Mike Brown needs to take more responsibility for his own welfare
“There is a campaign to change things to make our game as safe as possible without losing its edge”
As a former Wasps player it was hard watching last week’s ‘Big Game’ at Twickenham, as our old arch rivals Harlequins, gave Wasps a lesson in simple, direct rugby. A game that was a tense affair with neither side managing to dominate the other and in many ways it was Wasps who were the masters of their own misfortune.
One thing that has stuck in my mind, and I am sure Dai Young will be reminding players, is the first lesson you are taught: look where you are passing the ball.
The number of opportunities that Wasps threw away with offloads into empty space, coupled with a blind expectation that someone would be there was ridiculous, and, despite adding an air of excitement, unprofessional.
The game had many talking points, not least the accusation of spitting against Quins hooker Dave Ward, thankfully it has not been pursued by citing officer Michael (Buster) White, a legend of the Wasps club.
I hate to say it but whoever is running the discipline section of the Premiership games really does need to have a serious rethink on match appointments.
As much as I am sure that the professionalism of the citing officers is beyond reproach, why should they be put in a position where it’s possible to suggest that a conflict of interest could arise?
Surely it can’t be that difficult to make sure that citing officers have no current or previous links to either club in the matches they are reviewing.
Another point raised was how much of the duty of care between players and officials is the responsibility of the players themselves?
Mike Brown has complained that the match officials did not provide him with enough protection when he leapt into Josh Bassett in his attempt to win the ball.
In my opinion, and in every report that I have read of the match, Brown jumped into Bassett, which would indicate that the referee failed to protect Bassett not Brown, and that Brown was at best reckless with his own safety.
Player welfare is, or should be, paramount in the minds of everyone associated with the game including players,coaches, clubs, Unions, law makers,World Rugby and fans. It is an onerous task we all share to ensure players are not seriously injured.
That said, it is the responsibility of every players not to deliberately put themselves or an opponent in danger of injury by being reckless or thoughtless in how they play the game.
Leaping in the air to catch a ball when you have a 16-17 stone player running at you, who will also be jumping into aerial contact, is both reckless and thoughtless, particularly if you think any of the match officials can protect you from potential injury.
With all reckless or thoughtless acts in any sport, as anyone who plays or watches knows, they can and are only punished by match officials once they have been completed. In other words, once the collision and any subsequent injury has taken place.
Jumping to catch the ball is a recent development in Rugby Union and was introduced by the Australians as a crossover from Aussie rules, where it is common place and results in a stop in play.
In the recent past, players had to be stationary to call a mark with both feet on the floor and although that changed to being able to call a mark on the move, jumping took some time to become popular.
This is because when first used in Union, the jumping players were taken out in the air by players on the ground with the obvious consequential increase in the number of injuries.
However, instead of banning jumping, World Rugby attempted to protect the player in the air and instructed match official to penalise players tackling the catcher in the air.
This has led to players leaping in the air to catch or challenge for the ball even when there is no reason to jump or little likelihood they would get the ball, in order to disrupt the opposition.
As expected, every new idea in playing the game spawns any number of ways to counter it and many end up creating a potential for more injuries.
Charging in the scrum, developed by the All blacks to counter the strength of the Springbok pack, led to a number of injuries at youth level in New Zealand which led to the U20 variations.
This has created generations of young props not learning their skills from older players (how to scrummage and protect themselves) because they are only allowed to play against inexperienced players of the same age until they reach senior rugby. Also adopting Rugby League style rush defence has increased the number of injuries across the sport, partly because there is less space on a Union pitch with 15 players per team instead of 13 and also because it encourages high tackles.
Impact at the tackle area has increased as a result of the change in style partly because the time of ball in play has reduced, giving players more recovery time during the game.
I have suggested that the tackle height should be reduced to waist level in open play and sadly, after a couple of deaths in France, the FFR are calling on World Rugby to act.
There is a campaign to change things to make our game as safe as possible without losing the ‘edge’ that makes it so special. Let us all hope it succeeds.