Captain’s controversial no-arms tackle should have led to a penalty try
I was confused by official’s explanation for allowing Farrell’s pivotal challenge on Rodda to stand
Ithought the referee Jaco Peyper had a good game yesterday and made a postitive contribution to the match. He correctly rewarded dominance – most significantly, England’s in the scrum – and managed the breakdown well, ensuring that it was crisp and clean.
He also got most of the key decisions right. In the first half, he made the correct call in response to Izack Rodda’s tip tackle on Elliot Daly, awarding a penalty – that Owen Farrell converted to extend England’s lead – without punishing the Australian with a card.
Rodda appeared to drop Farrell safely on the ground, without placing him at the kind of physical risk that would have warranted further punishment.
Peyper suffered some criticism after reversing his own decision to award Dane Haylett-Petty a try, also in the first half, having spotted on the big screen a forward pass in the build-up to the score.
I don’t mind cutting corners here as the correct outcome was achieved and, had he consulted the TM, it would have been a far more laborious process.
On the big talking point of the match, however, Jaco was wrong. Just before the interval, Farrell stopped Rodda just short of the try-line with a no-arms tackle. On the referee’s microphone, Jaco can be heard justifying his decision to call the tackle legitimate for reasons that apparently related to the fact that Rodda dropped his shoulder (as did Farrell).
I found this confusing. In fact, I would be interested to hearer a clearer explanation of Jaco’s thinking because the attacker is allowed to drop the shoulder in the tackle. Whether he does so has no bearing on the legitimacy of the challenge.
All that matters is that the defender must use his arms and, as was the case against the Springbok Andre Esterhuizen earlier this month, Farrell did not. That he ended up on the floor afterwards, incidentally, is also irrelevant. What matters is how the tackle is made. Not who wins the collision.
Was Rodda in a position to suggest that he would, to quote the rule, “most probably” have gone on to score a try? Yes, I think so, hence Australia deserved a penalty try that would have hauled them ahead of England at the interval. Jaco got this wrong but he should not be hung out to dry on one decision. I thought England were deserving winners, with a scoreline that only slightly flattered them.
In the autumn Tests overall, I think officials have made a good fist of trying to achieve consistency in their decision-making. I have especially admired the effort they have made to communicate their thoughts and how well they have managed the breakdown, yesterday being a case in point. The parameters around which the kick-chase is policed have been well policed, too.
However, there are areas I would like to see improved. Some of the newer referees showed their inexperience, while the TMO has a place in the game but its systems need to be refined. A few too many of the key decisions around foul play were incorrect, too.