'You've still got to take care of him': Yet again rugby confuses the issue around dangerous tackles

Some brilliant rugby was again played across Round 2 of Super Rugby Pacific, and it was another set of games to confirm my pre-season suspicions that things are going to be awfully tight around mid-table.

Only three teams remain unbeaten – and the Queensland Reds can thank their lucky stars they’re one of those three. A bounce of the ball or two differently, and it could easily have been the NSW Waratahs in that group. As it stands, the ‘Tahs are a not-undeserved inclusion in the top four after two rounds.

It was great to see the Fijian Drua in action up close. Though the 42-3 score line in Canberra suggests otherwise, I saw enough to recognise that a pretty handy rugby team is bubbling away under the surface. The game in which it all clicks for the Drua will be a game worth watching.

But within the game came another curious case of the on-field officials talking themselves out of taking further action against what looked for all intents and purposes to be a pretty clearly dangerous tackle.

It came as Tom Banks was just slicing through the Fijian Drua defence in the 13th minute, which resulted in a 60-metre special that bore almost frightening similarities to one he scored against the Crusaders last season; same move, same hole, same dummy sold to the fullback, same result.

But as soon as Andy Muirhead got his pass off to Banks, he found himself being flipped over and landing on his back, after making contact with Drua winger Vinaya Habosi.

Watching it live, I saw the contact with Muirhead, but not the aftermath, as we tracked Banks and Tom Wright on his outside as they ran away for the try. It was only when refereeing debutant Reuben Keane called time off – and with replays coming up on the stadium screens – that we realised how dramatic that aftermath really was.

“The try’s good, just want to check potential foul play in the back play there,” Keane can be heard saying.

“OK, we’ll check that for you now,” TMO Brett Cronin responds.

Watching it all back, the Stan Sport commentators were having similar conversations as we were on ABC Sport. Andrew Swain made pretty much the same comment I did: “This doesn’t look good for Habosi.”

Keane can be seen watching the replays on the big screen, and says “OK, the player has clearly gone past the horizontal, just want to see a landing point.”

Muirhead landed on his back and was probably bloody lucky that was the case. It’s scary to contemplate the possibilities had he landed on shoulder and neck, or neck and head. At this point, I couldn’t see how this was going to end with anything less than a yellow card. And even then, probably only the landing was what pulls it back from a red card. All the signs were there.

But then the conversation of the officials took a turn.

Assistant Referee Damon Murphy is heard asking, “Is this the white player jumping into it?”

Now, on the surface, I really don’t mind a senior AR with plenty of experience in the middle – Murphy did the Waratahs-Reds game in Sydney the night before – offering advice on a matter, especially to a referee in his first game.

But this felt like more than that. This felt like an AR taking over.

Murphy: “He’s jumped into the tackle, OK, which is what I mentioned. If white doesn’t jump into the tackle, that tackle doesn’t happen, OK?”

Keane: “OK.”

Murphy: “So for me, at worst it’s a penalty, you play the try. I don’t think it’s a yellow card because I don’t think the player has caused that issue.”

“Keane: “OK, I think that’s fair.”

TMO Cronin: “I’m in alliance with ‘Murph’ as well.”

“OK,” Keane responds.

“So White 11 has jumped into the tackle, causing the momentum to take him over, OK? So as worst we’re at penalty, but the try will stand, and we’ll go to the conversion. Are we all in agreeance?”

Cronin: “I agree with that.”

It really sounded like Keane was talked away from the avenue he was heading, and the worst of it all was the whole notion that if not for Muirhead’s action, the tackle wouldn’t have happened.

Andy Muirhead. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

And that’s clearly nonsense, because even if Muirhead does jump into the contact so as to take the hit around his midriff, rather than his chest, this reasoning still completely ignores that Vinaya Habosi wrapped his arms and stood up after contact. The standing in the contact surely has to have played as much a part in Muirhead being flipped up and over, as did Muirhead’s bracing for contact?

Nowhere in that conversation was the tackler’s responsibility to the tackler mentioned, a point Brumbies captain Allan Ala’alatoa raised after Keane explained their ruling.

“You’ve still got to take care of him, though?” Ala’alatoa asked. He didn’t get a response.

There’s several foul play Laws this could have been covered by, and even if there is a question as to whether Habosi lifted Muirhead or not (Law 9.18), at the very least Law 9.17 applies: “A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground.”

The Brumbies clearly took it no further, and no further judicial action resulted. We keep being told that the there is a duty of care from the tackler toward the ball-carrier, but this was completely ignored in this instance.

Post-match, coach Dan McKellar could only call for consistency. “If that happens to us next week, and the penalty is sufficient, then OK,” he responded, when asked of the incident.

“If it’s not blatant foul play, then we crack on.”

As ever, consistency remains the issue. There would be numerous examples of tackles just as accidental as Habosi’s that resulted in a card and a suspension, even when players jump into the collision as they braced for impact. There are certainly plenty of cards handed out for accidental contact to the legs of a player catching a high ball.

If it walks, talks, and looks like a dangerous tackle, we’re told, it’s probably a dangerous tackle. Yet this time around it was Muirhead’s fault because of how he braced for impact? I don’t really get that.

And I’m far from convinced Habosi’s actions played no role in Muirhead landing flat on his back, either.

But then again, it also makes complete sense.

Italian replacement hooker Hame Faiva was sent off in their Six Nations loss to Ireland on the weekend for a tackle that looked awfully similar to one from Welsh flanker Taine Basham on Scotland’s Sam Skinner in the first round.

Both tackles saw the initial point of contact on the shoulder and then to the head. Both tackles involved wrapping arms after the initial contact. Faiva was sent off – rightly so, I’ll add – but Basham was only penalised because of supposedly insufficient force and the wrapping action.

Faiva will quite likely get a lengthy suspension, but Basham has started both games subsequently and sits second on the successful tackles made stats sheet for the tournament.

The inconsistency brings all the good work undone way too often. On one hand, World Rugby and national unions and professional competitions want to show they’re series on dangerous tackles and high contact, but on the other hand, the processes allow too many incidents to be watered down too often.

It should be easier to understand for players, coaches, fans, and broadcasters alike, yet it remains as grey as ever and with no obvious solution in sight.

Everyone involved in the game wants consistency, yet it’s the game itself that leads the way in undermining it.