In the days before rampant litigation and lawfare, there was a bizarre concept, unfamiliar to many these days, called personal responsibility.
This personal responsibility, now a strange, foreign idea, was that people could make decisions and be exposed to the risk, and, (god-forbid) the consequences of their actions.
Sadly, personal responsibility no longer exists in our society, and in rugby. Surely, when any rugby player takes the field, they accept the fact that they may be injured, they may break their bones, or they might even die.
Everyone seems to understand this, except for World Rugby, who this year changed the laws around high tackles.
As of 2017, any high tackle is an automatic yellow card, unless a tackler ‘slips’ into the tackle. That means that some of the more reckless tackles are now classified as red cards. Really?
Yes, really. Quade Cooper was sent off over the weekend for a swinging arm that should have been a penalty at best.
World Rugby justifies these changes as important for the safety of players. But how much damage does a high tackle really do? The medical evidence suggests that lots of concussions cause issues for players. This ignores that some players get more concussed than others, concussions are quite rare from high tackles, but most importantly, it ignores a crucial fact:
When rugby players play, they accept the fact they might have injuries that cause issues for them later in life. If they don’t accept this, they stop playing.
And that is exactly what some rugby players do: stop. Elton Flatley, whom retired in 2006, was particularly prone to getting concussed, more so than any other player. So he stopped playing!
The second and more important fact to consider is that red cards are not necessarily a strong deterrent – particularly in cases of accidents. Tackling is a tricky business, and getting your position right is difficult. There are no players that deliberately look to swing their arm in the professional game.
So why is there a red card for an accident? A red card should be based off an intent to injure or hurt, not an accident. Accidents will keep happening, red card or not.
A red card only works as the glorious deterrent it is said to when players can actually cease and desist their activities. Well I’m sorry to be the one to explain it to World Rugby, but it’s hard to stop doing something that happens by accident!
It doesn’t help that players who’ve made the unfortunate error of committing their offense in (what I like to call) the People’s Republic of the SARU are then given obscene bans for their petty crimes. Quade Cooper has since been given a three-game suspension.
It’s safe to say that had it been a South African player nowhere near a strong a suspension would have been given, but that is a topic for another time (don’t miss my next article where I will analyse the South African judiciary and the biases involved).
World Rugby should stop interfering with the reality that rugby is a contact sport where people will get hurt. Sure, minimising injuries is good, but how about some sensible policies that don’t spoil the game.
Rescind the red card directive and do something productive, like getting rid of Romain Poite and Jerome Garces from refereeing the Lions series.
Marker
Guest
The public pays a lot of money to watch a game of international rugby, only to have it spoiled by a red card. Send the offender off, sure, but replace him after 10 min. Any longer wrecks the game. The Sonny Bill send off against the Lions for what was a poorly executed tackle, ruined what should have been an amazing spectacle, and it contributed to the unsatisfying result that was the series.
kiwi
Guest
Watched Chabal break Ali Williams' jaw last night again on some YouTube highlights. He very clearly lowered his head and charged. Would that have been adjudicated on differently in 2017?
The Goon
Guest
Off the top of my head Steven Luatua, 4 weeks for a swinging arm to the head. Renaldo Bothma, 4 weeks for a swinging arm to the head. Quade Cooper, 3 weeks out for a swinging arm to the head. Nicholas Sanchez, 1 week for a flying knee to the head. Izaia Perese, 0 weeks for a spear tackle caught on camera. This would have been reviewed as part of QCs hearing. Looking forward to seeing your more in depth analysis on the judiciary process
piru
Roar Rookie
Strange that you champion personal responsibility for the people who might be hurt but not for those who knowingly offend against what was a very publicised and talked about directive at the start of the season. It's actually quite ridiculous to defend a player attacking another player's head with the argument that they knew they might get hurt.
Rt
Guest
Some points I agree with, other I don't. Consistency is disappointing, particularly in South Africa. The problem is more concussions happen to the tackler as a result of getting the technique wrong than occur because of high tackles. Further it's the small constant hits that happen over extended careers (from an early age) that cause the ongoing damage.
Sircoolalot
Guest
Red cards should be reserved for extreme acts of violence. Expand the use if the yellow card system so there are no pointless 3 warnings bollocks. Better yet scrap yellow cards and have just have sin bins on a grading system for technical infringements and foil play, also introduce a power play dynamic like ice hockey.
Rebellion
Guest
Rugby Union used to be such a great sport. Now only the All Blacks play the game at a level it can be enjoyed. It's malignant
bert
Guest
Agree with the sentiment of the article, and would like to include aerial challenges where neither player can pull out, but one is red-carded after video analysis. Come on, it is a contact sport. Also have to agree wih the standard of French refereeing generally. It must really frustrate the players
William Tell
Guest
No one deliberately throws a swinging arm? Seriously? More like they are well disguised - with a defence prepared well in advance, the lamest of which is: I was aiming for his shoulder (really - his shoulder?) and my arm just bounced up. Rugby Union places a premium on player safety, but look at what goes on in rucks and mauls and off the ball. Players run full tilt into a player on top of a ruck, and make first contact with their shoulder - usually at an undefended part of the body, often the ribs, sometimes higher up. Last night a Highlanders player hit a Brumby player with his shoulder direct into the head. How does that happen if tackles are to be directed below the shoulders? My standard is the Umanga (and partner) tackle on Irish skipper O'Driscoll - as deliberate an action as you are likely to see. Leaving aside the cowardly attack on Carozza. Now before you start yelling: this was years ago, it just serves to illustrate that some players do set out to disable opponents. I am happy to accept the lawful physicality of rugby - but crap excuses and just-get-on-with-it dismissals are placing players long-term health at risk.
Jock Cornet
Guest
Last year it was all Graham's fault, now it is the cards fault. Reds are undisciplined and not up to the contest, they will be lucky to win one of their next 4
geoff
Guest
No Do some research. Head injuries are a huge concern and your attitude basically boils down to "man up or move on" Ridiculous and thoroughly ignorant
In Brief
Guest
Ok, so World Rugby decided to kill the Lions Series - what a joke, the two worst referees for the biggest tour? Agree regarding red cards, but it's every worse for yellow cards which are often based on technicalities or repeat offences (even when it's the first penalty for that offence against that player, and the penalty is probably incorrect anyway). My hunch is the way 15s is being refereed is being influence by the vanilla sport of 7s.
Navumaga
Guest
Your article has merit. However, let's face it, rugby is a professional workplace these days and as a result the governing body needs to do what it can to minimise the risk to the players health both during their time on the field and life thereafter. It's no secret that concussions are very real these days with recent local research indicating that collisions in general are having detrimental effects compared those who aren't weekend warriors. The red card rule is here to stay. It has already had an effect on the way players play. Thankfully, as the weeks of rugby has progressed so to has the rule. It's still a little vague (like many of the interpretations of the 100s of rules) but generally the red card is now only given where there is intent, injury or malice. Yellow cards for anything else.. which is still frustrating. You only have to look at the Hurricanes game against the Highlanders where the Wellington halfback was given a yellow card. The replays show accidental contact with the opposing player head while attempting to secure a floating pass in cover defence. There was no intent, or malice and totally accidental but a yellow was given. The two red cards to date have been for valid applications and the resulting suspensions reinforce that position. The players run the risk of losing the game for their respective side with one poor or fatigued given choice should they make any contact with a players head.
Ruckin' Oaf
Guest
Volenti non fit injuria However it's generally accepted that by taking the field and playing sports players accept the risk of injury only from legal play not foul play. There is no consent to foul play - and if injury is the result of foul play then that may give rise to legal liability. The law has been consistent in this regard for some decade.
Karl Knuth
Guest
"So why is there a red card for an accident? A red card should be based off an intent to injure or hurt, not an accident. Accidents will keep happening, red card or not." This I agree with. Red cards should be reserved to intentional foul play imo. ie: punching, diving, intentional high tackles, shoulder charges, eye gouges and swinging arms. We will see a bit of back and forward with the new high tackle rules and officials work to get it right. However I do think red cards should be reserved for intensional foul play.
Chinmay Hejmadi
Roar Guru
Agree with Shop. The point about red cards being given for minor offences is valid, but the fact also remains that players' safety should be paramount, and if clamping down on high tackles helps ensuring that then so be it. However, there are various facets to this issue, with many other actions on the rugby field also being equally, if not more dangerous than the high tackle (neck rolls being one of them). In fact, in many cases the tackler is the one at higher risk of injury than the tackled player. I don't agree with pinning everything on player's responsibility though. Yes it's a contact sport, and we don't want to compromise on the "toughness" of it all, and we know that players accept that too, but that does not absolve the governing body from its duty towards protecting the players. And besides, even ignoring any moral implications of leaving it all to "personal responsibility", it just isn't financially wise, we've seen what happened with the lawsuit against the NFL.
Shop
Roar Guru
I agree with some your points but plenty to disagree with also! Clamping down on high tackles is good thing. You mention personal responsibility, well it is up to the players to not go high in a tackle. I do however think the QC shot was not nearly as bad considering as what it received as the player he hit was falling towards the try line. A shot on Ed Quirk in the Bulls V SWolves game was much worse and warranted a red card any day of the week. I'm not sure what he sort of ban the Bulls player got but it deserved longer than QC. On red cards, I don't think it is long before we see the culprit being sent off not to return but can be replaced after 20 minutes.