TACKLE DIRECTIVES CAUSING CHAOS

David Matthews reports on World Rugby's latest initiative

The final rounds of the European Champions and Challenge Cups before Christmas produced a record six red cards and twenty-nine yellow; the tally of sendings-off in European competition now stands at 11 after four rounds compared to the previous record of eight for an entire season. All six reds involved contact with the head in 'tackles,' so preempting the directive from World Rugby for referees to show "zero tolerance," as that did not actually come in until the start of this new year. Add to this a couple of howlers which crucially led to tries being scored, the continuing debate on the handling of George North's concussion and the Dylan Harley sending off, and there was certainly no shortage of talking points as all the clubs below the Premiership and Championship began a three-week break.

Speaking earlier in the season, Sale coach Steve Diamond, never one to hold back as soon as the referee is mentioned, voiced his opinion on an amendment to the laws which obviously disrupted Sale, " I could see this coming, once an interpretation is introduced this is how referees react." Needless to say, though he was not alone on the subject of head high tackles, he questioned whether the game would become "touch rugby." Maybe not so drastic, but he has a point. The line between a tackle which results in the head of a player being vulnerable and a legal tackle is a fine one.  Initial contact may be below the shoulders but finish up reaching the head, in which case it is considered dangerous; the tip tackle and contact when a player is still in the air also produces allegations of inconsistency. England's victory against Argentina in the autumn offered the perfect example: Elliot Daly clumsily made contact with an opponent in the air following a kick ahead and was sent off, while later Juan Pablo Estelle did something similar in making a tackle, resulting in a penalty only. The first player landed on his head, the second on his side which suggests that outcome determines the decision; intent does not appear to be a consideration nor are referees permitted to use common sense.

The safety factor is high priority in Rugby Union. Increased size, speed and the frequency of potentially dangerous collisions have turned it into a higher profile issue than ever before. World Rugby, formerly the IRB, does not have a reputation for bringing clear thinking into discussion on law amendment. In the past, with far less critical alterations to law, the dreaded 'zero tolerance' line has compelled referees to stick rigidly to the directive, or else. Should readers think that this might only apply at the very top, there are any number of referees at lower levels eager to err on the side of punishment, backed by an equal number of advisers. The game suffers.

The two other controversies related to head tackles have been the uncertainty as to whether Dylan Hartley will retain the England captaincy after his latest aberration, and the decision of World Rugby (here we go again!) to seemingly insist that disciplinary measures be imposed on someone at Northampton for the handling of George North's apparent concussion. Meanwhile, the clanger dropped by replacement French referee Mathieu Raynal as Connacht beat Wasps in added time has, it appears, passed by without that much fuss .......unless you belong to Wasps. His reward? The England v Scotland game in March.

9(30Dec16)