High tackle cards could have big impact on knockout stage — but this is not league

I have taken a lot of knocks to the head. Between my father, South Africans and the old school, northern opensides that used to hunt me down, I have been properly clattered.

So, I agree with World Rugby’s focus on player welfare and its initiatives to reduce the risk of head injuries. Headhigh tackles, dangerous tackles, no-arm tackles — they need to be dealt with. The consequences of not doing so can be life-changing and life-threatening.

It was not so long ago that physios used to put the magic sponge on the back of your neck and then tap out the number of fingers the referee was holding up, or whisper in your ear, “It’s Saturday, 10-4 up, West Hartlepool”. Players did not want to come off, and if they did, they wanted to be back playing as quickly as possible.

Modern professionals have been candid about the pressure they have often felt to get back on the paddock, even if they know they are not right.

I am 100 per cent behind attempts to lower the height of tackles and ensure no one gets their head taken off, either accidentally or on purpose.

But, as with any big change, there is going to be a transition period and we are going through a headlinegrabbing one in this Rugby World Cup. There have been eye-watering efforts from Australians, Samoans, Argentines, and you can include England in that list, to name the obvious ones.

What has created many of the issues has been the inconsistency in the way that the high tackles were handled by referees, assistant referees and television match officials in the early part of the tournament. This is a problem that was evident ahead of the World Cup, even if the view was that it would be sorted out. It was not and, as a result, a few players got away with hits that were a mix of bad timing and near criminal.

Obviously, something needed to change and, based on the most recent evidence, referees are now following the high-tackle protocols to the letter. Once you see how clearly the protocols have been laid out, you realise just how little room for discussion there is when a match official reviews an incident. This is good and bad and, as with any change, there are a number of unintended consequences that are likely to play out over the next few weeks, and long after that as well.

Already, and I am in no doubt about this, we have seen players make the most of collisions because they know that by staying down, there is a greater chance of an incident being looked at.

In a game, there are multiple collisions that happen in a split second. Many are great shots, others are badly timed. Elbows fly in, heads clash. A lot are legal, almost as many could be seen as illegal.

Players, though, feel the hits and they sense the impact quicker than we can see it. If it rides a bit high or an arm hits a face, they know and they can react. The vast majority shrug it off and keep moving. Under the new regulations, however, there is an incentive to draw attention to any hit that may cause the protocols to be used.

Zero tolerance means each player is walking a proverbial tightrope. Some decisions may go for you, some against you. But a decision will be made, so why not stay down a bit longer and get the officials to have a proper look at it? What is to be lost?

Rugby has always liked to pride itself on its clean-cut image of fair play. Bloodgate proved that we can be just as devious as the next sport. Why would you not look to gain an advantage over your opponents if you could, especially in a knockout phase of the World Cup?

Which brings me to the next point where there needs to be greater clarity — the intent of what a player was trying to do when the tackle took place.

In terms of mitigating circumstances these are seen from the viewpoint of the player being hit. Did they dip, was there a shift in body angle or height, a sudden change of direction? But what about the tackler and their intent? I have been hit by someone who wanted to hurt me, and I have been hit by someone who got their timing wrong. They both hurt. But the one who was looking to chin me did much more damage.

By sticking to the protocols so strictly there is a risk we punish badly timed tackles just as harshly as dangerous tackles. Criminal and clumsy are different yet they merit the same red card sanction. Without any flexibility for referees to deviate from the application of the protocols, there is a chance we will see the knockout games significantly affected by cards.

What is interesting about the hightackle protocols is that there is a relearning process that needs to take place among many players who have been trained to sprint off their defensive lines and clatter their opponents. There is also a relearning among an older generation of players, such as myself, who love to watch contact in sports such as the NRL, Super League and State of Origin games where almost anything goes in the tackle.

If we accept that things need to change, that players need to be protected, and safety is put first, then we also need to accept that there will be decisions we may not agree with.

Rather than arguing when they go against us, we may have to find ourselves applauding World Rugby for being brave enough, tough enough and hard-hitting enough to have finally done something about it.