Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Another week, another law tweak by World Rugby

(Photo by Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)

World Rugby have announced what they claim is a minor amendment to the television match official (TMO) protocol within Law 6 to provide the match official team with greater decision-making support when applying the high tackle sanction framework for dangerous shoulder charges and high tackles.

ADVERTISEMENT

With the countdown on towards the World Cup, it seems not a week is going by without some sort of law tweak. Only recently, an edict was issued regarding the restarting of play when a player is leaving the pitch for a head injury assessment.

That tweak followed England’s complaints about the decisive try scored by Wales’ George North in a warm-up match in Cardiff.

This latest change – which is operational immediately – will make it mandatory for the TMO to now be involved in the verification process to confirm any red card decisions which are linked to the referee’s use of the framework as follows:

  • 4.6: If the referee determines that a dangerous high tackle or shoulder charge warrants a red card, then the referee must first verify the decision with the TMO. Both the referee and TMO should use the high tackle sanction framework to determine whether a red card is a correct sanction.

This amendment to aid decision-making follows an initial review of progress since the framework’s implementation in May 2019 by the international federation’s executive committee with the objective of ensuring that the important player welfare initiative continues to optimise clear and consistent officiating. 

The amendment will enable the match officials to have full use of the comprehensive Hawkeye technology that will operate at World Cup 2019 to support on-field decision making. 

In a statement, World Rugby said: “The committee has given its full backing to the process, its implementation by the match officials and has endorsed the continued close collaboration and communication between coaches, players and match officials ahead of the World Cup.

ADVERTISEMENT

“World Rugby is committed to reducing the risk of injury in the sport. The high tackle sanction framework was developed in collaboration with unions, coaches, players, referees and medics to drive consistency and simplicity to the process of identification and sanctioning of dangerous foul play that carries the greatest risk of head injury. 

“It is intended to change player behaviour from positions of high risk to low risk, by the promotion of good technique.

“The amendment will further promote consistency and accuracy of decision-making, supporting referees in this critical player welfare and match-management area.”

WATCH: This new season’s first episode of Don’t Mess With Jim, the RugbyPass weekly series, features Jim Hamilton previewing the World Cup, the best and worst haircuts in the world of rugby and much more

ADVERTISEMENT
Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 1 hour ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Young Highlanders tested by Jamie Joseph's preseason Jamie Joseph testing young Highlanders
Search