Crackdown is right but clumsy and criminal are treated alike
clearly the protocols have been laid out (see graphic), you realise just how little room for discussion there is when a match official reviews an incident. This is both 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 most probably well 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
Already, and I am in no doubt about it, we have seen players make the most of collisions
you could, especially in a knockout phase of the World Cup?
Which brings me to the next point where I think 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 – and I use that word cautiously – that 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 that we will see the knockout games significantly affected by cards.
What is interesting about the high-tackle 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 experience that needs to take place among an older generation of players, such as myself, who love to watch contact in sports such as rugby league State of Origin games where it is almost anything goes in the tackle.
If we accept that things need to change, that players need to be protected, 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.