Rugby needs to strike a balance between player welfare and changing the fabric of the sport.
Unfortunately, right now the most important conversation relating to our game seems to be guided by emotion and trite attacks on opposing views.
Let me say straight out that player welfare should not be the only consideration in what should be a full blooded but respectful debate. It is a consideration, perhaps the dominant or major consideration. But nevertheless it is not the only one.
If player welfare is to be the be all and end all, why not make head gear compulsory and only allow tackles around the waist? Or better still, ban contact sport altogether?
What started as a sensible discussion about the effects of contact sport on the brain is morphing into something far more insidious. Mission creep at its most destructive.
Some of you may think the idea of rugby being banned or changed so fundamentally that it is no longer recognisable is alarmist and unrealistic. But there are many doctors and politicians who think otherwise.
This is not a partisan issue either. Phil Kearns and Tim Horan were adamant that sending players off is bad for rugby. Both John Kirwan and Christian Cullen made similar comments regarding the use of Red Cards in the immediate aftermath of the fourth Bledisloe on Saturday evening.
Yet 2020 does seem to be the year of polarised views and lack of compromise. All too often when speaking of ‘player welfare’ woke is met by ‘old school blood and guts’. Where is the in-between, the middle road?
Some would argue that rugby has already found a balance when it comes to dealing with high tackles and its approach is spot on. I disagree.
Lachlan Swinton. (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
Again, the debate in essence is no different to any others that balance risk.
We could drive at 90klm/h on highways and have fewer deaths from high speed collisions, but that may cause more deaths from driver fatigue. We could ban children from drinking any alcohol until the age of 18, but that may lead to binge drinking as young adults.
‘Blow back’ and unintended consequences are by-products of poorly thought out policies that have not been properly scrutinised and tested by open debate.
Surely, if commentators, administrators and players are truly interested in addressing ‘player welfare’, a proper discussion regarding high tackles and how to sanction them should not just be ‘allowed’ but actively encouraged.
This week we have seen the Foul Play Review Committee rub both Lachie Swinton and Ofa Tu’ungafasi for four and three weeks respectively. In effect, these bans rule them out until 2021.
This author thinks both suspensions comical and a product of flawed processes, particularly Tu’ungafasi’s but also to a lesser extent Swinton’s.
The pivotal part of the judgments was as follows: “With respect to sanction… the act of foul play merited a mid-range entry point of six weeks due to the World Rugby instructions that dictate any incident involving contact with the head must start at the mid-range level.”
In other words, the referee, TMO, players and coaches as well as the actual Foul Play Review Committee itself may have thought the high tackles were low range but the committee had no discretion to apply a low range penalty.
Sam Cane shared clear (and I thought very fair) opinions about both tackles after the game that were favourable to the defendants. Yet the only mitigating factor taken into account was Swinton’s early guilty plea. The suspension of four weeks is of course debatable, some will think it ridiculously severe while others may think it too short.
That does not change the fact that something is very wrong with the process.
There are three key points that need to be considered in this argument.
Firstly, do the laws and the way they are applied affectively address player safety?
If we accept that the vast majority of high tackles are not intentional but as a result of recklessness then we must take account of the role fatigue plays in decision making. Does reducing a side to 14 men for 50 minutes help fatigue and limit the possibility of reckless contact?
Caleb Clarke (Photo by Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)
In addition, various studies have shown that 76per cent of injuries in rugby occur during tackles. Significantly however, most studies show that it is in fact the tackler (not the tackled) at most risk of head injury.
Trinity College in Dublin have published an extensive paper titled ‘Can tackle height influence head injury assessment in elite rugby union?’ which is far from straightforward in its conclusions. While it highlights the risk of going in chest high for tacklers (and the tackled), it also recommended against making contact with upper legs.
In a game played at high speed by giant people who are not machines, that kind of advice is almost impossible. Are we heading towards only tackles around the waist being permitted and if so, what are the implications for tacklers coming into contact with knees or hips?
Secondly, we must ask ourselves if it is just and fair to send players off for momentary lapses of timing and judgment?
In relation to Tuungafasi’s card, Justin Marshall commented that “Having played the game and understanding the contact areas, there is that tiny microsecond of intent and contact. The intent was never to hit him high.”
Surely, Marshall has hit the nail on the head. Intent must at least be a factor in all of this that is provided for in the laws and then in turn permitted to be considered by relevant committees and judiciaries.
It’s also worth noting that as a result of Tuungafasi’s red card, another young player was removed from the field in order to facilitate contested scrums despite the fact he did nothing wrong.
Thirdly, the question must be asked; are there better ways of doing it?
Yes, of course there are. And we know this because other contact sports do it better.
Officials in the NFL have discretion on-field to either penalise or eject a player. Failing to eject a player does not mean he can’t be sanctioned later on.
Rugby league categorises high tackles as intentional, reckless or careless and treats them accordingly. The judiciary has discretion.
And to those of you who say ‘well this isn’t league’ or ‘if you don’t like union don’t watch it’. Codes that are thriving can just about get away with such trite, unintelligent and unhelpful contributions. rugby union is not one of them.
For all the criticism of him, Nick Berry didn’t have a choice with either Red Card on Saturday. That is wrong in itself. But it should also be the case that for all but the worst offences, a yellow card will suffice.
Both Swinton and Tu’ungafasi should have immediately received yellow cards, spent ten minutes on the side line and been put on report.
The judiciary process is also broken. It should be dominated by ex-players. For example, the panel for Rugby Championship games could include a recently retired Wallaby, Puma, Springbok and All Black with a chairman sourced from the legal profession acting as a fifth and deciding voice if necessary.
The panel should be permitted to assess an incident in the whole. How high was it? Was an attempt made to use an arm? What about timing? Did someone slip? Was it bad luck or down right spiteful?
Such a process would be far more respected and better received than the nonsense we have now. Most importantly, it would be rugby players being judged by their peers.
Some may say that you can’t trust players to safe guard their own interests. I believe the opposite, it is up to them to set standards and expectations. If this debate is truly about them, what is the problem with giving them a bigger say in it?
Players are the custodians of the game not scientists, lawyers and administrators sipping champagne in the corporate boxes.
Loosey
Roar Rookie
Happy to have that tackle count checked. Mate, you oughta get something for that cough. You don’t have a fever too do you? I agree with the tacklers getting hurt part. Sometimes the moving player absorbs the energy exchange, sometimes the stationary player. It is very much down to how each player sets themselves for contact. Contact at the wrong part of the body and it gets ugly real quick a la Moody. For a big lad he crumpled like chip wrapper. Nobody’s fault mind, but while we focus on high shots players are just at risk of concussion from tackling legally.
Loosey
Roar Rookie
“ I’m not buying the idea that it ruins the spectacle.” Neither am I. Sometimes the hero gets killed. It’s still a spectacle. Deep down I think many NZ pundits are rueing the fact that 14 on 14 WB seemed to have the ABs measure. I honestly thought they would run right over the top of us with all that space.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Yea, below armpit would be better. Nipple line is ok to a degree for men. Can you imagine a referee controlling a women’s game and having to rule on that? ...“Ah yea Angus, are you there? Can you just check where her nipples are? I missed it down here.” ...and that would be the end of the rule.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Thank you for pointing out the number of tackles and the rate of red cards. Even if we include some of tackles that should have been (cough Head shot on Cane cough), the rate is very low. So it does show the problem isn’t as big as people make out. It’s thats two reds happened on one game, they see it as a much bigger thing. The rate of tacklers getting hurt would be much higher a suspect. And the damage being greater. Neither red card had that big an impact on the player except for again (cough Cane cough). But we did see, I think Moody knocked out cold by Hanigan that lead to an Aussie try. How many other players hurt themselves in tackles?
Fin
Roar Rookie
One of the issues I have is the length of suspension. How is not being able to play any rugby for months helpful in adjusting technique? Maybe suspension should be harsh but only applied at that level and above. If you get 6 matches in a test you can't play the next 6 tests but you can go back to super rugby and and earn your living and improve your game. If the suspension is 6 matches in super rugby then you can't play the next 6 super rugby games or any tests in that time but you can go back and play club rugby.
Good article, posing some interesting questions. I don’t have an answer, I just don’t see you can eliminate high tackles completely, there are so many factors to consider in making a tackle legitimate or not. Tacklers have to instinctively make tackles, even if you train them ten thousand hours to tackle low, it doesn’t replicate a match situation.
Alligator
Roar Rookie
There are a few issues I can see here. First is calling player welfare 'woke'. Players are not looking for a 'safe space' on the field in case they might be insulted by the opposition because they have a difference of opinion. Playing hard and but safely is anything but woke. It is recognising for the reality of the game and playing within the spirit of the game. Secondly, the spirit of the game is what is at stake here. At risk of sounding elitist the old saying that 'Rugby is a thuggish game played by gentlemen, and League is a thuggish game played by thugs' has an element of truth. Rugby isn't about beating the heck out of the opposition. It's about beating them, combining force and skill. (I wonder if some of the opposition towards Chieka was because he encouraged so much of the aggro, not so much of the skill). League seems quite accepting or condoning of dangerous plays, but in rugby it's just 'not cricket', to mix metaphors. Thirdly, the tackler is surely responsible for the tackle they make! If they make a tackle that injures themselves that can only be their own fault! But we have seen cases where the tackled player gets penalised for making the situation dangerous, eg Kerevi at the world cup. Finally, if it is so difficult to not make head contact in a tackle, then why have there still been so few red cards even since the world cup? It is made out that it is all too much for players to correct their technique, yet the vast majority of players are capable of this. The game is not ruined by red cards. It is ruined by dangerous or foul play not befitting the game of rugby.
Loosey
Roar Rookie
The four game AU-NZ series served up 1023 tackles. Two of those resulted in red cards, coincidentally in the same game. A bit of perspective is in order. Either there are rules or there aren't. Leaving it to subjectivity is not a solution which is why even players can't agree, much less pundits. A solution isn't needed for a problem that isn't there. There are far greater issues in the game than coming up with a definition of intent. One of the effects of red cards is a refocussing on tackling technique which means players may have to adjust. How is that a bad thing? The NRL let their players get bashed to hell and will be held accountable for it. Claytons HIAs are a disservice to the player. That is an issue I do think is worthy of pursuing; a head high tackle should prompt an HIA automatically otherwise again, we are slaves to subjectivity. What does 'woke' mean? I find it's use intellectually stunted.
wre01
Roar Guru
Grafter Very interesting point about ball runners bending into a tackle. They are taught to do that, lower body height and drive up into a tackler. So should that technique be penalized? Similarly, many players are taught to turn in a tackle to provide quick clean out- this leads often to lifting tackles becoming illegal/ beyond the horizontal not because of the tackler but because of the tackled.
wre01
Roar Guru
Lots of comments on my reference to head gear... What about the prospect on banning all tackles except those around the waist? It is not an impossible prospect... plenty of medicos and lawyers want the game to go there or be banned.
wre01
Roar Guru
Emery really appreciate your comment- in my humble opinion it is one of the best I’ve read. It is important to emphasise that the majority of head injuries in contact are to tacklers NOT to the tackled. Accepting that there will be some head injuries is important too. If that is unacceptable then the game becomes extinct. But most important is the punishment fitting the crime. Swinton and Tu’ungafasi’s indiscretions were in my opinion low level but no part of the process/ law allowed the committee to arrive at that conclusion.
You are going to find many rugby players have nipples tattooed just below their navles now :silly:
What if a player has very low nipples LOL...
Emery Ambrose
Roar Rookie
Well written on a bit of a complicated issue. I feel that the rules around no contact to the head and neck area that are in now, work, the coaches and players are slowly getting used to the lower tackle height. On one hand there's some concussion when tacklers connect with the head, but a lot of concussion to tacklers that go around the hip and knees. I think the HIA is working too. IMO there's always going to be contact to the head because of the nature of rugby, I don't think that its ever going to be coached out or trained out because of the accidental nature of two players not knowing what the other will do, its getting the punishment right for that contact that is important, because there's likely to be accidental head contact in every game. I think during a game where there is head contact from a tackler and the intent of it cant be determined, that they are given a blue card and go on report to front the judiciary, same as now, then a bench player comes on in replacement for them after 10mins. This way the player is punished for not having the correct technique or being careless, the team is punished by losing a player off the bench but the contest is kept and players are not fatigued towards the end and become more reckless.
Grafter
Roar Rookie
I really like the sentiments expressed by the author. The head should be protected, but the suggestions given do not prevent that from happening, rather they ensure the integrity of the spectacle that is a rugby game. Sanctions can still be strong but they can happen after the event, and they can be harsh if required. If on reflection it is decided that the head contact was deliberate or intentional....yellow card and later suspension or dark yellow card and replacement and suspension. Same message will be given and same message will be received. I am not a believer that there is much intentional "taking out" at a professional and semi-professional level where things can be reviewed by video. A slightly different approach might be needed at lower levels of rugby however. The other thing that requires clarity is the role of the ball carrier. Wright was sent off balance by the contact of Savea. He was considerably lower at the point of contact than his usual height and his height approaching the point of contact was changing. Whitelock a couple of frames prior to contact was considerably higher than when Swinton connects. Both are mitigating circumstances - not necessarily the viewpoint of the judiciary in this case. Therefore for the sake of contest and the safety of other players (eg ALB playing in the scrum) being able to replace the player post yellow would have been the best and fairest result for all concerned. Of some interest to me is the question of the ball carrier running bent at the waist into contact? How can the tackler avoid contact with the head and why does this tend to be ignored unless the tackler attempts a head roll? With whom does the contact fault lie? Whom should be sanctioned? I believe its usually all too grey - yellow, replace, sanction later.
jeznez
Roar Guru
:laughing:
Paul D
Roar Rookie
I reckon Rugby has got the balance pretty good at the moment. Nobody wants to see touch football, but we cannot go back to the bad old days either. I got knocked out my very first touch of the ball as a 12 year old by a “headhunter”. It is tough when the margins between a sensational ball and all hit and a red card are so narrow. But that is just the way it has to be.
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
Gets safer as we get older and gravity affects the body. Could become waist line by default. :shocked: ... :laughing:
Noodles
Roar Rookie
I think the red card is a real penalty that players and coaches fear for obvious reasons. On the training point I think Hooper actually said post match that they don’t train to collide high. Then he added: we have to improve and eliminate these errors. Old blokes like me can recall seeing good players taken out with high shots by mugs. In fact I was told directly by an AB skipper of a deliberate head stomp by his prop on a WB opposite to take him out. There’s a fine line between big hits and bad ones. Swinton, for example, delivered a bad one. I’m not buying the idea that it ruins the spectacle. Recall that RWC game with WBs a player down holding out a barrage of welsh attack? It was terrific.
scrum
Roar Rookie
You do not make gains by giving up. Downgrading the sanctions cannot be a solution . Perhaps I could accept that if after 20 mins the player is subbed but costs 2 of the 8 subs. And if the player hit has to leave the field the opposition also has to lose a player from their squad with this player at the discretion of the team offended. Sanctions must be severe. If nothing is changing now it will be worse with downgraded sanctions.