Banned Wallabies winger Reece Hodge has hit out at widespread reports he is ignorant of World Rugby’s high tackle sanctioning framework.
Reece Hodge wants the infatuation with head high tackles at the Rugby World Cup to cease.
But before that, the banned Wallabies winger feels the need to launch a fierce defence of himself and team management over accusations he is ignorant of the rules.
A riled Hodge has vented his disappointment on social media soon after coach Michael Cheika confirmed the three-game suspension for a high tackle on Fijian Peceli Yato wouldn’t be appealed.
The 25-year-old is “gutted” at the decision made by a judicial committee which sidelines him from the three remaining pool games, including Sunday’s clash with Wales in Tokyo.
In an Instagram post, Hodge has called on media to focus on rugby and the tournament, rather than all of negative minutiae surrounding how high tackles are cited and sanctioned.
The committee put out a written report that said he had “no effective knowledge” of World Rugby’s decision-making framework around the sanctions for head high tackles.
Hodge was widely criticised on social and mainstream media for his apparent ignorance, something he wanted addressed.
He said the framework was designed for officials, not players.
“Those that have played rugby would know that we don’t think about the numbered elements of a decision-making tree for referees and TMOs in the split second before a tackle,” he wrote.
“Numerous articles suggesting I admitted to not knowing the ‘new tackle techniques’ are an utter fabrication.”
Reece said he was coached to tackle low and was aware contact to the head can be detrimental to player safety.
The only disciplinary action against Hodge in his professional career was a yellow card for a deliberate knockdown.
“With that said, it was an obvious accident and I will pay a heavy price,” he said.
In the same post he sent a message to Yato, wishing him a quick recovery after the Fiji forward missed their second pool game with concussion caused by the tackle.
“There was never any malice in the contact and any suggestions to that effect are simply false. Anyone who knows me will attest to that,” Hodge wrote.
Nobody
Roar Rookie
Well it was in reply - a hypothetical reply because we're not actually talking! - to Reece's comment: Numerous articles suggesting I admitted to not knowing the ‘new tackle techniques’ are an utter fabrication. If I have a point, it's that "utter fabrication" seems a little excessive.
pm
Roar Rookie
just watching OZ - Wales now. Hooper did pretty much the same thing and got a penalty for it. course the impact was shoulder, not head, but these things are so marginal between dangerous and not that a multi-match is tough
LED
Guest
That Spiro article is drivel. We have a World Cup being played and that’s his contribution.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
I would have found that much more reasonable mate, although I also wouldn’t have found it only being worthy of a yellow card unreasonable either.
pm
Roar Rookie
More 'Shame on you Roar' for blocking comments. It was an opinion piece rather than what it purported to be, let's not get rid of opinion-driven articles on theroar.
pm
Roar Rookie
Yes, a red card missed, but not malicious. He should have been suspended for one match
pm
Roar Rookie
I agree, Spiro's article was more an indication of his attitude to Cheika than an accurate account of what's happened
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
What’s your point nobody?
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Roar Guru
I find myself in agreement KP. It’s hard to argue for click bait status when there are no, yknow ‘clicks’.
SandBox
Roar Guru
You have to admit that RA have been selective in how they implement the CoC....but yes, thought Spiro’s article was more a thinly valued swipe at RA over Folau as well
Iain Barclay
Guest
Yeah I wanted to reply to Spiro's article as well - and was pretty surprised when I couldn't. Doesn't the well known principle of free speech [including a reply] apply on Roar any more? VERY disappointing!!!
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
Yeah, and I understand that it is motivated by legitimate concerns over player safety and potential lawsuits. But you’re right, there are situations in which it isn’t black and white and there just isn’t fault.
Big Dave
Roar Rookie
I think this is the core of it. Those citing him and convicting him show a complete lack of 'feel' for the game. This is how zero tolerance always ends up.
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
I don’t read Spiro’s article as calling for Cheika’s sacking now; rather that RA (presumably on their own reckoning) could have sacked the Wallaby coach on numerous occasions since the 2015 RWC
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
Rubbish. Click bait would not have comments disabled. IMO, KP
AJ
Guest
Suggesting the RA sanction Cheika mid way through the world cup for one his dummy spits, habitual over the past 5 years, is a waste of key strokes. Not only that but it actually does precisely the same thing that Spiro is railing against, the attackers role in dangerous tackles. I do think Wayne Smith (a journalist that Spiro hates) is on the money with his article yesterday. Players who jump into contact, duck into tacklers and dive head first for the line etc, sometimes leave the defenders with only the options of committing a foul or just waving them through. There needs to be some balance to this. Spiro himself steals the oxygen from this with his sensationalist drivel about Cheika.
Andy J
Roar Rookie
I think Gloria and Cheika are the same person always argue the same point and play the victim and conspiracy theory cards
Andy J
Roar Rookie
“Most head injuries in tackles – about 75 per cent of them, and 75 per cent of these injuries – involve damage done to the tackler. That is right: the tackler, not the tackled player, is the player who is injured most.” Brilliant point and one completely ignored by the governing body, who refuse to look at this evidence as they change the rules. Lowering or narrowing the tacklers target zone is only going to further increase head injury and concussion rates, with more collisions of elbows shoulders hips and knees vs tacklers heads. The nipple height law is utter stupidity! If they were serious about head injury prevention they could look at ball runner bot been allowed to raise the elbows and forearms as they go into contact. I’m pretty sure this is already a law but very rarely policed.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Yeah, honestly, I was a bit surprised that people were teeing off on Hodges allegedly not knowing the framework. The Framework isn't for players to care about for mine... Knowing how tackles are graded once charged is hardly something I would worry about... all Players know if it is high, it could well be charged... I mean the Framework won't come into consideration in the split second they make a tackle will it? Once a tackle rides high, there is no difference whether you understand the Framework or not is there? My issue is the inconsistencies across the board. Did anyone see the Argie player should the Tongan? How was that not carded during the game?
bigbaz
Roar Guru
The silence from the ROAR editors show what Spiros’ article is exactly what we suspect, click bait from people who are disrespecting their own audience.