Week after week the pages of this wonderful sports website are filled with the concussion discussion and its most dreaded embodiment, the red card.
I absolutely think the game must take concussion, and CTE specifically, very seriously. Rugby would struggle to survive if it were like boxing, a sport where negative health consequences are virtually assured. This is paid gladiator stuff, and it’s problematic.
But on the contrary, I do think we all need controlled outlets for violence, aggression and warriorship, especially men. These outlets necessarily must involve some degree of risk-taking. So, conversations about minimising risk – as opposed to eliminating it – are essential.
It frustrates me that much of the discussion is confined to the role of sanctions and deterrent – punishment – when there is so much more to changing behaviour.
Deterrence itself is complicated and morally fraught even when effective. It is utilitarian in that the impact on a single individual, as well as any notion of moral principles, must be weighted against the sum practical impact, or “utility”, on the group as a whole.
Navigating all of this calls is a balancing act. For example, a judge is allowed to take deterrence into effect, but that doesn’t mean he can sentence someone to death even if it were one hundred percent certain it would deter others from doing the crime.
In the case of rugby, banning someone instantly for life may well work to reduce head-high incidents, but most of us would consider this response too harsh and far out of proportion even if it did the deterrence job.
Deterrence is an important area of study in the field of the study of punishment called ‘penology’, which sits within the wider field of criminology. Suffice to say this is a whole rabbit whole of Wikipedia fun if you’re ever bored and this way inclined but for now let’s just say to the best of our knowledge, the correlation between deterrence and behaviour is complicated.
It’s not just about understanding the ways people can be dissuaded from doing something, but why they do it in the first place. You can think of this as the push and the pull and rugby has a lot of both.
The fact that head contact rules have been in place for a number of years and players have still not adjusted as much as we would all prefer is simplistically cited by some commentators as evidence of the need for harsher punishments – i.e., “they still have not got the message, so we need to make the message louder.”
I would rather we be more curious. If deterrence is not working, there are alternatives. And most of all, we should avoid reverting to highly visible punishments like red cards simply to feel like we’re doing something, or for administrators to cover their behinds.
We need systematic research to work out what works in practice, in a variety of circumstances, and over time.
(Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)
To understand what is going on we can’t look at deterrence in equal terms across all of the various areas of head contact in the game. On the basis of my highly non-systematic research, I therefore propose a framework of three different contact situations from which to approach our hopefully open minded and curious enquiries.
1. Open play
This is the area in which deterrence can have the biggest effect under the current rugby rules. Players have time to pick targets and decide how they are going to hit them. Players are seemingly coached to take attacker ball and all to dissuade the offload, reduce momentum, create the opportunities for a maul turnover, and generally make ball presentation more difficult.
Alternative approach: if this is an issue of coaching, how about sanctioning coaches if their players get red cards? In general, for this kind of more avoidable head contact, perhaps increasing suspensions and fines will do the job, but let’s test this with some real-life experiments.
I don’t see the game being ruined by basically anything they can do in this area, and I’d even say that it’d be nice for smaller players who can make effective legs tackles but aren’t as strong in pure collision power to have a higher relative value. The issue of concussions in leg tackles is for another day.
2. Ruck area – specifically, the clean out
This is much harder case for deterrence. Players hit hundreds or perhaps even thousands of rucks over the course of the season. They don’t need a coach to tell them how vital it is to retain their own ball and be aggressive in this area; it is part of the nature of the game. Without doing this well, you lose.
There is a risk of punishment for getting it wrong but being under committed at ruck time makes it likely your team will lose. This is a well-known scenario in the study of deterrence and is an example of where punishment may not have the desired effects within the confines of what we allow – i.e. without making punishments too severe to be acceptable.
Alternative approach: if we want to reduce head contact at the ruck, as much as it pains me as a former openside, we may need to change the rules or outright ban jackling.
One idea I just had is to be less stringent about attacking support having to come through the gate in the event someone is over the ball using their hand, allowing defenders to clean out the jackler from the side and reduce head contact. So, basically there’d be two rules: if the player is using their hands, you can smash from the side (and away from the head); if they aren’t using their hands, you have to go through the gate.
3. Dynamic open play, covering tackles etc
Yes, the Tom Banks incident. I’m of the view that deterrent or no, he runs full speed across the field to make that tackle any day of the week. This is another one of those calculations of risk of head-high contact versus the reward of making the tackle.
For a fullback, being seen to be fully committed to making such tackles will make or break a career, a huge consideration indeed. To me this necessarily involves a Banks being upright until as late as possible so he can run as fast as possible, allowing for something like a change in direction from the attacker to cause a head clash.
Alternative approach: when it is clear that a player had virtually no reaction time in dynamic situation like this, allow it to be a “rugby incident” with a warning system in play. This will allow us to see if there are repeat offenders who are clearly not using the right technique. Use this distinction as an opportunity draw more attention to avoidable head contact situations where punishments that come with them will be more severe.
Conclusion
One commentator said something recently to the effect of: “Players adjusted to rucking being banned, they’ll eventually adjust to the head being a no-go area”.
My reply to that is to say, no, the players did not simply adjust to the banning of rucking; the rules changed to make it virtually an instant penalty to not roll away immediately. In other words, the players got help from a change in the environment. So, with head contact, let’s ask the same questions, and, if necessary, help them, not just punish them.
James584
Roar Rookie
Luka, nice work. Instead of banning the jackle I would ban the power clean out. Require passive entry into the ruck. This will create a real competition for the ball but eliminate danger.
Lukas
Roar Pro
Yes, more study, more openness to consider options other than cards.
Harry Jones
Expert
Your point about coach or team accountability (I suppose, for a certain high number of season-long cards) makes sense. Right now, the Reds, Brumbies, Blues, and Crusaders have quite a lot of cards. I am not sure how it would work, but it bears some study, no?
Harry Jones
Expert
Yes, just watch Reiko Ioane tackling Quicksand Gardiner from the Saders. Comes in low and hot, has a plan (the roll), and pulls off one of the plays of SRP 2022. Go in high? Get fended and the lorry rolls over the line.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
I agree with the idea of also sanctioning the coach. Both in terms of suspension and a fine. Also fine the players, as well as a suspension. I agree with the 20 minute red card. I think that, if possible, individual instances of foul play should not ruin an entire game. But the old style ‘rest of the game’ sanction must be maintained for punching etc. I think that the judiciary needs to start handing out longer suspensions e.g. six weeks. Within extreme penalties for repeat offenders e.g. an entire season.
scrum
Roar Rookie
I repeat - it’s simple. Go in high and the chance of a head clash is high. This incidence itself is proof . The sanctions are designed to get tackle height down, go high and you are placing yourself and the ball carrier at risk. You seem to be indicating that Banks had no other choice . Once again it was not a reactive tackle , he came from distance and there have been plenty of perfectly legal tackles made. It was a clear choice to stay high. The argument “ when do you drop your height” seems to have been solved by lots of other players. Any tackle from distance will start with the tackler upright, to suggest it is too difficult to adjust height is a nonsense.. Once again by using phrases such as “ high stakes” you are indicating Laws should be adjudicated differently at Try time. You are over complicating the issue. Go in high, cause a head clash and you are then rightfully sanctioned.
Lukas
Roar Pro
I’m not sure how you come to that characterisation from any of what I’ve said… When did I say I’d “allow carte blanch if the defender is stopping a try”? I would not sanction for a HEAD CLASH when someone was going for a ball and all tackle and gets surprised by an attacker stepping in. If Banks coat hangers the guy, different story. I’m arguing that even if you ignore the fairness of such a sanction on an individual level for a head clash, it won’t stop players from attempting ball and all tackle in such instances. I’m arguing it cannot be compared to open play where players can make adjustments without being in such a dynamic, high stakes situation. To disagree with me cogently, all you need to do is say that you don’t agree that deterrence won’t work in a Banks type situation. You don’t need to completely mischaracterise what I’m saying.
scrum
Roar Rookie
It’s very simple. Banks went in high resulting in head contact.. The head contact was caused by Banks upright stance. Because he is trying to wrap the ball up does not excuse foul play. If you cannot tackle legally the Try should be scored, that is playing to the Laws of the Game. Your argument seems to be the Laws should be suspended at Try time which is completely illogical and without merit. The game is played according to the Laws , if you are not good enough to defend your try line within the Laws you deserve to be scored against. That’s the essence of the game.
Lukas
Roar Pro
Personally I'm not sure I'd even call what Banks did an attempted tackle...what you're saying is they need to outlaw...what exactly? Setting up in up in such a way as to allow all manner of tackles including ball and all around the chest?
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
The stiff arm coathanger tackle is out of the game. Banks' attempt also should be out of the game. No-one laments the loss to rugby of the stiff arm.
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
Agree the Red card is more effective when it lasts for the entire match, and refs don't invent a honeymoon period for the first ten minutes.
scrum
Roar Rookie
So what you are saying if a Try is on the defenders should be allowed carte- Blanche. So ignore high tackles, offsides , killing the ball at the breakdown because a defender should be rewarded for doing whatever they can. In other words if a Try is on all Laws should be suspended to aid the defenders.
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
Well it was either very poor training, not enough or the players and coaches played lip service to it. Mind you it's like the crack down on off side and going off the feet. The media and all the stupid ex players who seem to think they know crap complained so loudly about the penalties that RA stopped the crackdown. Now when these players go to other countries who didn't listen to the tossers they get smashed because they didn't change their behaviour. Deterrent does work, the the level of deterrence has to be enough to cause the change. It's one reason why I don't like the 20 min Red Card. I think it's part of the reason coaches don't put an effort into changing techniques because they don't care about losing someone for only 20 mins
Lukas
Roar Pro
I'd put better or more correct interpretations of existing laws in the same bucket as new laws; a means of doing more than deterrence.
Lukas
Roar Pro
I feel like you're somewhat missing my overall point. Yes, we do disagree about the Banks incident specifically. What I'm questioning, and it is really just a question though I do make some assertions to spice things up a bit, is whether deterrence is applicable in a situation where a player will do, and is rewarded for, doing whatever they can.
scrum
Roar Rookie
There have been plenty of tackles made including recent times where the tackler has targeted the rib cage or thereabouts and the outcome has been successful both from a good result for the defenders and safety issue. You are trying to complicate a simple solution. Have you never seen a driving tackle in the corner to drive the ball carrier into touch? The sanctions are designed for one thing- get your tackle height down, it’s not rocket science . You are also trying to use the argument that wrapping up the ball is sufficient reason for going high, well that is an argument that is no longer acceptable. If you cannot prevent the try without going high the game is being played according to the rules and the Try deserves to be scored. Stop inventing excuses to forgive what was a blatant piece of foul play.
Puff
Roar Rookie
Lukas, a very passionate article but for the enthusiast you offer opinion with no clear direction forward. Governments, administrators and powers in authority can legislate to their hearts content but you can’t legislate against morons. A few evenings ago watched a league game and I realized, after 20 minutes, had this been a union match, there would be only two folk left on the field, the ref and one other. All sports have dynamics and the dynamics associated with rugby are critical to the flow of play. But, what union needs to avoid is the Goldilocks and the three bear’s scenario, cold porridge. Therefore, finding a balance must be a nightmare for the more innovative coaching staff, watching players been carded for extremely mirror indecision's. Yes, players need to be protected from malpractice and negligence but here is the rub. There are more people, killed, eaten or injured for life surfing than playing rugby. Soccer is another example of head concern’s, there are hundreds of ex players filing suits. Sadly soccer would be nothing without a header near the goal. In all professional team sports, you require a few uncompromising players who are forceful otherwise winning becomes a project. There is a difference between an assertive player and a thug, these folk needs to be removed from the scene permanently, not red carded. Refs are not consistent, they are paid administers and need to be more accountable. The third review ref should only offer facts not his opinion. High contact areas like the scum and maul require further review because if we continue to erode the fundamentals and skill level and frustratingly watch the ref shuffle cards for 80 minutes, the game will become inflexible.
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
Hi JC, there was education done, and there's plenty of training materials. After six years the discussion has shifted to "the current settings are not effective, what re-tuning is required?" in addition to players - - Coaches win/loss ratio - Judiciary competence - Refereeing consistency - TMO consistency
Ankle-tapped Waterboy
Roar Rookie
When working in this field we discussed "levers" and what levers could be pulled and how far, in order to achieve the desired safe outcome. Those levers range from education to punitive. You are correct in saying you need to understand the psychology and rewards for behaviour that are involved. There are two strategies. Specific deterrence: "You have got to learn better" and general deterrence: "Looking at your situation, others will know they have got to learn better too." Scott Barrett is currently outed as "specific deterrence". Interesting fact to illustrate, not related to rugby. In criminal justice, it's evident that making prison sentences longer for men who murder their loved ones does not affect the rate of offending. Turns out that the violence arises at a moment when the perpetrator believes they are nothing, their life is worthless, and there is no future for them anyway. In other words, they don't do a cost-benefit of "how many years will I end up in prison for, if I do this, hey that's a real long time so maybe I won't". Specific deterrence to someone who thinks their life is already over, is hard. The point being that you need to know the psychology so as to make a successful intervention. Turning to rugby and having more points than the opposition at 80 minutes, recent discussions on The Roar have pointed out that sanctioning the player isn't powerful enough when the squad gets wins along with their collection of red cards. "Taking one for the team" is happening. Crowds increase, gate takings go up, you get into the Finals so you get to play more matches. What's not to like? The Reds data is instructive. So yes, multiple levers required. Before looking at new levers, maybe consider the existing Laws that could help. Looking at the ruck, there's a rule about shoulders must not be lower than hips. It's not enforced. Would enforcing that law make a positive difference?
Lukas
Roar Pro
Yes, but as with the scrum and rucking, what if any rules changes are needed to help players and coaches adjust, as well as keeping the game as enjoyable as possible? I'm hoping administrators are looking at this not just discussing how to sanction...