The judicial process for head contact in rugby has become a real blight on the sport.
We now have long and constant delays while referees are expected to act as doctors, scrutinising differences of millimetres on scratchy stadium screens. The wait for footage can sometimes be excruciating, and right at important moments in the game.
Some teams are taking a huge advantage from this, clearly using deliberate delaying tactics that suit their game plan. These opportunities to rest are only being fostered by the sensitivity to injured players.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the crackdown is the fine line drawn between accidental and incidental. Under the current process, if a player carrying the ball falls and cracks their head on an opposition player’s knee, no refereeing action will be taken. It’s simply called an unfortunate accident.
Yet if virtually the same incident happens with an attacking player falling and collecting a loose hand or forearm of a defender that was otherwise not going to be anywhere near the player’s head, it is called non-malicious but will still attract a penalty or card. If both are accidental, why are they adjudicated differently?
Regardless of your opinion on concussion protocols, it seems most spectators agree that constant stoppages in rugby due to potential card incidents are affecting the final product. Whether you’re a purist who loves slow, attritional rugby or an occasional viewer who catches the odd exciting Test match, no-one wants these extended delays or to watch our best players sitting in the naughty chair or in the stands.
There are constant arguments from punters and commentators over the subject. It seems there are two veins to these debates. The first is based on the on-field translation of current laws. There is a process that referees must take in order to answer this question. Like any refereeing decision, this is bound to come under scrutiny. Nothing new to see here.
The second angle seems more integral to resolving the issue: whether the laws themselves are correct. This argument is not one that players, coaches, commentators or regular punters are qualified to make. This is for doctors and lawyers to debate.
The reason head contact sensitivity has become such a beast of a subject is due to multiple sports around the globe being taken to court over alleged lack of care for players leading to long-term health conditions. It seems rugby union as a sport has decided it needs to show a high level of care for its players on the field to mitigate potential health issues, thereby reducing lawsuits down the track. This level of care is refreshing, but the policy between accidental and incidental is unclear, and therefore the actions by referees and judiciaries are not guaranteed to safeguard the sport from courtroom trouble.
And this is where the general punter arguing over the merits of these laws is a waste of time. I am an avid watcher of the game and certainly no doctor or lawyer, yet these two professions will most likely be the ones to decide the fate of the players’ demands and the protection of the game. To me the real debate and the ultimate statement of policy must come from the top. The administrators must decide on the level of sensitivity, as they are the ones who can sift through the expert judgment.
If I were a rugby administrator. I would be asking a simple question: where does the onus of the player being involved in a contact sport end and rugby’s commitment to safety begin? For all they know, even the current crackdown on head contact may not be enough. Ex-players may still take the sport to court and win lawsuits.
I recently heard a commentator stating that even though players are on the rugby field, they are still bound to local laws. Yet if this is true, how is tackling someone – legally by rugby rules – seen to be okay? If you were to smash someone with a tackle – again, a legal version by rugby’s laws – in public, wouldn’t that be assault?
My point is that things happen on a rugby field that are not accepted elsewhere, and that’s part of what makes the game so great. It’s the closest thing we get to our barbaric past of hand-to-hand battles.
I am certainly not saying we don’t take head contact seriously, the after-effects for players after years of rugby and multiple concussions are awful. I should know, I am one of them. However a clearer line in the sand needs to be drawn about the policy from the administration. And surely there must be some onus on the player to recognise they are deliberately entering an arena in a high contact sport, especially if they are given thorough education on the dangers of their employment.
So where is this line in the sand? I am not the one to make the judgement, nor are most of the rest of us. Yet we can comment on the game itself and how we are all aggrieved with its current process.
Rugby bosses need to figure out where they stand legally, because the game and its fans are suffering because of it.
scrum
Roar Rookie
Did not make a tackle- are you serious. What was he racing across the field for, a bit of ball room dancing. So are you saying a ball carrier has no right to change direction or side step. He was on the sideline, of course there is a high possibility he is going to step infield. The simple fact is if Banks had dropped his height prior to contact- and he had ample opportunity to do so- the head contact would not have occurred. Plenty of cover defending tackles in a similar situation have been made legally. Stop only considering the last second of the incident- look at the lead up and how Banks placed himself and the ball carrier at risk by remaining upright. This idea that the ball carrier must maintain the same line and not brace for contact is ludicrous, for heavens sake that is the game. Players are greatly admired for swerves and sidesteps and have been forever. The prime responsibility lies with the tackler.
Jack
Guest
Watch the Banks incident again. He didn't make a tackle. He did not initiate the contact. The ball carrier stepped inside leading with his head and smashed Banks in the face knocking him senseless. That's why this issue is so difficult. Attacking players lead with shoulder and head. Defending players can do neither and still be held accountable.
Double Agent
Guest
I'm sure I've mentioned this before but I'm proud that my law firm (Double Double Double and Agent) is advising WR on head contact and the potential consequences in terms of legal ramifications. It's long been our view that defenders must lay face down on the ground to completely minimise contact to the ball carriers head. Arm action should be kept to a minimum. Eye contact should be avoided at all cost lest the ball carrier feels threatened and say a decade or so down the track is suffering PTSD and comes with his attorney knocking on the door of WR. Unfortunately one of my esteemed colleagues - can't remember if it was Double or Double,maybe it was Agent,no I'm sure it was Double- anyway he had a lightbulb moment and pointed out that defenders laying prostrate on the ground presented a significant trip hazard!! :shocked: Back to the drawing board. :crying: :crying:
Double Agent
Guest
Actually I think it would lead to greater scrutiny of head contact. During the week. Not during the game.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
100% Scrum. The laws are clear and there is a process that everybody can understand if they choose to. If you don't like it, that's a different matter. The process, because it needs on-field judgement by the referees, can be time consuming but that's where we are and it reflects the goals of the game's management to be seen to be doing all they can to reduce head injuries. It's not perfect; that isn't a realistic goal in a game with so many opportunities for contact as rugby but it's what we've got to work with. The problem now is those players and coaches who willingly ignore the changes. Many, most, are doing their best to comply. Some are not. At the moment, the laws aren't having the desired effect. 20 minute red cards and other smack-on-the-wrist penalties won't help and if a few games need to be "ruined" to get to a point where players tackle lower by default then so be it. This problem isn't going away and the game is in this for the long haul. If we want to keep playing and watching our game, we need to stop moaning about the impact of these law changes and acknowledge the inevitable
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Fair suggestion but it won’t fly . World Rugby’s biggest problem is now the threat of litigation both now and in the future . Lawyers have taken over and they do not give a rats about an appealing product . So WR has to be seen to be taking head contact very seriously. That also means maximum discouragement of any tackles to the head . By issuing a yellow and letting citing commissioners do the rest , it’s going to be seen as being soft on offenders . Not a good look in court .
Double Agent
Guest
I think for the sake of the viewers 95% of these incidents should be YC and check on Monday. Obvious ones RC. Nothing more tedious than watching live TMO reviews of high tackles. Refs should sort it out on their time not mine.
Michael
Guest
Totally agree. The frequent stoppages and the back and forth among the referees and TMO is over the top and ruining the game. It’s needs to be stopped. Let the ref make the decision and get on with it.
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
Congratulations RS69. You’ve chosen a very emotive topic and argued your points well. I’ve got no idea how this will run out in the future. The best I can do is, as a coach, try to make sure that my players are doing their best to be in the best defensive position, keeping their eyes open and on the target with low body height and getting their heads on the soft side of the attacking player. Perhaps as coaches of junior and schoolboy/girl teams, the idea of the “dominant” tackle should not be a part of our vocabulary let alone intent.
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
Once again, I see this as a reason for all professional players to be qualified referees. In fact, I’ll go one step further and say that all involved in the professional team situation should be qualified, which means practicing, outside their playing commitments. This means they all know the law, the requirements and the difficulties the refs have in applying the WR directives. Hopefully they then take all this and put it into knowledgeable actions on the field where they are all role models for the young players in our community.
Busted Fullback
Roar Rookie
G’day scrum. I see you have more faith in the court system then me. What’s the old saying? The only winners in a court battle are the two sets of lawyers?
scrum
Roar Rookie
You may be right but one would hope in a court of law it would be recognised that there is significant risk in contact sport and that players are aware of the risk. However the sport also has an obligation to ensure that players are encouraged to play within the Law( high tackles clearly against the Law) and that they have appropriate protocols in place . I think WR is doing just that. I have been disappointed in the judiciary rulings downgrading what most would see as a clear RC to YC. WR has clear frameworks to adjudicate on high tackles. The judiciary in my opinion has slavishly followed the framework where even the most minor or insignificant contact prior to head contact is considered sufficient to downgrade a RC. This has lead to Refs issuing YC where many would consider a RC more appropriate sanction. I think when there has been a late and significant drop the Refs have in general been mitigating down to YC, in my opinion sometimes too generously.
Rubbish Surf 69
Roar Rookie
I agree re Banks tackle. He should have made a better attempt to get low or not make the tackle at all. I am not defending these scenarios. I am defending the scenario where a tackler goes for a low tackle with good body height and technique, only to be penalised or carded because the attacker dropped height significantly and late, or tripped and hit the defender's shoulder. My point is that head contact will always happen in the game no matter how many rules the governing body sets. I am just worried that even in these accidental scenarios World Rugby may still be taken to the cleaners.
scrum
Roar Rookie
“Legal tackles have been made sometime in the past “ The majority of tackles made in every game are legal tackles including drop in body height of the ball carrier. They are the rule not the exception. The exceptions are highlighted because they are sanctioned and then became a matter of contention. And then treated as the rule not the exception. High tackles primarily happen because the tackler approaches too high. The classic was the Banks tackle where he ran 20 metres to get to the tackle but all the focus went on the last metre but no focus on the simple fact that if he had lowered his body height- and he had heaps of time to do so- the head clash would not have occurred. Plenty of legal tackles are made in almost identical situations but for some reason this is ignored . Stop focusing on the exception and start noticing that the vast majority are conducted safely and legally. The exceptions are rightly sanctioned
Rubbish Surf 69
Roar Rookie
Just because legal tackles have been made sometime in the past does not at all disprove my argument. All it says is that every tackle situation is different. My argument is where is the line drawn between accidental and pure laziness by the tackler. You can't say that everytime a high tackle has happened is because of bad technique.
Rubbish Surf 69
Roar Rookie
The tackle is extremely different. Starting high with enough time to adjust the tackle height, totally fair enough for the penalty. Marika's hit on the Frenchman for the red I can cop because he had plenty of time to adjust and get lower, depsite the Frenchman dropping his height. But comparing kick catches to tackles is not the same thing, not even close. A kick chaser has plenty of time and vision to adjust their approach or pull out, where as in the contact zone, if a player decides they are too high how long do they realistically have to change or move? There are usually teammates right beside them and the attacker is often arriving from two metres away at speed. They can't just disappear. Anyone who has played rugby in the forwards knows that half the time you're just doing the best you can to stop the attacker and not get knocked out yourself. It is a brutal contact zone to be in and all these miniscule adjustments players are expected to make are never going to be totally stopped because they are not realistic. It needs to be accepted this will happen some of the time and if that is accepted then we can move forward with a better vision of policy.
scrum
Roar Rookie
There are many tackles in the game where the ball carrier drops height and the tackle is carried out safely for both tackler and ball carrier. That disproves your argument that this is not possible or realistic. Rugby has no option other than to mitigate against concussion. To do otherwise is reckless in the extreme both from a player safety and litigation viewpoint. As you say head knocks will remain a part of the game but both morally and legally Rugby has no option but to institute protocols to minimise such risk
piru
Roar Rookie
if they can’t get their height down then, just like in a catching contest, they must pull-out. I don't think this gets said enough, bravo
FatOldHalfback
Roar Rookie
RS69: while this is an important discussion it is very disappointing to start the article with an absurd strawman "an attacking player falling and collecting a loose hand or forearm of a defender", when have we ever seen a RC or even a YC or even a penalty for this? This is a big part of the problem, starting from such a strawman position means the debate can never go anywhere useful. We saw similar misleading arguments a few years ago when there were a rash of cards for taking a player out in the air during a catching contest, we only rarely see cards about this now (maybe Caleb Clarke this SRP season) -- it was clear that the defenders nearly always had, and have, the option of pulling back from the contest -- the tackle isn't much different, the defender choses when the tackle happens and what their body height is, if they can't get their height down then, just like in a catching contest, they must pull-out. The ref can decide RC down to YC or even penalty if there are clear extenuating circumstances like the attacker slipping, but if the defender starts high and continues with the tackle then they only have themselves to blame for any sanction they receive.
Rubbish Surf 69
Roar Rookie
I don't buy into this argument that tacklers need to get lower. It is a high paced game and expecting players who are often carrying a lot of weight to make a drastic and accurate change to their height in the heat of the battle in less than a millisecond is quite unrealistic. Also, going lower is a much bigger risk to the defender getting knocked out or badly injured. Yet my point to the article is not to debate these different opinions on the current laws, it is more directed at laying down a policy that shows rugby is doing a lot to mitigate head knocks while accepting that unfortunate incidents can happen in any situation of life. No matter what rules or repurcussions are implemented, head knocks will still happen in contact sports.