Game’s integrity is at risk from new rules
High-tackle crackdown fails to distinguish between the thugs and those who lack intent
The duty of care to player welfare has to be balanced by the duty of care to the integrity of the game. I am deeply concerned that we are in danger of losing the essence of what rugby is about as a physical, collision sport.
Not for one minute am I advocating taking someone’s head off and I clearly understand that the movement to clamp down on high tackles is an effort to reduce the rate of concussions. In my career, I have been concussed, I have been knocked out and I know there is the potential for long-term problems in my health. And maybe one day my family may have to look after me long before my time as a direct result of too many blows to the head while playing rugby.
So, I get it. I understand what World Rugby is trying to do. The problem is it has not properly defined what constitutes a high tackle, so there is confusion among the players and zero consistency within the disciplinary process.
It used to be that for a high tackle to be a red card you had to make contact with the head, with intent and force. Now it seems the force and intent part have gone. If you make any contact with the head you are in trouble. There is no place for mitigation if, for example, the ball-carrier dips his head at the last second and hits your shoulder. Red card. Game ruined. Automatic suspension.
Danny Cipriani’s sending-off against Munster is just the latest example. Effectively, he has got a red card for Rory Scannell running into his bicep. He is trying to get away from the tackle, so there is no intent. Nor has Scannell been hurt.
But if you take that as the bar for what constitutes a red card, then why was Cjstander not sent off for a virtually identical tackle on Gloucester’s Billy Twelvetrees? If you look hard enough then you could find at least six or seven of these types of incident in every game. So, why is one a red card and the others ignored? It is a lottery.
I am not saying that there should be a free-for-all on high tackles. Compare what Cipriani did with Maama Vaipulu’s red card for Castres against Exeter. In this case, he hit Luke Cowan-dickie off the ball with his shoulder rising into Cowan-dickie’s throat with force. It was reckless and dangerous; a clear red card and deserved a ban. Players know what endangers their safety and what does not. And that is what is so infuriating.
Toulon’s Mathieu Bastareaud lands a forearm on the head of a prone player – five weeks. Connacht’s Dominic Robertson-mccoy stamps on an opponent’s head – six weeks. Those are premeditated, unnecessary assaults. I would have no problem if they were banned for months, but instead they get a slightly longer punishment than Leicester’s Will Spencer for mistiming a tackle. Even accounting for the different disciplinary systems, it demonstrates a total absence of rugby judgment or common sense.
So, what can be done? First of all, let us hand the power back to the players. I would go back to the system where clubs can cite opposition players. Again, players know what warrants a suspension and what does not. So, Bath’s Nathan Catt would rightly want Lucas Pointud of Toulouse to be cited for diving over a ruck to butt him, but I doubt any Munster players would want Cipriani cited.
Second, there needs to be more uniformity in the disciplinary process. At the moment, there are too many citing officers with too many different opinions. Let us pay a panel of, say, three people to look after all of the hearings in each competition so at least there will be a measure of consistency.
Finally, World Rugby needs to properly define what constitutes a high tackle, away from any contact with the head. Really punish the reckless, dangerous high tackles and the thuggery, and accept that Cipriani’s falls into that forgotten term, “rugby incident”.
I completely understand that they want to make the game safer. Unfortunately, you cannot make sport a sterile environment. If you do, then people will not want to play it or watch it.
I have four daughters and, if one of them wants to play rugby, I would say fine. You make every possible effort to make sure you have a duty of care to the player, but you cannot take it so far that you stop people playing rugby. Yes, encourage the height of the tackle to drop but give players time to kill an old protective instinct of standing high and chest-tackling.
You cannot forget that it is the players and referee on the field who run the game rather than the suits and blazers. Let us give them the game back because, at the moment, it feels as if it is being taken away from them.