'There are hundreds of potentially dangerous acts in any game of rugby that can be committed deliberately or by accident, mostly within the laws'. So said Stephen Jones, highly respected Rugby Correspondent of the Sunday Times, last year.
That got my attention.
He refers back to the Tana Umaga 'spear tackle' on Brian O'Driscoll, Lions Captain at the start of the first test of the Lions Tour to New Zealand 2005. We all remember that, and mostly with a sense of outrage. I recall being convinced that it was deliberate targetting and that it worked. O'Driscoll's tour was finished and the team never recovered. Rugby appeared to me to be a game in which violent assault could triumph over fairness and go unpunished. Jones reminded me that not even a penalty was given, and he hints at pro Kiwi bias. There was no subsequent citing and suspension.
Its a subject that returns on a regular basis. The first weekend of the last 6 Nations saw 2 controversial 'tip tackles'. Wales' Bradley Davies was cited and suspended for 12 weeks (reduced to 7 because of mitigating circumstances) and in the same game Stephen Ferris of Ireland was sin binned and later cited for an illegal tackle, but not suspended by the subsequent Panel. 2 dangerous tackles with wildly different outcomes. How can that be justified or explained? Where was the consistency? Referee Wayne Barnes of England awarded penalties for both tackles and deemed them worthy of yellow cards, not red. Part of the explanation was that Barnes did not see the Davies' tackle, the ball was long gone. The touchline judge made the call and recommended a yellow card, but stated that the victim had been 'dropped'. The use of the word 'dropped' should have caused Barnes to challenge the touch judge's recommendation. After the game Warren Gatland agreed that it was a clear red card offence and that there had been intent behind the action.
At the Rugby World Cup semi final Sam Warburton, Wales Captain, was given a red card for a dangerous tackle. Result? 3 week suspension. Wales did not challenge the sanction.
IRB Referee Chief Paddy O'Brien is quoted as saying that 'Player welfare is paramount and Unions, teams and officials are all well aware of the responsibility to eradicate dangerous play'. Briefings were given to match officials and coaches before the start of that tournament. The IRB issued a directive in 2009 emphasising the 'zero tolerance stance' towards dangerous tackles and reinforcing these instructions:
'The player is lifted and then forced or 'speared' into the ground (red card offence).
The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player's safety (red card offence).
For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card may be considered sufficient'.
As a non rugby playing lawyer it strikes me that some dangerous tackles are therefore considerably more permissible than others. When looking at Bradley Davies' position, how did a yellow card offence result in a 12 (7) week ban? Some have also raised the question of gamesmanship. Might players be tempted to do the equivalent of a 'footballer's dive' to accentuate their flight and fall with a view to increasing the tacklers predicament in the eye of the referee. Although this goes against the traditional rugby player's grain, such conduct is gradually creeping into the game. A similar dilemma confronts the player pursuing a high kick who is confronted with the flying boots of the 'catcher' who gets himself off the ground specifically to avoid being tackled. The pursuer is required to make an instant judgement call and to pull out of the contact at high speed. A near impossibility sometimes and a fine call for the referee when contact is not avoidable. Mid air line out confrontations, whilst equally dangerous, present a similar challenge.
To my mind a deliberate, as opposed to an accidental, dangerous tackle should result in a red card with a ban consistent with the severity of the action decided upon afterwards. In the same way that 2 footed challenges in football are considered inherently dangerous and merit instant red cards, so tip tackles should be treated the same. This footballer would be very interested in comments from rugby players!
Law 10.4(e) in relation to Dangerous Tackles provides as follows:
A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponment above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent's neck or head is dangerous play.
A stiff - arm tackle is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff - arm tackle when using a stiff - arm to strike an opponent.
Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
UPDATE 5.1.13Toby Flood has been cited for his 'tip tackle' in Friday's close fought Tigers battle v Worcester. This is no surprise. Commentators winced at the time although they may have been equally surprised by the identity of the culprit. Flood seemed to gratuitously turn a good initial tackle into something unsavoury. He now faces a nervous wait to see whether he will miss any of the 6 Nations next month.
Ultimately he was exonerated. Quite lucky I felt.
No comments:
Post a Comment