As we head into the 2017 season down this part of the world, the great unknown is how the new World Rugby-prescribed tackle laws are going to play out.
Up front, any move that seeks to remove danger or the risk of danger from the game is a good thing. And just as we quickly got used to and accepted the implementation of the head injury assessment protocols, after a year or two teething period, we’ll just get on with it and the game will be the better for it.
If you’re not seen it in full, World Rugby announced in their December 15 statement that they had “redefined illegal (high) tackle categories and increased sanctions to deter high tackles via a law application guideline”.
“This will apply at all levels of the game from 3 January 2017 introducing minimum on-field sanctions for reckless and accidental contact with the head, effectively lowering the acceptable height of the tackle.The guideline will be supported with a global education programme,” the statement said.
The summary of the redefinitions boil down to this:
A reckless tackle is one in which “the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway”, and carries a yellow card as a minimum sanction.
Ten days ago, Saracens prop Richard Barrington became the first player to receive a red card under the new definitions and interpretations, for making contact with the head of Exeter and England Test lock Geoff Parling.
In what will be the first of many public debates when cards are handed out under the new laws, long-serving Saracens director of rugby, former Ireland International Mark McCall, tried to downplay Barrington’s contact as “accidental”, and that his player made contact with Parling’s shoulder.
What we’re all going to have to get used to very quickly is that it matters not what the tackler uses to make the contact, but rather where the contact is made on the tackled player.
Parling was knocked out in the tackle, which also had input from Saracens captain Brad Barritt, who was not carded at all.
The new definition around accidental contact, for what it’s worth, is where “a player makes accidental contact with an opponent’s head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders”, and includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle. A penalty will be awarded as a minimum sanction.
There’s no doubt tackling techniques and body positioning into contact will have to evolve. But the game evolved reasonably quickly once rucking was removed, so that’s not something we should be worried about.
How long that evolution takes is anyone’s guess, and it was this tweet from Fairfax Media’s Paul Cully early last week that put this topic on my radar.
Teams are stepping into the unknown around the new laws and they’ve all had to tweak things in their pre-season preparations.
Blues coach Tana Umaga told New Zealand radio network NewsTalk ZB over the weekend that while he understands and agrees with the reasoning for the new tackle laws, he holds concerns around consistency of application, in the first few rounds of Super Rugby at the very least. But, he admitted, it’s just something his side has to deal with in time for Round 1.
“Some of our players just have to understand they’ve got to change their tackling technique. They have to get lower so they don’t get up around that area where we don’t know what is going to happen,” Umaga said.
“If that’s the way it’s going to be ruled, we are just going to have to adjust. We have to devise ways to cope.”
Waratahs defence coach Nathan Grey said something similar in Sydney last week.
“The golden question is the consistency around how they deliver on that,” Grey said at a Tahs presser.
“It’s going to be hard, but I think the reasonings around why they’ve done it and why it’s in place is the right reason. They’re trying to do the right things by the players, which is great, and the referees and the administration side of things, they’ve done a really thorough process and they’re delivering it in a way that makes us confident as coaches to say ‘OK, that’s what they’ve said they’re going to be looking at, and what the expectation is around that’.
“There’s going to be some feeling out during the trials and into the first couple of rounds of Super [Rugby], but the consistency is the biggest thing and that’s all you hope for.”
Grey admitted that the Tahs were training to cope with scenarios where they have only 14, or even 13 players on the field, in anticipation of multiple cards as the ‘zero tolerance’ clampdown comes into effect.
I’d be stunned if the other 17 Super Rugby sides weren’t doing the same thing.
So, it’s not really a question of whether we’re ready for the new laws or not, because they’re in place now regardless. It does mean, however, that we should ready ourselves for a sudden spike in the number of cards handed out across the opening rounds.
The challenge for coaches and players – and fans, to be fair – is how quickly they can adjust expectations and attitudes.
It can’t be ‘what can we get away with’ anymore, but rather, ‘what technical adjustments need to be made’.
AndyS
Guest
As described, only highlights what a nonsense it would be if WR thought they were providing themselves any protection against litigation...
Nobrain
Roar Guru
Well, Bakkies, we desagree in this issue, but we may agree in many others. Cheers!?
Bakkies
Guest
No you aren't for real. It was a red card regardless of directives. Height of ball carrier has been irrelevant under the high tackle law for a long long time now. Not since Jan 1. If you watched the match the whole time Steyn was playing the match it was a matter of time till he did something stupid. Watch the incident at normal speed Sexton put pace on the pass. Steyn went in with a stiff arm from start to finish that's a clothesline not a correct tackle. Steyn' argument was stupid he had no intention to tackle in the first instant Reckless with intent four weeks is deserved. The correct outcome. It only seems harsh to you, that is mainly due to incompetent judiciaries reducing sentences from the recommended IRB length of ban due to behaviour at hearings. Even Hartley had his ban reduced for his 'tackle' on O'Brien
Bakkies
Guest
Exactly Jacko mountain out of molehills being made here. You could say it has provided the refs clarity in regards to punishment Judiciary and citing commissioners are still incompetent though
Bakkies
Guest
I still can't fathom how Major didn't face a disciplinary hearing for his reckless play
Bakkies
Guest
Phill don't you mean tell the players to carry in to contact correctly exactly how are you are taught as a child?
Nobrain
Roar Guru
Sorry Bakkies, but my point is that the same tackles was only a yellow card a year ago, now we are heading in a new direccion. For what I saw, that may differ from what you saw and also we may have a different point of view on the matter, it was a red card . But I think that Sexton leaned a bit lower at the time while he was passing the ball and Steyn striked him late, but imo four weeks is not what we were used to see in similar situations. And yes, I am for real. Are you?
Bakkies
Guest
I noticed that two Glasgow players didn't even get cited for hitting Conor Murray in the head with raised elbows while carrying the ball. The first incident the Glasgow player knew what he was doing and raised his elbow. Josh Strauss did the same thing later on. Murray passed two separate HIA tests and now Munster are being investigated by the EPCR for passing him. He undertook another test in a hospital yesterday and past that too. Murray and Zebo were also targeted in this match with no arms 'tackles' to their shins while kicking the ball.
Bakkies
Guest
'Steyn has benn sidelined for four weeks for the tackle, imo is too much!!! You and I may think different but WR is giving a very clear sign.' Are you for real? Steyn went in with a stiff arm lining up Sexton with no intention to wrap his arms in a proper tackle. Leinster were already playing under advantage. A stupid thing to do.
Nobrain
Roar Guru
Steyn has benn sidelined for four weeks for the tackle, imo is too much!!! You and I may think different but WR is giving a very clear sign.
Animal
Guest
Leinster v Montpelier showed that this new Law is severe but will be applied. Player red carded for high tackle. He appealed to the referee for yellow card at worst in situation where opposing player dropped his body which resulted in the offending tackle.Agree with yellow card under the new Rules/Law but red carding a player is too severe unless there is very clear evidence of deliberate/intent. Players will be or should be sent off with red card where there is reckless head high tackle. Instance Savea on Irish winger.
Akari
Guest
Thanks for that update, Sam. This article confirms my initial thought at the time that the ref had taken the easy way out in this case and RC'd the innocent.
NaBUru38
Guest
Breaking news: rugby players will cross train at olympic diving.
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
Not necessarily. There's no mention of the maximum penalty. For instance if someone slips over and falls into a limp arm hanging by a players side it's a penalty automatically. If the arm was stiff or a player was driving into the tackle and clocked him square in the mouth with his shoulder despite it still being accidental it could warrant a harsher penalty like a yellow card.
Nobrain
Roar Guru
Just Motjove had so many last year that if they were called correctly he would no be able to work a sweat. He would have been in the sidelines for most of the games.
Boz the Younger
Guest
I hope common sense prevails and players learn to tackle properly or not at all, it really isn't that hard. I find it hard to remember when there has been so much angst from so many grown men over such a clear cut issue of player welfare.
mania
Guest
as a PI I have to agree. this will also make a ball and all spot tackles illegal. and sometimes when your close to the line that's the only option you have DavSA "have no better or worse disciplinary record than any other international sides" gotta disagree there. other than France, boks have been guilty of the most biting and eye gouging. not sure how that petains to tackling high though. I guess head high tackles is being tallied in this indiscretion stat
Nobrain
Roar Guru
My reasoning is that SA and PI players have the tendency of going for a high tackle more than the others.
Phill
Guest
Mango If I was a coach that is what I would say to players. Head down and any contact with the head the following will happen. A) Tackler(s) would be sin binned or sent off , B) possible penalty try or penalty and or scrum advantage to attacking team. As for the opposition , I would advise players DO NOT ATTEMPT A TACKLE because of the above,and let them score a free try. I would also point out any head contact by the captains due to player welfare.and want a review. All this of course is for player welfare-rugby players are precious, if you want a real gladiatorial rugby code watch rugby league. With all the rule changes in the last 20 years the game has changed from being a gladiatorial sport to basically touch rugby, but wait how many people a year leave the game because of scrums in particularly props-get rid of the scrum.
Matt Porter
Roar Guru
'Grey admitted that the Tahs were training to cope with scenarios where they have only 14, or even 13 players on the field, in anticipation of multiple cards as the ‘zero tolerance’ clampdown comes into effect.' It's a fairly alarming state of affairs when pro teams full of highly drilled, skilled and well-intentioned players are using the off season to prepare to play with less players because of zero tolerance to a new tackle law. Zero tolerance for the fact that rugby is a dynamic, messy game of physical contests involving one team trying to gain territory with the ball while the other is hell bent on denying them both. Things just happen in the collision zone through no malice on the part of the players involved. Ball carriers can slip and trip and put their heads in strangely low places while defenders can get caught off-balance and not make contact where they had first intended. It's the nature of the beast. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that refs, especially the overly pedantic and officious ones, after months of having the new tackle edict drummed into them, will be on a hair trigger in the opening rounds of Super Rugby and probably beyond, Desperate to demonstrate how across the new directive they are by dishing out more cards than a casino croupier. Stuffing up games, peeving off fans, sending sponsors away and taking years off coaches' lives in the process. Meanwhile, there's still plenty of ways to incur concussion outside of head - sorry - shoulder-high tackles. Let's just hope that when a team of 12 players edges out a team that finishes a game with 11, sanity and commonsense will prevail. On the plus side, imagine all the off-loads...