There was a little bit of discussion around World Rugby’s new ‘zero tolerance’ stance on contact higher than the shoulders in the weeks heading into Round 1 of Super Rugby, with opinions equally nervous and worried on what they might happen when first used with competition points on the line.
Overall, most of us seemed to agree on the need to eliminate any contact with the head and neck from the game. Rugby has come on leaps and bounds when it comes to attitudes around head injuries and concussion, even just in recent years.
But what might a game look like if all high contact is penalised, and cards are dished out everywhere, we wondered?
Well, after the first weekend of Super Rugby, the answer to that question is ‘not that different’. But I’ll come back to this soon.
First, a recap.
Back in mid-December, you’ll recall that World Rugby announced 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.”
A reckless tackle is now 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.
Accidental contact 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.
‘Accidental contact’ are the key words here, and words we heard uttered over the weekend, but I’ll come back to that too.
For Round 1, I counted 13 yellow cards handed out across the nine games. Red-Sharks, Waratahs-Force, and Cheetahs-Lions all had two yellow cards each; Kings-Jaguares saw the yellow pointing skywards three times.
Highlanders-Chiefs was the only game where no card was dished out, which was interesting in itself.
Of those 13 yellows, only two were for high contact under the new edict: Reds lock Kane Douglas’ old-fashioned neck roll in a crudely attempted clean-out against the Sharks, and teammate Karmichael Hunt’s solid but now-illegally high hit toward the end of the same game.
Referee Nick Briant even used the term “accidental contact”, telling Hunt words to the effect, ‘He’s fallen into the tackle, but you’ve still caught him above the shoulders’.
Four months ago, it would’ve been an unfortunate penalty and slap on the back for an effective tackle that just happened to slip up, but under the new wording, this was a tackle from the explanatory notes: accidental contact, ball-carrier falling, impact slipping up above the shoulders.
And you could still mount a decent case that a penalty under the new edict would’ve been enough, particularly in light of other incidents that went un-carded over the weekend.
From the round just completed, we’re now to believe that those two tackles were the only ones yellow card-worthy under the new zero tolerance approach handed down by World Rugby in December.
There must have been upwards of 1500 tackles made over the weekend, but only two of them were deemed high. I have a little bit of trouble believing that.
Three more come immediately to mind. Sharks lock Etienne Oosthuizen made neck contact arguably worse than Douglas’ only a few minutes before Hunt was pinged. Oosthuizen was cited and subsequently suspended for the two weeks for striking Rob Simmons earlier in the game, but this incident I’m thinking of wasn’t even penalised. I’m tipping Hunt was partly frustrated by that lack of action when he made his tackle, and the Reds captain at the time – James Slipper was off by then – even raised that point as Briant showed his yellow card to Hunt.
In the Waratahs-Force game, Israel Folau was penalised in the 20th minute for a remarkably similar hit to Hunt’s, and with Ben O’Keeffe also offering the same explanation – ‘the ball-carrier slipped into the tackle’ – but no card was shown.
Force centre Billy Meekes did his very best to separate Michael Hooper’s head and body, a la Douglas, but again it was penalty only.
There were countless others across the weekend; the Highlanders-Chiefs game threatened to boil over several times, such was the level of niggle both sides got away with. That there wasn’t a single card in this game for a high shot under the new definitions was laughable, and explained why a lot of the niggle carried on.
And that’s going to be the way it is for the next few weeks. It’s obviously going to take time for zero tolerance to take hold, because clearly some referees have a much better handle on it than others.
Blues coach Tana Umaga back in January aired concerns about consistency of applications, but he also stated quite clearly that his players “are just going to have to adjust” their tackling techniques. Turns out he was just as right about the former as he was the latter.
On the weekend’s evidence, the referees have just as much adjustment to make as the players.
Akari
Roar Rookie
I did watch the game, OB, and my initial thoughts were of foul play. I'd need to look at a replay however and, as this is unlikely for a while yet, am happy to accept your assessment of the incident.
Old Bugger
Guest
AJ What a foolish thing to say even if the consequences of a head contact tackle is to react and fall over.....most players who do get knocked in the head are either struggling to remain standing or, spread-eagled horizontally, on the ground. The degree of the contact is not in question regarding the new rules - it is simply whether the tackle or contact between players occurred above the shoulders and in particular, onto a player's head. If the referee and his assistants (including the TMO) rule that such contact has occurred, then the rule sanctions will follow except, the outcome may not necessarily result in a player lying down, as you suggest.
Old Bugger
Guest
Actually Akari, if I were you, I'd recommend the Judiciary bring McKenzie up on the grievous high tackle he committed against Smith while all his efforts and sightless eyes, were concentrated on him leaping in the air, to catch a ball that was kicked to him, by the HLs. Smith's unfortunate luck was to not position himself in a higher position, than McKenzie, when challenging for the same catch hence when he (Smith) landed on the ground, he also collected McKenzie's weight landing on top of him immediately after his head, came into contact with the ground. But I tend to agree with you - McKenzie did make contact above Smith's shoulders but it seems to be inconsequential, that he was attempting, to catch a ball, kicked to him. Did you watch the match or are you trying to be sarcastic......?? PS - McKenzie did catch the ball in this whole episode....ala with Ben Smith type accuracy.
Bman
Guest
You are starting to sound like a kiwi who believe Richie has never been off side in his life. Even if he did not get a card it still needed to be a penalty... and guess what... you can still kick a penalty from that and we still could have lost the game. If you make contact with a players head the way Khunt did, you are going to be penalised even before the new laws took affect.
Bman
Guest
PeterK... i do not believe it deserved a yellow but i accept that it was. The new laws will take time for both players and refs to adjust to. We just need consistency not only with one game, but from all refs in every game.
Nobrain
Roar Guru
In the last tippinig panel mynsurevthing was that we would get lots of yellow by high or dangerous tackles. I was suprise that I was worng with my call. SA players as well as the ones from de PI have that tendency, but I guess that have made a point of it before the game. The ones I saw a penalty was called but jot yellow. Some of the things we saw this weekend would have been a card in the NH , I wonder if we are playing under different interpretation of the rules.
Jacko
Guest
Fionn a Judge has to deal purely with facts. A ref has to deal with interpretaion. massive difference
davSA
Guest
As I was reading your article my first thoughts were , hold on those yellows were mostly , in the SA games I watched at least , for professional fouls . But obviously you qualified your stats further on. Point is I saw a number of tackles in the Bulls Stormers game that may under the new "guidelines " have attracted a yellow.
Zero Gain
Guest
Harsh but fair, huh? It's either fair or it wasn't. What could Hunt have done? Do you want players having to try to make every tackle around the legs? That is dangerous in itself. You need some training on how to be a proper Reds supporter.
Bakkies
Guest
More like trying to actually enforce the existing dangerous tackle law 10.4 (e). This has come about as referees weren't policing it correctly and letting play go. Slipped in to the tackle and running height has never been relevant in that law
AJ
Guest
We're going to see more players lying down after they've been contacted on the head.
RedandBlack
Guest
The general feeling here seems to be for more uniform action under the guise of consistency. I would not like to see this as each situation should be judged on its merits by the offical team - who are then judged on their merits by their admin, the teams and fans - this may be a slower way of getting where we are going - but we will still have a game of rugby at the end of it. Blanket rulings and depriving ref's of initiative through compulsory cards are an anathema to me.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Agree with you Daveski. It's hard to argue against Brett's point and the sooner the SR refs sort out inconsistencies we saw this week the better. But overall I've been pleasantly surprised that since the new law variation was introduced, there has been remarkably little controversy or incident. Players have adjusted and referees, by and large, are applying common sense. What is most interesting is how they are ruling differently if a tackle is passive or aggressive. I've seen numerous situations over the last few weeks (often in close or in a pick and go) where the ball carrier is low to the ground, and the tackler grabs him over the shoulder/neck region. These tackles are mostly passive and while they are technically high, there is no risk of injury and these cases are mostly being ruled as play on. They are more grabs as opposed to tackles. I don't know if that's official policy or not, but that seems to be what they're doing. The types of tackles which are being penalised are when the defender applies force. Hunt swung his arm into the tackle and hit the ball carrier in the head. He was unlucky sure, but that's the point of the law, hitting players in the head with force, accidentally or on purpose, must be minimised. There's no way in rugby to get total consistency over this, each case is different and referees still have to make a subjective decision. But if we can get through most weeks with little or no real complaint - where games aren't decided by it - then I'd rate that as a win.
Bakkies
Guest
How many props do you know that win line outs and set up driving mauls?
ethan
Guest
Exactly right Brett. I made the comment at the time these rules were announced it was going to cause debate all year with inconsistencies and we are seeing it already. It's incredibly open to interpretation. How Douglas got a yellow and Oosthuizen didn't for exactly the same thing in the same game with the same referee is beyond me...
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
It's exactly the same parallel. They have a bunch of words that they themselves choose how to interpret and apply. It is literally exactly the same thing. The only difference is that they have a boss who tells them how they should apply it - but the point still applies to the bosses who tell the referees what it mean. Please don't pretend that words are unambiguous.
grapeseed
Guest
Paul, by that logic a Red card would not have been wrong per se, as this sanction is also available to the referee. Many of us on here are simply arguing that the law changes did not compel this result, as seems to have been interpreted by some others. The referee's comments immediately on the ground, acknowledging that it was an unfortunate accident that hadn't been aggravated by Hunt, supports the idea that the referee has misunderstood his mandatory requirement in this case. Referees don't apologetically award cards as if they are compelled to do so by the law, unless they think they are compelled to do so by the law - hence I believe the referee has made a simply mistake.
Paul
Guest
"I’m not going to enter a discussion on how interpretation of judgments/statutes (in the legal sphere)" Good! Because it's not relevant. We are talking about a Referee (not a magistrate) making a decision based on their, or their assistants observations, and how the law is written. The in's and outs of arguments and counter-arguments within a legal setting of lawyers and magistrates is not a reasonable parallel to draw.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
Paul, I'm going to presume that you're not a lawyer, because that really isn't how laws work. I'm not going to enter a discussion on how interpretation of judgments/statutes (in the legal sphere), but suffice to say that a large part of what law is about (at higher level courts) is arguing and defining what words mean. Likewise, the referees function as judges and can decide what the words mean (or at least, are told by their superiors what they mean). You're probably right and world rugby wants to be seen like they are taking a no-nonsense stance on head collisions and would make that a penalty minimum. However, I think this is a mistake as it is well within their power to interpret the rules in such a way that an occasion like Hunt's can be considered the fault of the tackled player and thus no penalty should be awarded. Likewise, the penalty on Dargaville was ridiculous. Dagg put himself in a dangerous situation and Dargaville got the yellow card. He shouldn't even have gotten a penalty in my opinion.
Akari
Roar Rookie
Good and timely article, Brett. I am glad that you brought up the Landers/Chiefs game as there was IMO anyway a fair bit of head hunting during that game and yet no one was binned. As much as I'd like to think that the ref was trying not to influence the outcome, I couldn't help thinking of the opposite effect. It was fortunate that no one came off with a bad injury other than the concussion to Ben Smith. Should the tackler been binned for the accidental contact that threw Smith off his feet and banging his head on the ground? Perhaps. And now Smith is out for a few weeks.