Rugby is not going soft... it is getting sensible and that should be applauded

LAST weekend saw a new phrase added to the ‘brave battle’ against rugby going soft.

Leicester Tigers coach Geordan Murphy introduced us to the theory the game has now gone “too PC” after lock Will Spencer was sent off for a high tackle on Wasps’ Tommy Taylor.

The comments were manna from heaven for the ex-players and fans who seemingly thrive upon these incidents to proclaim the game is a shadow of what it once was.

Even some current players saw fit to criticise the decision on social media.

Here we had the usual dangerous and insecure rubbish that simply goes against the evidence presented on the links between high tackles and concussion.

A common view you’ll notice among the ‘rugby’s gone soft’ brigade is that the opinions of ex-players should hold more weight because they ‘played at the top level.’

I’m sorry, but that is ignorant at best and downright mindless at worst.

Put your ego to one side and you’ll soon realise that doctors and scientists haven’t played at the top level, yet they know a damn sight more about the dark cloud of concussion that hangs over our sport.

And, anyway, while these players did play rugby at the top level, it’s fair to say they never played at the level of rugby on display today.

The game has undeniably changed from 30, 20 or even 10 years ago.

It is faster, with bigger collisions and the ball in play for longer. The players are also much bigger, stronger, faster and fitter.

In basic terms, ex-players who played decades ago alongside 6ft 3in secondrows who weighed 14 stone soaking wet know as much about the damage generated by a shoulder-to-head tackle from an 18-stone behemoth of a winger as Jackie Stewart and drivers of his generation know about how to manoeuvre the latest F1 car around the streets of Monaco.

Like it or not, ex-players using their experience to bemoan the state of the game is akin to Stewart shouting into the void that F1 isn’t dangerous enough today.

Moreover, anyone who knows F1 knows that Stewart isn’t the type to bemoan too much safety in F1 – rather he pioneered it, fighting tooth and nail so him and his colleagues didn’t have to view their vehicles as coffins-onwheels every time they raced.

Yet rugby has a different attitude. One of machismo and insecurity, where rather than acknowledge the progression of safety and player welfare, they pine for a sport that has changed from the one they knew.

A sport that doesn’t really exist anymore – but not for the reasons they think.

The sport hasn’t changed because of the laws which they believe are ‘killing rugby.’ The laws have changed in response to the sport becoming progressively more dangerous.

It’s a horrifying thought, but perhaps it will take the sport actually killing a player for some to realise the laws weren’t trying to turn rugby softer, but simply make it safer.

We’ve already seen so many players retire from concussion. You only have to look at the NFL for the effects of brain injuries post-career.

Suicide is a real problem among players, with chronic traumatic encephalopathy being found in 99% of studied brains from deceased NFL players.

Suddenly, the views of an armchair fan who thinks the game has been ruined because you can’t do what you used to doesn’t seem so important, does it?

Of course, there is empathy to be had with current players who feel frustrated at a marginal red card call that will cost their teams dearly. While that attitude is at least forgivable, unlike the ex-players and armchair pundits who moan that ‘we might as well play touch,’ it still needs amending. The current players need protecting from themselves as much as each other. The laws are the laws. As yet, technique and mindset has yet to adapt to them. The discontenting voices of the ‘gone soft’ brigade only serve to pull us deeper into this halfway house - muddying the waters by casting doubt upon every single infringement. Red cards that were deemed so by referees to the letter of the law face a groundswell of criticism by retired players, casting doubt upon them. There’s a moralistic debate around each incident which carries onto the next one because they’re so frequent. Who does that help? It’s time to bite the bullet. We need consistency on refereeing tackles that endanger players until it reaches the point where technique changes to adapt to the laws - because the laws aren’t changing for the sake of poor technique anytime soon.

If we crack down on high tackles and I mean seriously crack down on them - then the theory is the game will adapt. Sure it will be painful at first but you see it in other sports when rules are changed - it’s common sense to stop doing something once it’s consistently deemed illegal.

There are, of course, some nagging issues with that. The first is intent. That’s the main concern for many, with some feeling accidental collisions shouldn’t be judged in the same manner as deliberate acts.

It’s a fair point and it does raise the question of how you referee intent? There’s no simple answer but perhaps the most practical answer is something I saw suggested on Twitter.

The suggestion is you use the same logic that is applied in criminal law. You are presumed to intend the normal consequences of your actions – with being reckless defined as knowing there are risks to what you are doing but still carrying on.

It’s a ruling that could lead to a lot more red and yellow cards, but the alternative is a middle ground that offers no consistency. Look at the mess with handballs in football and deliberate knock-ons in rugby – determining intent of an individual is nigh-on impossible.

Perhaps it’s best to presume intent and allow players to adapt and take the necessary precautions under more consistent, if slightly stricter, laws.

Maybe that means that incidents such as Sergio Parisse’s recent red card won’t be overturned in the future. It’s the most borderline of calls, more so than, say, Benetton’s Robert Barbieri’s yellow card against the Cardiff Blues recently. But maybe these borderline calls being deemed illegal might be the price to pay for increased safety.

There’s also the idea that some teams or players will push the envelope against the increase of high-tackle penalties by ducking into tackles. It’s a valid point and one that will need addressing as professional teams will always look for that extra one per cent – whether that’s within the rules or not.

All of the above need solving because the alternative doesn’t bear thinking about. If we carry on putting the cart with the ‘rugby’s gone soft’ mantra emblazoned all over it ahead of the horse, just to placate the ‘purist’ who thinks rugby has gone ‘PC,’ where will we end up?

In the same vicious cycle we’ve been in for a while.

Except, the longer this goes on, the likelier it is that more players will suffer from brain injuries and, sooner or later, we’ll end up going down the route of lawsuits.

Here’s the thing. Rugby is only getting more brutal.

Yet, in the minds of some, it will only get ‘softer.’ And that’s a truly frightening thought.