The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

The constant cry for consistency

Autoplay in... 6 (Cancel)
Up Next No more videos! Playlist is empty -
Replay
Cancel
Next
Roar Pro
24th May, 2019
51
1466 Reads

More refereeing consistency is required in rugby union.

I think most of realise refereeing isn’t an easy job. I also think most of us realise there’s a lot room for interpretation within the laws of the sport. I would think that’s as frustrating to referees themselves as it is to us.

There are obviously a lot of decisions that end up being the subject of public debate. Here are a few from the last couple of years that stand out to me and highlighting the inconsistency of refereeing.

The Folau hair pulling incident of 2017 was one such incident. Now while ‘hair pulling’ or ‘hair tackles’ aren’t actually named per se in the law book, it is covered in the World Rugby Handbook: 10.4 (m) Hair pulling or grabbing which has a lower end sanction of two weeks and a maximum sanction of 52 weeks.

In the law, the act could fall under 10.4 (e) dangerous tackling (above the shoulders) or 10.4 (m) acts contrary to good sportsmanship. I get that perhaps, when the law was written, the writer’s didn’t envisage men pulling each other’s hair, much the same as bowling underarm wasn’t considered enough of a potential threat to make a law about it.

However, this isn’t a one-off incident. While I didn’t think it was intentional, the intention of the tackler doesn’t alter the result. Also, I think there was enough time to realise there was no more jersey in the fist, and letting the hair go. The fact some refs give yellow cards for it and some don’t show that the rules definitely need solidifying.

On the 2018 southern hemisphere teams’ end of year tours to the northern hemisphere, the inconsistency with the Owen Farrell shoulder charges and Johnny Sexton high tackles were noticeable.

Advertisement

Owen Farrell shoulder charged two opponents in a matter of weeks – the first on Andre Esterhuizen in the Test against South Africa at Twickenham. If South Africa had been awarded a penalty for foul play, Handre Pollard would’ve no doubt kicked the winning points.

The second was on Izack Rodda against Australia, again at Twickenham, again in the last moments of the game, and again it could’ve changed who won the game had the incident been penalised.

Both Cheika and Campese were “left baffled after a decision not to penalise England No.10 Owen Farrell for a blatant shoulder charge”.

What makes it worse, is that Cheika attended a referees meeting before the Test and was told that Farrell’s shoulder charge on Esterhuizen should’ve been a penalty!

Campese tweeted, “I can’t believe that Owen Farrell did it again. No arms in a shoulder charge tackle. When will the IRB (World Rugby) site [sic] this guy for it? This is not in the spirit of the game”.

I must admit to agreeing with him.

Owen Farrell

Owen Farrell earned the ire of Australian fans for his shoulder charge on Izack Rodda. (Photo by Visionhaus/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Now, I read comments from people saying Farrell didn’t make contact with the head and that it wasn’t intentional. First off, shoulder charges have never been acceptable in rugby union. The laws, originally written in 1871, were unfortunately ambiguous: “A tackle is when the holder of the ball is held by one or more players of the opposite side but has always relied on the gentlemanly spirit of the game”.

But, as has come up many times last year, according to the law, the intention of the tackler doesn’t actually matter and therefore should not play a part in the resulting decision.

Secondly, a shoulder charge is not legal, plain and simple. A tackle requires the arms to be wrapped – and in both cases, Farrell’s weren’t. Now if a South Africa player had unintentionally and unmaliciously shoulder charged Farrell without making contact to the head, would those people still feel okay with no card being given?

To me, they weren’t red card offences, but the first should’ve been a penalty and the second should’ve resulted in Farrell being in the bin for ten minutes and perhaps even a penalty try.

Of course, had both shoulder charges been penalised that way, England would’ve lost both games. As Patrick McKendry put it, “Not only did he get away with a blatant shoulder-charge on South Africa’s Andre Esterhuizen at Twickenham when a penalty could have cost his team the test, an act that was analysed and replayed over and over, he was at it again during England’s win over Australia with a try-saving shoulder charge on Wallaby Izack Rodda which should have resulted in a penalty try. Both tackles could have earned a yellow card at least and yet there was nothing; not even a penalty”.

McKendry suggests World Rugby “may like to have a think about the way they have encouraged Farrell’s tackling technique (and to condone it is to encourage it)”. While World Rugby is constantly repeating how serious they are about head injuries, they need to be more consistent with penalising such acts as “tackling like Farrell does is dangerous for the ball carrier but also the tackler”.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

Advertisement

As far as shoulder charges go, the British and Irish Lions’ second Test against the All Blacks in New Zealand had its fair share of controversy. I had no issues with Sonny Bill Williams being red carded for shoulder charge on Anthony Watson as he make contact with the head.

I don’t think it was malicious (not that that affects the referee’s decision), but more of a brain-fart moment. It is worth noting though that “Garcès had decided the offence was worth a red, but his two colleagues seemed unsure”.

However, in that same match Mako Vunipola targeted Beauden Barrett twice. The first was a late tackle, which received a penalty, and the second was “a particularly vicious clear-out” shoulder charge on a prone Barrett which caught him on the jaw.

According to Phil Gifford, “The late, no arms, shoulder charge screamed for a yellow card, and it would have been hard to argue that his dive into an unprotected Barrett on the ground didn’t raise the level very close to red”.

As far as I’m aware, the jaw is part of the head so one has to wonder why Garcès was satisfied with only sending Vunipola to the bin for te -minutes, especially how it was his second foul play infringement of the match. Where was the consistency? Goodness, if a ref can’t be consistent in one game, it’s bad news for rugby.

Sexton often tackles high, and rarely gets penalised for it. According to Petese Cannon, “[Sexton’s] technique with regards tackling is often purposefully high in order to wrap both man and ball at the same time, slowing the attack down and on occasion stripping the actual ball for his team”.

Advertisement

In a 2016 interview with the Irish Times, Sexton said he tackles high “because it stops the opponent from offloading”.

In the 2016 re-match against the All Blacks in Dublin after the win at Soldier Field in Chicago, he had Beauden Barrett in what can only be described as a neck-lock over the try-line. In that match, Malakai Fekitoa had been correctly penalised for a high tackle on Simon Zebo, but not Sexton.

Johnny Sexton runs at Wales duo Justin Tipuric and Alun Wyn Jones

Johnny Sexton (centre) needs to work on his tackling. (Photo by Charles McQuillan/Getty Images)

According to an article in the Otago Daily Times, Sexton should “have been yellow carded possibly even sent off if he lucked out with a jittery official for his attempted try-saving tackle on Beauden Barrett in the first half”.

In the recent victory over the All Blacks, the Irish captain, Rory Best, could be heard quite clearly yelling at Sexton to watch his tackling. It seems everybody heard it except the ref!

The tackle Rory was yelling about wasn’t the first of the match, and all but one went unpenalised. In fact, the only penalty given was against the high tackle on TJ.

I daresay that if it had been a player in a black jersey constantly tackling high the crowd and every rugby writer in the northern hemisphere would’ve bayed for his blood.

Advertisement

Steve Hansen has been very vocal in post-match media conferences with his request for more consistency – whether it’s following a loss or a win. As rugby supporters, it’s what we all should want.

In the 2018 series against the French, there was “inconsistency from one game to the next or even within a game”. Hansen has asked for World Rugby “to take another look at the roles of the referee and the three assistants and to also differentiate between foul play and a lack of intent in incidents or accidents”.

He’s also suggested “the television match official was scrapped in a favour of a challenge system for coaches” and put idea forward to World Rugby but it has, so far, been ignored.

With regard to the red card Benjamin Fall received in the second Test, Hansen said, “I think they’ve set a precedent haven’t they when Angus did everything by the book with the French red card and then they let him [Fall] off. They’ve now got to look at that themselves.” So essentially, that decision made refereeing even more difficult than it presently is.

Gardiner hasn’t been the same referee since.

Refereeing isn’t easy and, while mistakes are bound to happen, there are four officials officiating all top level games. This should result in more consistency, not less.

The technology should be used not to whip the crowd into a frenzy as is often the case, but to get the call right. However, equally important is that World Rugby not buckle under pressure from individual nations and overturn referee decisions, and thereby publicly hang referees out to dry.

Advertisement
close