The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

I hate agreeing (and disagreeing) with Spiro Zavos

22nd September, 2014
Advertisement
Does Adam Ashley-Cooper deserve a spot in the Wallabies? (Photo: Paul Barkley/LookPro)
Roar Pro
22nd September, 2014
18
1736 Reads

Spiro Zavos’ recent article, ‘The Australian Rugby Union should be stronger‘ was extremely frustrating, because I agreed wholeheartedly with one sentence and then completely disagreed with the next.

Firstly, why I agree.

The ARU are under pressure from all sides to make the most out of their limited resources.

The must grow the game, pander to the fans, players and advertisers, and try to fit in all their other commitments. To that end they have a tough task, but they can do better.

I agree that the Wallabies matches should be played in front of large, filled stadia rather than in front of a half-filled Skilled Park. Playing in front of a full stadium is worth a couple of points to the Wallabies, and the soccer leagues in Europe would seem to confirm that by punishing teams, for various offences, by playing in front of an empty stadium.

To suggest the ARU don’t listen to public opinion is probably true too. A combination of playing some games during the afternoon (let’s face it, a cold, wet afternoon is still nicer than a cold, wet night) and changing up the Rugby championship schedule might help. Possibly by holding the first Bledisloe at Suncorp, where the Wallabies have a good record, and also the first Bledisloe not necessarily be the opening game of the championship.

Secondly, why I disagree.

I fail to see how it is the ARU’s place to come out and say, ‘Well, Adam Ashley-Cooper is out injured as a result of that tackle so it was a fair decision.’ Surely, that should be a referee liaison’s job (whatever their title is), probably in there with the match report.

Advertisement

But, if the ARU were to say anything, it should go along the lines of…

John Eales: “The IRB defines a high tackle as ‘a player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play. Sanction: penalty kick’.

“So, going by the IRB, you can see the tackle starts here and finishes here (points up around neck). Therefore the referee deemed it a high tackle. Being close to the line and given the match situation, it was then upgraded to a yellow card.”

Once again, I would have thought that was the domain of the broadcaster to explain it to the viewers live, or the refereeing body, but I’ll let it slide simply because someone should be doing it.

What makes even less sense is the suggestion that the outcome can validate or invalidate decisions. While it was a tragedy that Adam Ashley-Cooper was injured, it can’t be said that because he was injured the tackle was deserving of a yellow card. This statement is completely irrelevant, and if anything, this sort of comment only sets the code back.

Had he not have been injured would it have been less of a yellow card? The opposite argument for a lifting tackle would be that it didn’t cause an injury therefore the lifting tackling shouldn’t be penalised.

This thinking, thankfully, has (almost) disappeared from our game.

Advertisement

Even further, why would the ARU comment on a match featuring a French official and played between New Zealand and Argentina?

In summary, I seem to agree with Spiro on the macro but not the micro. It frustrates me because as an involved rugby fan – posting about it online in fact – it is exactly this uncertainty about how to proceed that isn’t helping our game.

Still, it invites discussion, so we should debate all aspects of the game, to discard the bad ideas and embrace the good.

Let’s do our part and keep the conversations going.

I can only assume The Roar will be given an honorary position on the Australian rugby board as of next year.

close