Clarity needed in definition of dangerous tackles

With recent articles on the long term effects of concussion to players, rugby needs to sort out their interpretation of the big hit.

Motu Matu’u has put on three massive hits this year that would make the leaguies proud. I’ll put my opinion on the record by saying that I abosolutely loved them. The hit on Hodgson is probably my favourite of all time. Matu’u’s technique and timing was flawless. That’s what you call offensive defence.

Now for the controversy. If you look at the actual rules you could argue that Matu’u should be spending some time on the sidelines.

Law 10 (e) states: “A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.” If the player ends up in hospital (which is what happened to Gerrard and Mitchell), doesn’t that mean that the tackle was dangerous? That same law further states that “A player must not tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.” So that should rule out the ‘first contact was below the shoulders’ line.

Rugby needs to clearly define when a big hit is deemed fair play even though technically it should be penalised.

Lets just go through the three hits that Matu’u put on and disect whether or not he has a case to answer.

Mark Gerrard changed direction at the last moment when Matu’u was already committed to the tackle. What unfolded was that Gerrard was struck in the sternum with Matu’u’s head. Matu’u didn’t escape unharmed, with Gerrard’s chin hitting Matu’u on the top of the head which required Matu’u to get medical attention as well.

Does the Gerrard’s sudden change of line make the tackle accidental? And since Gerrard was struck in the sternum does that make everything OK, since he wasn’t hit above the shoulders?

As for Lachlan Mitchell, some of my friends believe that Matu’u got him high. How else can you explain the KO? I believe Matu’u hits him on the chest but the contact is so violent that Mitchell’s head bounces off Matu’u’s shoulder in sort of a whiplash effect. Mitchell enters the contact with his head really low. Matu’u launches his shoulder really low as well.

Does Mitchell take any responsibilty for getting his head so low? Even if you think that Matu’u hit him on the chest, does the head bouncing off the shoulder become Matu’u’s responsibility or is it just bad luck?.

As for Matt Hodgson, Matu’u hit him perfectly, but as he was pushing Hodgson back his hands and shoulders made contact with Hodgson’s neck and head.

Again, where do we stand on the head bouncing off the shoulder? The damage was done by the contact. The head and neck contact after didn’t contribute to the concussion so does that matter?

Another situation is when players run on off ruck or a five metre tap penalty and hit the ball straight up. The ball runner almost always runs headfirst into the opposition. If they get head injuries because of a violent collision does the ball runner take any responsibilty because of their running technique?

Also when the ball runners are tackled, they are sometimes bought down by shoulder charges with the tackler running head first into the ball runner, who is also running head first. Should these incidences be penalised as well?

With these situations in mind what should the IRB do about the rules?

The shoulder charge rules are meant to protect players, but as the Matu’u hits show they don’t totally do so.

Also the hit on Ben Afeaki by Francis Saili in the Blues v Chiefs game divided the boys as well. It looked for all money to be a straight shoulder charge but Saili attempted to wrap his right arm around Afeaki, which let him off technically. But the shoulder did make contact with Afeaki’s head, so Saili should be cited.

The difference between the Matu’u and Saili tackles is all in the technique. In the Saili tackle on Afeaki the angle that Saili takes when he launches starts low and ends up quite high, at which point contact is made with Afeaki’s head.

Even though Afeaki leans slightly forward just before contact his head position is still high enough not to be considered going in head first. Matu’u’s trajectory in the Mitchell and Hodgson tackles is low. He starts low and when contact is made his body position is still low.

The IRB need to clarify its stance on the interpretation of the shoulder charge/ dangerous tackle rules so that there is no confusion if tackles like Matu’u’s end up in front of the judiciary.