Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Are red cards solving the high tackle problem?

(Photo by Peter Meecham/Getty Images and GEOFF CADDICK/AFP via Getty Images)

Are red cards for high tackles making the game any safer? It is a genuine question the game must answer in due time, if it wants to really improve player safety.

ADVERTISEMENT

The reactive measure to disincentivise contact to the head through punishment is supposed to change player behaviour over time so that there are fewer and fewer high tackles made.

We can all agree that this is the desired end goal given the rapidly growing understanding of CTE and head knocks. The stories of those now suffering after years of playing are harrowing and we all want to see less of them, ideally none in a perfect world.

Video Spacer

Aotearoa Rugby Pod | Episode 14

Video Spacer

Aotearoa Rugby Pod | Episode 14

But, what if over the next five years say, we don’t see a reduction in high tackles? That this supposed solution that we have, red cards for high shots, does nothing to quell to the number of high contacts and the game continually sees players sent off for such indiscretions.

What then? Will the righteous crusade end in defeat or will it continue in this vein until there are simply no red cards left?

After a couple of years of tackle height frameworks and new rules, it is unclear whether these measures having the desired effect of stamping out head-high tackles. If there is data to show it, World Rugby or other governing bodies should release it.

The rugby public should be able to see the progress we are making, if there is any. That kind of transparency is critical at this point in time with the game in the state that it is in.

ADVERTISEMENT

Otherwise, there must be other options on the table to improve player welfare and maintain the contest on the field instead or in addition to issuing red cards, which were previously reserved for intentional, malicious acts of foul play such as punching, eye gouging, stamping and the spear tackle.

The inherent problem with the tackle area is that it is a high-speed collision event that, at times, becomes uncontrollable. A slight angle change by this player or the entry of another tackler into the collision zone adds complexity that results in player error.

No one has the telepathic capability to predict what someone else will do at light speed, let alone then react to change course and prevent the worst from happening.

In some cases, the offender might be reckless, careless or negligent, but regardless, it is still a miscalculation and in most cases an unintentional error of execution.

ADVERTISEMENT

The game has decided to punish this player error by virtue of red cards as a means to solve the problem. This isn’t disputing the concussion issue, only to ask if this solution that is in place is actually working.

Surely the end goal is to actually reduce concussions, not just virtue signal that we stand against them by continuing to issue red cards in a public condemnation of the act after the fact.

The former is what we are after, the latter is not. The latter is not progress, it is simply moral grandstanding around the issue while letting it continue. Any solution, whatever it is, must be measured and be proven to be having a quantifiable impact.

We can issue 1,000 red cards to make it feel like we are doing something, but it does not reverse the impact of contact to the head in those thousand instances.

It is only supposed to disincentivise the next one, and that disincentive does not seem to be working as intended.

This is the prohibition argument all over again, whether it is illicit substances or high tackles. Does the threat of punishment of an act actually stop it from happening again and again?

There are other factors at play that mean you can’t help but feel this is a window dressing exercise that does not go to the extent it needs to if player welfare is genuinely at the heart of the cause.

How often does the game see a player carded for a high tackle, yet fail to see the tackled player taken off for a mandatory head injury assessment.

Surely if player welfare is paramount, any player that is tackled high enough to warrant punishment should receive a mandatory HIA.

This is the kind of hypocrisy that casts doubt over the intention for the current crackdown on high tackles.

We happily card the offender and don’t bother to assess the victim unless they are completely legless, like Ireland lock James Ryan was at Twickenham earlier in the year.

He was forced from the field because he couldn’t stand on two feet. Others have simply got up and played on.

We know that the head is sacrosanct and must be protected as much as possible if the game is to reduce the number of concussions suffered by playing.

Why is it then legal for a ball carrier to duck into tackles, leading with the crown of the head into opposing players? We see this habit occur frequently by ball carriers ducking into contact, head-first.

We’ve gone to lengths to protect the ball carrier from defenders, but if the ball carrier does this, it is okay?

Perhaps the top of the head is a ‘better’ place to be hit than the face and chin area, and this why players do it as a means of bracing for a high impact contact, but it doesn’t make it any easier for the tackler.

Aside from complicating the safe tackle zone for the defence, what happens if the ball carrier leads with the head and makes high contact with the defender?

If the game is serious about protecting the head in the tackle zone, the next step is to force the ball carrier to take some responsibility and place some onus on them to respect the head, even if it is their own.

Eventually, every area of the game needs to be understood for the role in concussion. It can’t just be high tackles. It must be all on field collision events – scrums, breakdowns, tackles of all kinds, aerial collisions.

Southern Hemisphere administrators have pushed for a 20-minute red card in order to reduce the impact on the contest, allowing a side to return to 15 players by substituting the offending player after the 20-minute period.

Herein lies the problem with taking a punishment reserved for extreme foul play and mixing it with one for an act of accidental error.

Highlanders first five Sam Gilbert was red carded for a spear tackle on Waratahs flanker Michael Hooper in the latest round of Super Rugby Pacific. He made a mistake, as players do, but it was incredibly dangerous.

It was the kind of tip tackle that would’ve immediately warranted a red card punishment in any era, where the Highlanders would have been down to 14 men for the entire contest.

The 20-minute red card was the only available option, so the Highlanders returned to a full complement after 20 minutes. By meddling with the original intention of the red card, unintended consequences will follow.

This is perhaps the unsolvable issue for rugby. To keep things in context to the wider sporting world, it is great that there is a desire to make change.

The UFC and professional boxing don’t seem to have a plan, but business goes on. On the surface, there is no solution for combat sport but to stop altogether. For collision sports, reduction has to be key.

At some point, the realisation might be made that there will never be an eradication of all concussion events in rugby, but reductions can be achieved. Welfare can be improved, as it has over time.

But, is the game truly committed to finding every possible way to understand and limit them, or is it just grandstanding around it with half-baked solutions based on postering without measuring if its current measures are working? If we are seeing results, share them.

Because if we aren’t actually making progress, the game won’t be any safer and these issues won’t be solved or reduced.

It will just be a never ending card crackdown to show how much we all stand against concussion.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

1 Comment
g
gefitz 912 days ago

Thanks for the article, I guess, but it amounts to nothing more than a tantrum about the "unsolvable," with zero ideas presented about alternatives. I, instead, give kudos to those running the sport (a rarity these days I know) for trying something...ANYTHING AT ALL...to protect its players. It would be all too easy for the professional level of the sport to continue on as it had, knocking skulls together with absolutely no regard for its players. Instead the sport is doing the difficult thing. It's doing what is RIGHT.

It may not have an effect in five years. In five years at the top level, you'll still have players that were trained to tackle in a way that often generates cards. But given time, hopefully, grass roots efforts to train safe tackling will have a lessening effect.

We shall see. We must support those grass roots efforts. Even if they are immediately unsuccessful, they may save the sport.

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 3 hours ago
'Passionate reunion of France and New Zealand shows Fabien Galthie is wrong to rest his stars'

Ok, managed to read the full article..

... New Zealand’s has only 14 and the professional season is all over within four months. In France, club governance is the responsibility of an independent organisation [the Ligue Nationale de Rugby or LNR] which is entirely separate from the host union [the Fédération Française de Rugby or FFR]. Down south New Zealand Rugby runs the provincial and the national game.

That is the National Provincial Championship, a competition of 14 representative union based teams run through the SH international window and only semi professional (paid only during it's running). It is run by NZR and goes for two and a half months.


Super Rugby is a competition involving 12 fully professional teams, of which 5 are of New Zealand eligibility, and another joint administered team of Pacific Island eligibility, with NZR involvement. It was a 18 week competition this year, so involved (randomly chosen I believe) extra return fixtures (2 or 3 home and away derbys), and is run by Super Rugby Pacific's own independent Board (or organisation). The teams may or may not be independently run and owned (note, this does not necessarily mean what you think of as 'privately owned').


LNR was setup by FFR and the French Government to administer the professional game in France. In New Zealand, the Players Association and Super Rugby franchises agreed last month to not setup their own governance structure for professional rugby and re-aligned themselves with New Zealand Rugby. They had been proposing to do something like the English model, I'm not sure how closely that would have been aligned to the French system but it did not sound like it would have French union executive representation on it like the LNR does.

In the shaky isles the professional pyramid tapers to a point with the almighty All Blacks. In France the feeling for country is no more important than the sense of fierce local identity spawned at myriad clubs concentrated in the southwest. Progress is achieved by a nonchalant shrug and the wide sweep of nuanced negotiation, rather than driven from the top by a single intense focus.

Yes, it is pretty much a 'representative' selection system at every level, but these union's are having to fight for their existence against the regime that is NZR, and are currently going through their own battle, just as France has recently as I understand it. A single focus, ala the French game, might not be the best outcome for rugby as a whole.


For pure theatre, it is a wonderful article so far. I prefer 'Ntamack New Zealand 2022' though.

The young Crusader still struggles to solve the puzzle posed by the shorter, more compact tight-heads at this level but he had no problem at all with Colombe.

It was interesting to listen to Manny during an interview on Maul or Nothing, he citied that after a bit of banter with the All Black's he no longer wanted one of their jersey's after the game. One of those talks was an eye to eye chat with Tamaiti Williams, there appear to be nothing between the lock and prop, just a lot of give and take. I thought TW angled in and caused Taylor to pop a few times, and that NZ were lucky to be rewarded.

f you have a forward of 6ft 8ins and 145kg, and he is not at all disturbed by a dysfunctional set-piece, you are in business.

He talked about the clarity of the leadership that helped alleviate any need for anxiety at the predicaments unfolding before him. The same cannot be said for New Zealand when they had 5 minutes left to retrieve a match winning penalty, I don't believe. Did the team in black have much of a plan at any point in the game? I don't really call an autonomous 10 vehicle they had as innovative. I think Razor needs to go back to the dealer and get a new game driver on that one.

Vaa’i is no match for his power on the ground. Even in reverse, Meafou is like a tractor motoring backwards in low gear, trampling all in its path.

Vaa'i actually stops him in his tracks. He gets what could have been a dubious 'tackle' on him?

A high-level offence will often try to identify and exploit big forwards who can be slower to reload, and therefore vulnerable to two quick plays run at them consecutively.

Yes he was just standing on his haunches wasn't he? He mentioned that in the interview, saying that not only did you just get up and back into the line to find the opposition was already set and running at you they also hit harder than anything he'd experienced in the Top 14. He was referring to New Zealands ultra-physical, burst-based Super style of course, which he was more than a bit surprised about. I don't blame him for being caught out.


He still sent the obstruction back to the repair yard though!

What wouldn’t the New Zealand rugby public give to see the likes of Mauvaka and Meafou up front..

Common now Nick, don't go there! Meafou showed his Toulouse shirt and promptly got his citizenship, New Zealand can't have him, surely?!?


As I have said before with these subjects, really enjoy your enthusiasm for their contribution on the field and I'd love to see more of their shapes running out for Vern Cotter and the like styled teams.

287 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING World Cup-winning halfback on Cam Roigard’s substitution in France loss World Cup-winning halfback on Cam Roigard’s substitution vs. France
Search