When we, the rugby community, want to try out a new experimental law – as we regularly should – we get World Rugby to sanction a trial.
Then that trial is carried out under controlled conditions, in lower-level competitions. For example, the Stellenbosch trials of several years ago, or the various trials of innovative concepts such as the 50-20 kick, or the idea where if the ball is held up over the try line, the restart is a goal-line dropout rather than a five-metre scrum.
A lot of people around the world would not know about these, but these are trials that are actually currently happening in the Australian National Rugby Championship, and there have been many similar trials of new ideas around the world, over many years, and many of those have never resulted in the particular idea seeing the light of day.
My point is that we painstakingly try out these new ideas in lower level leagues, and they are assessed by the powers that be at World Rugby. They may or may or not find their way into the law book, but the important point is they are not trialled at the highest level.
They are trialled so that they can eventually be melded into the fabric of the game and used at every level of competition, all the way to the Rugby World Cup, so that all nations and all regions are not disadvantaged.
And yet, here we are at the World Cup, where some governing body – maybe the referees, maybe World Rugby – has imposed this head contact rule on the game, apparently without any real thought for the fact that they are destroying this tournament as a spectacle.
The whole head contact issue is important, and yes, it needs to be heavily policed and mandated. But is the RWC the proper place to do it?
Why not crack down on it in the intervening years? There are plenty of competitions and plenty of opportunities for the governing body and the referees to get it right.
I wrote a while back that by giving people red cards and forcing an uneven contest, we are ruining our game. This RWC is living proof of that.
The referees and the TMOs are killing this as a spectacle. There is no doubt about that.
Watching Nigel Owens send off Argentina’s Tomas Lavanini against England, I felt for both of them, both Owens and Lavanini. The referee had no choice and the player was dead to rights. What a shame.
(Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)
Why do we have to put up with the inevitability of it?
Rugby is a tough game, played by tough people, of all different shapes and sizes, who willingly play the game, knowing the risks.
Dirty play should always be sanctioned, but when the officials start second guessing the players, then there is a major disconnect.
When big men are tackling smaller men in games at great speed, it is inevitable that there will be innocent mistakes made.
Here is the message: World Rugby and referees, you are killing our game.
This may not be a big deal in some parts of the established rugby world, but it a huge problem in places where rugby is not the main game.
That’s not just Australia, where we suffer competition from three other codes, but in places like Uruguay, where their football team has won the FIFA World Cup twice, and, in fact, most nations where football is the main game, or the USA and Canada that are absolute minnows.
Education of the players is the answer, but doing it by forcing a new regime of red cards and citings at the once-in-four-years spectacle of the Rugby World Cup is not the appropriate forum for it.
On the one hand, we have Japan winning hearts and minds through the highly organised way that they are running this tournament, and then you almost have the rugby governing body working against those efforts to spoil the game as a spectacle.
It’s just all out of whack.
Glyn
Guest
Next World Cup all the players will be wearing crash helmets, inflatable sumo suits and the ball will be made of foam. I think that they should also be made to wear clown shoes to help slow the game down, let’s be safe out there.
Gus
Roar Rookie
We’re not discussing whether Farrell was or not targeted. We’re discussing the legality of Lavanini’s tackle. Please tell me that you acknowledge the difference. And whether Piers Francis was (not) punished using the same criteria. Incidentally, if you want someone out of the field, you go for his knees, not his head.
Gus
Roar Rookie
So which one is it? Scrutinize some players? Or refs shouldn’t act that way? contradictory comment IMHO. Lavanini cleaned his act in the past 2 years, but that shouldn’t matter. Red card offence should always be a red card. The discussion here is about consistency, since the English Team got away with the same offence.
Gus
Roar Rookie
At least you were not given 4 weeks
Gus
Roar Rookie
Your biomechanics could use some revision Neil. In the circumstances you describe (which are correct), the tackle is to be made with the left shoulder. Otherwise the tackler’s head ends up under the carrier. It’s instinctive. And easier.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
I have no Idea, this is a Pandora's box full of angry bees being chased by a hungry bear. Perhaps all players need to be fitted with bright orange handles and a SWL weight so that the tackler can decide if the player is too heavy to attempt a tackle on....
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
That's a heck of a coincidence there Sheek ;)
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
I hope then you have by now if you're a person who is known to stand by their word. In fact it should be at least two. Are you still standing ..... :stoked:
MonkeyBoy
Roar Rookie
Interesting string of comments about a substitution for a Red carded player so I'll reply to @Jonesy for ease. As a player a looong time ago I wasn't very talented but was a bit of a thug (more acceptable back then) so I have a somewhat cynical view. As a coach I have 23 players I put on 14/15 of my players and a "designated hitter", I have my other "best" player on the bench. I instruct said hitter to take out the most influential opposition player in their 22m zone. I spend a significant part of my training on how to defend/play effectively with 14 men...
GibbonRib
Roar Rookie
Hooper was stationary. Bigger was running towards him, although not looking at Hooper, having just passed the ball. Then Hooper stepped forwards into Biggar and lowered the shoulder to give him a decent wallop. If Hooper had just stood his ground then Biggar would have run into him, but it would have been a nothing collision. Hooper couldn't resist the free hit. I understand the temptation, but you want a bit more discipline from your captain. Easy penalty, and could have been yellow.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
if you lower your head height as you go into contact ....... it is a free pass to the tackler Here's the thing, how much lowering would be allowed. If the ball carrier slips slightly so that the tackle that would have hit him in the throat hits him in the forehead that should be a free pass ?
Morsie
Guest
Serves him right for dropping into a tackle then.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
I guess the old phrases around it being a game of inches apply yet again Jez! It does seem incongruous, made worse by the fact that Francis never served the adjudged yellow. But I think you'd have to agree, between us girls, it's pretty obvious Lavanini had every intention of injuring Farrell. Even if you know nothing of Francis' general play, he didn't have the look of a man trying to do the same to Hooley. And let's remember, once you're judged red under the high tackle laws, you start at 6 weeks - even with his previous record, he still received 2 weeks of the possible maximum 3 weeks reduction.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
When that 'jumping' undoubtedly contributes to a red card just 17 minutes in, I think all of us care that any contest that might have existed, has gone. And since we no longer live in the 1800s, I'm sure that those same black players, and black fans singing their support of the team, could not care less. As I'm sure the Spanish don't care Himno Nacional Argentino has it's roots in an anthem attacking them. The world moves on. So should you. Enjoy the rugby.
Doctordbx
Roar Rookie
I guess you do.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
I have to repeat, I don't appreciate Ledesma's psychological strategy. I don't find it useful. However, I find it ironic that you would find it immature. Your fans sing a hymn penned in 1840 by a black slave from Oklahoma (Wallace Willis), relating to the cotton fields he was tilling, reminded of his "masters" plantation in Mississippi. White rugby fans singing a slave written spiritual to support the black players representing Anglo Saxon England. I wonder when the black English players will woke to this situation. I find this distasteful and disgraceful. Who cares about jumping in the tunnel when you do this?
FunBus
Roar Rookie
The referees are much stricter on defensive shenanigans at the ruck in the English Aviva Premiership than they are in SR. So if your implication is that SH sides are disadvantaged by the ruck interpretations at the RWC, then England is disadvantaged even more.
HiKa
Roar Rookie
The sort of headgear Pocock wears reduces abrasion injuries (cuts) but it doesn't absorb anywhere near enough energy in a collision to prevent brain injuries. In the NFL where they do wear helmets capable of absorbing a good chunk of energy in a collision, the players adjusted their behaviour years ago to do riskier, more impactful things than they would dare without the helmet (e.g. diving head-first at one another) thereby cancelling out the safety provided by the helmet and indeed their current problems seem to be from receiving numerous lower level head knocks. Helmets in football are kind of like airbags in cars. They can reduce the amount of damage done to the occupant in a single collision, but you really need to focus on avoiding being in so many crashes in the first place.
Double Agent
Guest
Where the Hell is Peter K? The best poster on the Roar.
Double Agent
Guest
Someone said on here Yellow card for everything and let a forensic investigation determine the suspension if at all. An on the spot red card can be terribly harsh especially upon scrutiny it can be shown to be unfair.