Two sets of laws for one game is wrong
MANY congratulations to Ireland, for not only winning the Six Nations Grand Slam but also the U20 version for the second time in a row, although it does seem that both games were a virtual mirror of each other with England having a player sent off in dubious circumstances in both.
The senior game saw Freddie Steward given his marching orders after an accidental head collision with Hugo Keenan which also called time on his game. At the time it was obviously an accidental collision and much has been asked as to why it was a red card and not a yellow.
There was a time in the game when there was even a possibility, even probability, that no action would have been taken but that was back in the days when a referee was a law unto himself and controlled the game as he saw it, but that is no longer the case.
Since the game turned professional the pressure on referees to become virtually identical in the way they referee a game has become immense. Referees are now told that if there is a head collision for virtually whatever reason the player is to be sent off and the disciplinary committee will sort it out.
This to a certain extent is common sense, as even the TMO doesn’t have all the camera angles whereas all are available after the game. It also wasn’t as if the sending off had an impact on the result of the game as Ireland were clearly in control of virtually every phase of the game.
Meanwhile, in the U20 game fly-half Monty Bradbury, right, set his tackle height at an almost perfect level only to send Ireland’s Henry McErlean somersaulting through the air. It was McErlean’s own momentum that created the situation with Bradbury unable to complete his arm wrap in time to hold on to McErlean. Unlike Steward, Bradbury’s case has attracted a far lower profile and we are yet to hear if he is to be punished.
What makes this all the more troubling at this time is the fact that World Rugby are set for the first time ever to introduce a new tackle height in the ‘below elite’ level in the community and youth game. This would be the first time in the history of the sport that there have been two sets of laws played at different levels.
One of the things that has always made rugby a players’ game is the fact that all players, whether for ‘Old Rubber Duckians’ 3rd team or the England national side,
“The pressure on referees to become virtually identical in the way they control a game is immense”
all played the same game under the same laws. Now if that changes, it could create further barriers in the advancement of ‘undiscovered’ talents throughout the system, a system that has already banished all but those from outside the academy system. With no county rugby played by either the Premiership or academy players, it has devalued what was once a cornerstone of our game’s pathway for late developers.
The thing is, if World Rugby believe this new tackle height is fundamentally safer than the old system, they should roll it out across the whole game not just to the amateur community game where fewer head injuries seem to occur.
From a personal view, I think there are a number of things they can do to reduce head injuries including a return to old style rucking with a ban on jackaling which encourages wipe outs at the tackle situation. As I have said before rush defence without the safety measure used in rugby league where players are forced to retreat at the breakdown by 10 metres, those two measures alone would probably cut head injuries in half.
I find it interesting that something I suggested over 28 years ago has just raised its head as a potential savour of the English game, central contracts. Just days after the announcement was made, I was at a Club England meeting and raised the idea only to be told the RFU could not afford it. Even though back then it would have probably cost the Union not much more than the current single match fee (close to £25,000) for a whole year’s contract. While that was true then it is not now and even if it were, the likelihood that the Premiership clubs and players would accept them is negligible simply because it would take away the need for a Professional Game Agreement for the players (a major money earner for the clubs), as they would now be employed by the union. It would also take away the need for a match fee, although it may still include some win bonuses, removing around £250,000 for the season currently paid.
It may also reopen the debate as to whether county rugby competitions as a potential pathway have a future, plus whether or not the players employed by the RFU would and should play in it.