Just out of school, I worked in a carpenter’s shop to learn a trade. I soon learned of tensions between the qualified carpenters in the shop and asked my mentor why one of their number was in Coventry.
“We get paid based on our qualifications. He’s got all the certificates. We don’t have all those certificates, but we have our experience. So he gets paid more than any of us. But look at his workmanship: you’ll see he doesn’t deserve the money.”
He showed me his colleague’s current work piece – a small table. Three of the tabletop’s sides were straight. On the fourth side he had started the cut and started the cut again at a slightly different angle, leaving a sawblade-wide step in the edge that needed to be sanded out. But he had completed planing and sanding. I could only agree that the work was not to professional standard.
Rugby too is a profession. We hear of players plying their trade at such-a-such a team and that a player is a journeyman or a master. In short, the players are expected to have the competencies to do their job correctly, it’s what they are paid for. Full-time trainers and coaches are employed to help the players achieve and maintain competence.
(Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Professional development is part of any profession or trade. Competence includes keeping your skills and knowledge up to date. For a carpenter, much of competence is using the tools correctly to get the right result. For a rugby player we can drill down a bit.
Competence includes the physical and mental capability and capacity to deliver at a high level while being physically and emotionally stretched. The professional rugby player must also know all the laws of the game and how to apply them, the techniques and the knacks that give you an edge on the field of play, and the etiquette and unspoken code of conduct that prevents players from doing hollywoods and otherwise being silly.
Also, there are the skills to execute tasks with accuracy at speed. To paraphrase one jargon-rich TV commenter, to execute accurately the rehearsed micro-skills of the skill set.
So it is surprising, indeed bizarre, to discover that when the judiciary review red cards, they require that players receive training in how to tackle.
In May 2019, World Rugby announced new tackling protocols to prevent concussion. Almost three years later, the requirement for further training reveals some players still haven’t read the memo and are not yet fully competent at a basic requirement of their profession.
There is a common word for someone who is learning on the job. It is apprentice.
Red cards are intended to stop unwanted behaviour. They announce that the player’s technique is substandard and not consistently that of a professional. This message is losing its power and effectiveness.
(Photo by Soccrates/Getty Images)
The reasons include white-anting by commentators, players who regard cards as an occupational hazard, a judiciary where the lawyers before it are concerned only about getting their client back onto the field of play, media interests who foment controversy (it equals clicks, haven’t you seen how rich Facebook is!), a lack of planet-wide consistency in adjudication and application, investors who seek an attractive product, senior administrators, some alas masquerading as water boys, who make poisonous social media posts, and a public, some of whom are ready to complain. They all add up.
In the past fortnight the game of rugby has reached a dangerous point, where now we must consider the tackler’s intent.
Until now, the protocols have been much like the laws about preventing harassment or bullying at work, where intent doesn’t matter, it’s been 100 per cent about the victim’s experience and protecting them from harm.
Have you ever been to a head injury support group? Typically the only people there as caregivers are direct family – parents and adult children. Spouses often are long gone, having abandoned the injured person after they changed into someone unrecognisable from the person they married.
Whether driven by compassion or insurance liability, World Rugby are right to act. But everybody involved in rugby should be concerned at the nibbling away of the protocols.
Rugby must counteract the nibblers.
Sometimes coaches send players back to the lower grades for work-ons. Players return when they demonstrate their skills are at the required higher level. In the carpenter’s workshop, the equivalent would be the shop foreperson asking the dodgy tradie to provide work of a grade similar to the final-year workpiece that completes the apprenticeship, just to see that the tradie could do it.
The ratio of red cards to ‘sent to the lower grades’ is low. The players so exiled can be counted on the fingers of one hand. What if it became automatic, where a red card inevitably resulted in a stint in the lower grades? The field of play would be made safer at the highest level. The head injury prevention protocols would receive a much needed boost in credibility and bite.
An alternative to automatically sending the red card perpetrators to the lower leagues to demonstrate competence in a less fraught environment that top-tier rugby, would be to put them on apprentice wages until they can show they are worth their salt.
After all, their lack of professional competence is harming their fellow players and the long-term viability of rugby.
CW Moss
Roar Rookie
Thanks, Water Boy :stoked: . Very well written, dare I say “professional” article. The current red card thing is becoming a big problem and I’d package that with Scrums and Push-over tries. There seems to be too much left to the Referees and the TMO currently and lots of reasons for “we were robbed!”. A shame.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
Aaarrrggghhh! I did not include a central point, added to the opening sentence of the sixth paragraph, to show: "... three child prodigies soaking up $2.5 million a year between them, notwithstanding they had played about 5 games in Club rugby, in total!
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
Yes. Laulala's equation was straightforward. "Substandard" = "unprofessional" = "still an Apprentice". At that aspect of his game; in other areas he's a master of his craft. It'd send a clear message if he was dropped into the lower leagues until he demonstrated he had mastered the tackle. He's had a long career and it's odd that he is still a work in progress. But rules change, and at some stage you have to fully embed them into your play.
Billy Boy
Roar Rookie
Great idea MK but not sure if they can legally, maybe someone else may know
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
tsuru, your comments made my day! Back in 1974 New Zealanders gave up the right to sue, in exchange for a no-fault accident compensation system ("ACC"). That took lawyers out of the system, mostly, and prevents the eye-watering litigated payouts and claims which we read about in the United States and to a lesser extent Australia. Compensation in the US system seems to be more about how good your lawyer is than the nature of the injury. In Australia we have WorkCover; premiums go up by a hefty multiplier when there's a long-term claim. (In detail - anything over 20 days; once an injury goes beyond 20 days then the math treats it as if the person is out for roughly 6 months. Then it's 3 years of compo, and then switch them to the social welfare benefit system). At each step there are big multipliers and I've no doubt the rugby franchises are looking at reinsurance or self-insurance. The NZ system is a whole-of-population insurance scheme where everyone in the country pays in, and payments are made to the subset who are harmed. It isn't perfect, like everywhere else the mechanisms to incentivise employers to improve are sometimes clunky. Also it's been in place for a few generations now and people who should know better seem to view it as a social welfare benefit, not as a compensation for harm inflicted or suffered. But it could cause a two-speed dynamic in the discussion about brain injury in sport, where the US model and NZ compensation models are poles apart and drive different attitudes.
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
A compelling read which, in the way you've told it, shows that "professional" really is more than just about the money. Thanks for the background to Matt Burke's development and rise. You can usually find some lateral-thinking KPIs to apply to things you want to measure, and in this case I'd suggest a KSI - Kiwi Scariness Index of professionalism. The All Blacks were scared of Matt Burke. But not of the other three.
Tim J
Roar Rookie
Great post tsuru, I totally agree with everything you said. Certainly Coaches and players need to take responsibility for the current state of the game, too many politics in play also is not helping the situation.
tsuru
Roar Rookie
ATW, I'll probably jinx you now - here I am at comment number thirty-something and all the comments above are positive ones. I can't remember ever seeing that in my 5 plus years as a member on the Roar and 5 years as a reader before that. Congratulations, you've obviously expressed something that readers of all stripes see as important. And that includes me. I see this issue as essential to the survival of rugby. I commented yesterday in a reply on Geoff's wrap - "there are quite a few commentators in the USA saying that if the NFL doesn’t solve the problem of head injuries, then there could be no NFL in the future. Even if only because of the cost to them of compensation to players suffering chronic traumatic encephalopathy. That has to be the case for the rugby codes too." When (or if) coaches, players and administrators come to see this they will surely see that they need to solve the problem in a meaningful way.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
"apprentice" We watched and applauded as Matt Burke served his under Marty Roebuck for several seasons at Eastwood. Before he got to the Waratahs and the Wallabies, at age 20, he knew how to tackle, which direction he should run, could kick in play with purpose, use his strength, pass and catch and plan clever things in advance. He continued playing grade throughout his career. That progression then was unremarkable. Matt had an early opportunity when sometimes Wallaby full back Marty broke his leg and was unable to play for Australia. The following week the members applauded the young fella as he arrived at the dressing sheds at Milner to play Firsts. Marty, his patient Master, hobbled to the member's verandah rail with the biggest smile you ever did see. Burke went on to serve the Mighty Woods, the Waratahs, Australia and Newcastle Falcons with distinction, over 18 years. By the time he returned home from England, Australian Rugby had dispensed with that old-fashioned nostalgic nonsense. In 2007 or thereabouts the wunderkind were rushed in to save the day, three child prodigies soaking up $2.5 million a year between them. They went on to play some of the most comical rugby ever seen – couldn’t tackle, had no idea what they were going to do next (neither did the bloke outside) did not like being tackled, ran away from their support, could pass straight as a bullet to Row 4 - or to the linesman - and could be counted on to put the ball out from the kick-off .... and fail to put it out when they needed the line out. Burke had 15 encounters with the All Blacks and won 8. He featured in 5 of 10 Bledisloe campaigns, including the last win in 2002. The three players who cost so much and offered so little have never won a Bledisloe Cup, have not won a match in New Zealand. I have read your very good account with interest and thought much about it. What I have offered here is supplemental, to remind that, for a period, the enthusiastic amateurs managed to get player development very right.
Carlin
Roar Rookie
Great read mate. Totally agree, there needs to be some sort of demotion for players to correct their indiscretions. Playing at a lower level would be a reality check for some of these guys and it may get them to refocus on their tackle technique. I look at the Laulala cleanout and the Klein tackle that led to red cards. Both were deliberate acts of poor technique and personally think there is no excuse at the top level to be infringing like they did with no apparent to wrap the arms (in Laulala's case it was about 5 seconds after his should hit the guys head).
Tim J
Roar Rookie
And Billy, dock them their full wage while suspended and this goes into Community Rugby.
Billy Boy
Roar Rookie
Well written ATW and hopefully we will see a few more from you IMO if the penalty for a red card due to foul play(such as shoulder to the head) is 6 weeks then it should be 6 weeks, none of this discount for an early plea and good behaviour.
Tim J
Roar Rookie
Thought I would throw that in there :happy: look forward to you providing more articles, you will be CEO before you know it. :stoked:
Tim J
Roar Rookie
You are totally correct as Rugby has been slow to react, WR have been slow but now are putting players safety first. We need to breakaway from SANZAAR and Have representatives from all SRP teams, who would hopefully be more inline with WR about player safety. I do not blame the refs but the coaches and players, if they want more open games and less confusion then it is their responsibility.
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
Kudos for the apprenticeship comment! :happy:
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
Brett McKay today coincidentally has written a very fine article on the same topic "Crackdown? High tackle cards nothing new and are a failure of coaches and players, not the refs" Brett covers more ground and has more solutions. I didn't discuss the coaches' role, instead I mentioned a couple of hard-hitting blunt methods that might... just.... finally... help get the message across to the players. You, jcmasher, and Brett McKay all rightfully point out that the coaches are a key part of the solution, and the levers to pull are so few, that coaches may well have earned their own package of blunt instruments. When I was doing public health interventions, we expected the projects to yield results within twelve months of us getting buy-in from 25% of the industry. In normal business, getting acceptance from that critical mass of 25% of business stakeholders would take anywhere from six months to three years of stakeholder engagement. Add another twelve months for implementation and four years would be the maximum. Anything slower and you knew you were dealing with recalcitrants. For rugby as a profession to still be dancing around the main point after six years? Dinosaurs.
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
That would boost the credibility and reduce the nibbling away of the standards. Nice!
Tim J
Roar Rookie
A first class article ATW, you passed the Author apprenticeship. I have stated previously that the coaches need to be held accountable for players not being educated, and the tactics that coaches enforce. The coaches need to be sanctioned along with the player, a lack of transparency is also a major factor from the judiciary. The coaches along with the players need proper education, SANZAAR goes against WR which is of major concern.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
Good to see someone recognise that lawyers are a necessary evil. They're there to ensure that rules are followed, all the details are covered and to present the cases their clients should be given to the best of their ability. The problem lies not with the advocates but with the sentencing and judging. Too often the judicial officer is swayed by technical nonsense and the sentencing guidelines are too lenient. Get the base up from 6 weeks, get rid of the stacking allowances for good behaviour (they make sense in isolation, but 6 -> 3 is wrong) and ensure that repeat offenders are hit very hard.
Purdo
Roar Rookie
It was a well written and interesting article. Congratulations, and I hope to see more from you. I think the idea that sportspeople are tradespeople is a good one. We can do worse than think of the tradition of apprenticeships and travelling to master the trade after finishing the apprenticeship. Players have to learn the micro skills; in this they are like martial artists who train for precision. It is the precise and well timed use of force that is really interesting in contact sports.