Tackle furore sums up confusion of the law

Simplifying rule would reduce inconsistency, says Lewis Moody

Ido not think Owen Farrell should have been penalised for his hit on Andre Esterhuizen but the reaction to it shows how much confusion there is within the game over what constitutes a high tackle.

Looking at the tackle again, it is important to note that Esterhuizen changes direction quite late, which means Owen is not able to get low and is upright when he makes the tackle. Crucially, though, I do not think he was too high, with contact coming in the upper chest area, rather than throat.

Contact was made primarily with the right arm, which meant he had no chance of wrapping that limb around the South African, and I felt he tried to wrap the left only for the sheer force of the collision to send both players backwards.

Referee Angus Gardner looked at it a number of times and made a fair, rational decision.

But this incident demonstrated how difficult it is to be a referee. The law needs simplifying, and the most basic thing to do would be to make all tackles above the line of the armpit counted as high, with players being penalised accordingly. That is a rule we would all understand and would reduce the inconsistencies we are seeing on a weekly basis.

I would have really struggled if these laws were introduced while I was playing. It is so difficult to change your instincts, but we know this is being done for the good of the sport and safety of the players.

As part of that, it is inevitable that there will be teething problems and this tackle is a perfect example of that. But on this occasion I think the referee got his decision spot on.