NZ Rugby supports bans for high hits
Continued from pB1 ‘‘Prior to the Rugby World Cup last year there was a clear message given to all national unions and teams about players gesticulating to referees – overuse of the arms and pleading with them – that it wasn’t going to be tolerated. I don’t think there’s been any relaxing around any of that but it is definitely there.
‘‘We’re pretty keen on keeping that out of the game . . . Every culture operates different emotionally. Our guys tend to be a bit more laid back compared to some other cultures but that’s just a matter of dealing with it.
‘‘The aim initially is to do it through a collaborative approach with coaches, players and referees working together. There might be a little bubble in the short term but then people should understand and techniques will be adapted in a way so we won’t see a sustained increase in the level of cards. I hate seeing 15 against 14.’’ It’s definitely a positive change.
Rod Hill
World Rugby vice-chairman Agustin Pichot has been one of the leading critics surrounding judicial inconsistencies. The former Argentine halfback this year said he was ‘‘completely embarrassed’’ at the discrepancy between Owen Franks’ alleged eye-gouge on Wallabies lock Kane Douglas that was not cited, and Pumas lock Mariano Galarza, who was suspended for nine weeks after being found guilty of eye-gouging All Black Brodie Retallick during the team’s opening match at last year’s World Cup.
Pichot’s influence has now led to judicial committees for international XVs matches increasing from one to three people, including a lawyer and two individuals with recent experience playing, coaching or refereeing in the modern game.
‘‘It’s definitely change,’’ Hill said. a positive