- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
One topic guaranteed to raise the hackles of rugby fans everywhere is mid-air collisions – the inconsistency in how they are treated and perceived injustice suffered by players involved.
Watch any match for the first sign of contact in the air, and for howls of protest to emanate from the aggrieved side, baying for a penalty and/or card, matched only by howls of indignation from the other side, as sanction is handed down to a bemused player who had no intent to cause any trouble.
But for all the noise around this topic, when emotion, partisanship and misinformation is set aside, there is actually a surprisingly straightforward solution.
First, some essential background. The law covering this area, 10.4 (i) “Tackling the jumper in the air” reads as follows:
“A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play”
Clear enough, except that it’s easy to cite collision examples where there are factors at play other than those mentioned. For example, what about providing for situations where both players are in the air?
Recognising a growing problem, World Rugby, in 2015, issued guidelines to amplify and clarify aspects of the existing law, under “Challenging players in the air”, as follows;
Play on – fair challenge with both players in position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) lands dangerously, play on.
Penalty only – fair challenge with wrong timing. No pulling down (this is how Nigel Owens ruled Will Skelton’s collision with Anthony Watson in Sydney’s third Test)
Yellow card – not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his head, neck or shoulder
These guidelines have proved helpful for referees, providing a clear road map for dealing with the majority of instances although, in themselves, they are not sufficient to cater for all cases and, in the bigger picture, to take the problem off the table altogether.
One reason is that most cases have an individual element or variable contributing factor. Another is that, wherever there is a subjective element to a law, different referees will provide their own interpretation.
The nature of rugby dictates that those factors will always be there, but there is another way to provide more certainty and consistency.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, rugby experienced an awful problem with an extraordinarily high prevalence of spinal injuries from scrums. I played in two matches where players left the field in an ambulance, one resulting in a full recovery and the other in permanent paraplegia.
I’m sure most readers of a similar age will recount similar stories.
Thankfully, rugby found a way to alter laws and to improve coaching and refereeing, and the problem, while not completely eradicated, was essentially overcome.
It is not an exaggeration to say that, in 2016 we are now very close to a high profile player suffering a very serious spinal or neck injury, from a mid-air collision. In a time of viral social media and acutely protective parents, such an instance would prove disastrous for rugby – let alone the player concerned.
Rugby has already shown with the scrummaging situation, that it has the wherewithal to solve such problems. And so the time is upon us again to repeat the dose.
At the core must be an understanding that the ultimate responsibility for all players must be to compete for the ball safely, and that the law, and its application must enhance that safety objective.
In other words, every incident or potential incident should not be considered from the point of view of the chasing player, but from the point of view of the catching player.
This means an end to rolling out the usual mitigating factors for chasing players; “he got there first”, “he slipped”, “he only had eyes for the ball”, “it’s a contact sport”, “there was no intent”, and so on.
Folks, if there’s a guy on the ground with a broken neck, none of that matters a jot.
Only once there is consensus for safety as a paramount objective, can rugby move on to the detail of the application.
Looking to recent examples, it is clear that the common factor in all dangerous or potentially dangerous instances is the speed of the chasing player, either at the point of contact, (causing high impact) or in approaching the point of contact (resulting in him being in a sub-optimal position to compete for the ball or to avoid contact).
Jared Payne on Alex Goode in 2014, Jason Emery on Willie Le Roux, Leolin Zas on Bernard Foley, and Le Roux again, this time the transgressor on Tiernan O’Halloran, all this year, are examples many readers will recall.
Setting aside any factors peculiar to each, in all of these cases, and others not quoted here, it was the actions of the chaser running into the contest at speed, which primarily placed the catcher in danger.
In each case, if the chaser had arrived early at the point of the ball drop, stopped and jumped upwards in a controlled manner from a stationary position, or alternatively, stopped short (thanks Frank Costanza) and waited for the catcher to claim the ball and return to the ground before tackling them, then there would have been no incident.
I can hear the cries already; “why is the catcher a protected species?”, “why does the chasing player have to take responsibility and not the catching player?”
There are three reasons. Firstly, because there is something inherently easier about catching a ball running towards it, rather than with the flight. Secondly, because there is logic to identifying the non-kicking team as the receiving team, and to provide their catcher with some rights.
Thirdly, because granting that nominal ‘right’ to the catcher each time, is the best way to achieve a common framework and consistency within that framework,
In addition to those sole chaser-catcher examples quoted, there is also the matter of players who have no intent to, or prospect of, catching the ball, causing problems.
This was identified as a tactic by Waratahs assistant coach Nathan Grey, explaining, in the wake of the Zas-Foley incident, how players were being coached not to genuinely compete for the ball, but “just to get into the space where the guy is going to contest it.”
Setting aside the hypocrisy of Grey doing exactly that to Mike Brown in Brisbane, when he wasn’t even playing in the match, the point is that all players must adjust their thinking to ensure that no other players are placed into dangerous positions, as a result of their actions, for any reason.
Nothing proposed here means that the contest for the ball is dead. The contest just needs to be genuine, fair and safe.
Neither does it mean that players who are genuinely stationary and have a catcher leap over them and fall awkwardly, are culpable. Catchers too have a responsibility for their own safety; Damian McKenzie take note.
Conclusion
The problem is far closer to being fixed than many realise, and a minor adjustment from each of five stakeholders may be all that is required to reach an acceptable solution.
1. Lawmakers. Law 10.4 (i) is patently insufficient, but the addition of the 2015 guidelines provides a strong basis for protecting catchers and providing suitable sanctions for chasers who transgress.
Further stated emphasis on the safety objectives, along with unambiguous recognition of rights to the catcher over the chaser will tighten this up even more, and provide greater certainty.
2. Referees must understand the guidelines and not stray in their application. Willie le Roux received a yellow card for his challenge on Tiernan O’Halloran because TMO Rowan Kitt and referee Glen Jackson ruled that O’Halloran landing on his shoulder constituted a yellow. The citing commissioner later intervened to apply the law correctly and Le Roux was duly suspended, ruled to have met the requirement for a red card.
Attention should be given to improving TMO protocols and communication, to eliminate ambiguity and inconsistency.
3. Players. An education process similar to that undertaken with scrum spinal injuries should be pursued, to ensure that all players at all levels understand the law, and their individual responsibility within the law, to play safely.
It is already apparent that many chasing players have made this adjustment, deciding when it is safe for them to compete for the ball, and on which occasions it is prudent for them to hold back, concede the catch, and then make a tackle.
For those who continue to transgress, sanctions must serve as a suitably strong deterrent.
4. Media. Too many commentators have poor understanding of the law, and perpetuate myths and misconceptions. They have a responsibility to get this right, and not feed their ignorance to the watching audience.
There is no provision in the guidelines for chasing players to be excused for keeping their eye on the ball or having no intent to injure. Get this right or shut up.
5. Fans have to come to terms with the fact that ‘old thinking’ which rewards the ‘courage’ of players entering such collisions with ‘eyes only for the ball’, is trumped by player safety concerns.
This does not make rugby ‘soft’. There are any number of ways, in every single game of rugby, where players prove how courageous they are.
It may be a big ask, but the sooner these five groups intersect onto a common pathway, the better the outcome for rugby.