
READ MORE: Every Word from Bath Rugby Boss Johann van Graan’s Post-Match Champions Cup Semi-Final Press Conference
Van Graan expressed concern that the footage needed to thoroughly assess the incidents didn’t appear to reach the officials, remarking, “If the referee had the chance to review them and made a decision, that’s fine by me. We simply need to ensure the game maintains consistent standards, which was not the case here compared to other matches in the competition.”
Notably, Barbeary stayed on the field throughout and did not undergo a head injury assessment, although he did receive treatment during the match, which was both physical and entertaining.
Van Graan reinforced that his intention was not to disparage the game or officials, stating, “The sport is in a fantastic place. It was an honor to compete today, and we were beaten by the better team. But for the good of the game, we must have consistency, especially concerning the footage and review process.”
In contrast to van Graan’s measured tone, French TV broadcasters placed more direct emphasis on the officials’ responsibilities. Cedric Beaudou, rugby editor for France Télévisions, which provided coverage of the semi-final, explained the process to AFP: “When the video referee wants to communicate with the on-field referee about something he has seen, play is stopped, the referee requests the footage, we provide it, and then we broadcast it.” Beaudou noted that the TMO has access to all camera angles and “it’s impossible to hide footage.”
The situation is complicated by the fact that TV editors often display replay footage of potential foul play live in stadiums, which can draw officials’ attention to incidents they may have initially missed.
The tournament organizers, European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR), defended the TV match official (TMO) procedures following the semi-final. EPCR told AFP that the TMO process is managed through two broadcast screens—one live feed and one with a five-second delay—and that this setup is consistent across all EPCR matches. They added that any incident the TMO wishes to review can be formally examined.
In summary, while van Graan accepts the outcome and respects the officials’ efforts, he highlights a critical issue around the consistency and access to video review that remains a focal point in top-level rugby competitions.