World Rugby’s adoption of the new high tackle framework in the World Cup is being both applauded and criticised.
Now that the quarter-final showdowns have been decided, the rugby world is gearing up for an exhilarating finish.
However, spectators are concerned that the implementation of this framework could influence the outcome of the tournament. Therefore, the referees’ decisions regarding what constitutes a high tackle and what doesn’t will be of utmost importance.
Of course, lazy and dangerous tackles must be punished to protect the players’ welfare, but as displayed throughout the World Cup, the laws are slowly being swallowed by grey areas.
These grey areas are becoming larger due to fateful referring decisions made throughout the group stages of the tournament. In the Australia vs Wales match, Romain Poite deemed Australian ball-carrier Samu Kerevi responsible for the tackler’s welfare.
More recently, in the Ireland vs Samoa match, referee Nic Berry red-carded Bundee Aki for a high tackle on a Samoan ball-carrier despite the fact that he fell into Aki’s shoulder. Aki is now facing a ban that will rule him out of the rest of Ireland’s competition.
(Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images)
The tremendous advantage that a yellow or red card gives the opposing side could warrant exploitation of this high tackle framework.
In answer to the questions regarding whether players would exploit the game in this way, I present a case study. You may recall the AFL’s 2014 ducking saga where various teams and players cleverly exploited the introduction of new laws that protected player welfare to obtain an advantage in the game. Joel Selwood was known all too well for this contentious tactic.
The difference with the AFL umpires compared to rugby is that they were allowed to make in-game decisions based on their game awareness in order to discourage exploitation. World Rugby’s high tackle framework inhibits this game awareness in rugby refereeing. So, if the framework was ever exploited, they would have no choice but to award it.
Obviously, the rugby referees must enforce the laws provided to them but they must also utilise an awareness of this exploitation in the coming matches.
If ducking into tackles to exploit the referee’s decisions were to enter into game plans, as it did in the AFL, it could have dangerous repercussions for the players. Due to the resulting yellow or red offering a tremendous advantage over the opposing side, it is only a matter of time.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
It would be awful to see the matches descend into a games of Uno. I have observed quite a bit of mic chatter between the Ref and the TMO's where they ask the question: Any mitigating circumstances? And this is where the the grey turns to black and white. My opinion is that a player that ducks or runs dangerously should be accountable for their own safety. "Contact with own head"..... I don't think we are there yet, but a rule like this would shift the balance back.
Iain
Guest
I disagree with your comment that there is no time to change the framework for this championship - all they have to do is ask all those refereeing the play to watch for mitigating factors [especially players ducking and swerving into a tackle] that significantly contribute to the subsequent illegal contact. That's just fine tuning and would work fine with the existing high contact rules. The trouble is that some big egos at the top of world rugby now feel threatened by the chaos the one sided interpretation of the rules has invoked [not to mention the lack of discrimination between accidental high contact and deliberate/thoughtless high contact when it comes to handing out the resulting judgements] and are seeking to redirect the spotlight elsewhere by attacking the coaches. Unfortunately a bit of fine tuning through applying common sense is always going to come out second best to big egos defending themselves.
Ruckin' Oaf
Guest
Some time ago when rugby started a crackdown on protecting the man in the air I can recall some opining that it would lead to ball carriers jumping into tackles. I'm still waiting on that one. Now they'll be ducking as well.
Morsie
Guest
Any head hit with Shakesperean histrionics should require a compulsory 20 minute HIA.
Jarrod Murray
Roar Rookie
Seeing the same thing from Barrett and again from a Japanese player go unpunished, I’d have to say they need to work on their consistency for the finals.
mitzter
Guest
Barely yellow in any sensible framework. The author has provided an example of players putting themselves into dangerous situations to exploit safety rules and AFL doesn't even give the huge advantage of a yellow or, especially, a red card. I too played for many years and have to say we would frequently target the slow prop with poor technique and duck into their arms all day. Usually only got a penalty in those days but easy metres. With the current incentives you know it's happening. Why else is there such a high number of HIAs?
Greysy
Roar Rookie
So the player has to be hospitalised for the foul play to be deliberate? Or is this just criteria that applies only to New Zealanders? Regardless, if you don't think that one was deliberate than I guess you are just... "A One eyed cantabrian".
TC
Roar Rookie
Jarrod..I believe Skeen either noticed Kerevi or was informed to look out for it..During the Rugby Championship Kerevi ran over a few People..As long as it is consistent
OJ
Roar Rookie
Didn't cope so well in Perth
elvis
Roar Rookie
Because if there was no yellow it encourages "accidently on purpose" tackles. There has to be an incentive to stop the tackles where the arm slips up off the ball.
Jak
Guest
Cause Kiwis are always the victims, never the perpetrators. No flies on them sir, none indeed.
Jacob Simpson
Roar Rookie
100% agree... watch the players duck into tackles and stay down if they ever get a little tap on the head... these new laws are killing the game... Aki our for the World Cup for an accidental collision is just ludicrous
BigDrinker
Roar Rookie
Great read :rugby:
Dean 2
Guest
World rugby need to have another chat with their legal advisers. Part of the reason for the high tackle "framework" is to reduce liability for potential future brain damage claims. However the way it is being implemented, World Rugby is now incentivising players to put their head in harm's way. They are making themselves more liable to future claims, not less.
Jarrod Murray
Roar Rookie
Cheers Slats! I appreciate the feedback!
One Eye
Roar Rookie
Please, it takes a special type of person to deliberately put an elbow into someones throat and again, if it was deliberate do not think poor little Beale would have been in hospital? As for me not mentioning my own, I was merely responding to someone who seemed quite happy for cards to apply to all apart from Aus.
Greysy
Roar Rookie
Well, regardless he was found to have met a red card threshold well before the current stricter rules on contact. Anyway, a deliberate forearm to the throat is what it is. I guess I'm just highlighting what i think is the silliness of yourself singling out players from other nations while ignoring the conduct of some of your own.
Slats
Roar Rookie
Agreed. As stupid as putting your head in harms way is, I recall playing with plenty of blokes who'd duck into a tackle if it meant there was a chance the opposition went down a player. I'd suggest it would be as calculating as aiming to make it happen in the latter part of the first half, in case the 'fall guy' ended up failing a concussion test, so as to limit the impact to the bench. I can even see coaches ensuring a backup player sits on said bench to cover this exact scenario. Extreme? Definitely. Plausible? Yeah man - this is a world cup we are talking about. Great article mate, keep em coming.
Aiden
Guest
Very sensible. What is overlooked here as well is the dangers of playing with 14 or 13 men for the majority of the game. More fatigue, players extending themselves, players needing to engage in play that they would not normally need to engage in. The whole team is penalised for the actions of an individual and the contest ruined. If referee knew that the contest was not going to be destroyed they might make quicker decisions as well, knowing that there is only a 10 or 15 minute period with a man down. Often if feels like they are paralysed by indecision hence the epic numbers of replays.
One Eye
Roar Rookie
I think you'll find if there was real intention there the player would have been hospitalised...