CONCUSSION: WHAT TO DO?

"Fend": dangerous
By PG Tips
August 16 2021

From 1 August World Rugby’s 5 Welfare Based Law Trials aimed at reducing injury in the game will be applied in all competitions. 2 aim to create more space in the game, the other 3 address safety issues at the breakdown. These proposed measures acknowledge the incidence of injury in the modern game as a serious issue. Once they have been seen in action for a few months it should be possible to assess their effectiveness. Meanwhile, what can be done within the existing laws to reduce incidence of injury-especially concussion?

For information, the 5 Trials are:

Law Trials to create space:

50:22 Kicking trial
2 Goal-Line Dropout

Breakdown Law Amendments

Ban on pre-binding
Lower limb clearout sanction
A limit on “latching”

Details can be found at: https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/welfare-focused-rugby-law-trials-to-be-implemented-globally

While we await the results of these trials and their recommendations, there is much that can be done by officials and players to reduce injury risk. As the great Nigel Owens said earlier this year: “"People say let's change the laws. No, you don't need to change the laws, the laws need to be refereed.". Let’s see that happen to provide a context to the law trials and help judge their effectiveness. It might also be worth considering the return of some laws and styles of play that were altered in recent memory.

First, let’s recognise that the tackle is not the only dangerous area of the game – almost all of them are. World Rugby clearly notes the risk at the breakdown, but I for one am surprised that their recent announcement makes no mention of players staying on their feet. The law states that players must “endeavour” to stay on their feet. Most do not. The resultant pile of bodies is hard to shift without headlong charge or dive by opponents. Peter O’Mahoney’s red card in the Wales v Ireland match is an obvious example. He was rightly carded, but had the opposition been on their feet the conditions for his offence would not have existed. Most players now dive into rucks, either to clear the ball or to “secure” it (really to make it unplayable for the opposition). The result is not just slow ball and an encouragement to the monotony of pick and drive, but an increased risk of injury to head and limb.

The basis of this constipated situation at the breakdown is the jackal- currently legal in the game and hard to shift without a violent charge from a distance. I will watch the application of the sanction on lower limb clearout with interest – this could put greater emphasis on upper body clearout increasing the risk of head on head or shoulder to head contact. Personally I favour a return to rucking on the feet, with no hands in the ruck- therefore, no jackal. This I believe would speed the game up and also make it safer by providing more space and reducing the frequency of collsions.While on the breakdown, officials should pay more attention to offside. Owens again: “"The law wants you behind the offside line while referees were happy if they (defenders) were on the offside line.”

In practice this often means the defence is well beyond it. There is minimal depth to the current breakdown anyway (which is why teams attempt to manufacture it with the “caterpillar” which so annoys many spectators). Therefore there is more need for a zero-tolerance approach to offside – not only for an open game, but for safety- lax handling of offside leads to man-and-ball collisions, most of them upright, with resulting risk of head-on-head clashes. In the era of rucking the ruck or maul breakdown would be about 5 or 6 metres deep, providing separation between backlines and making it easier for officials to spot creeping offside.

Another area of concussion risk is the aerial collision. Much has changed and improved in this area in recent seasons and of course there will always be contentious individual cases. These though do illustrate a lack of consistent application. Cheslin Kolbe apparently escaped a red card for upending Conor Murray in the air because “his view was impeded by Dan Biggar in his sightline”. Bath fans will remember Anthony Watson suffering a red for knocking into an airborne Alex Goode, after he himself had been unbalanced in the air by a shoulder charge from Watson’s teammate Chris Ashton. A comparison of the two events suggests that referee jurisdictions around the world are not fully aligned on a serious risk issue.

Now to the tackle. The tackler is as much at risk here as the ball carrier and risk at the tackle cannot be eliminated -only mitigated. Accidental collision with knee, hip or hard ground is part of the game. What can be reduced is dangerous tackling and dangerous actions by the ball carrier. There is no need for a swinging arm, especially when tackling high. These should be penalised more than they are. I suspect that one reason why some are not sanctioned is the dangerous tackle protocol, which understandably looks for an “attempt to wrap”. Perhaps some referees see a swinging arm and confuse it with an attempt to embrace the ball carrier? Here the judgement of the official should surely take precedence over “protocol”. If it looks like a swinging arm and is a movement of only one arm, then penalise it as a dangerous tackle!

The protocol itself is a positive (although the use of the word and the need for it illustrates and supports my point of last week’s article that dangerous high tackles were frequently overlooked for two decades), giving officials guidelines for determining recklessness, danger and appropriate sanctions. I would though like to see two amendments – including the swinging arm as an offence and some leeway for judgement and empathy with the tackler. Accepting that a rugby pitch is not a court of law and that officials have limited time to make a call, the protocol was inconsistently applied last season. Northmore’s tackle on Piutau in the Premiership semi-final for instance, (which was deemed acceptable) appeared much more intentional or at least reckless than several incidents in other matches which seemed more unfortunate than reckless – for example Ewels’ head clash with Radwan.

The ball carrier may only use the palm of the hand or a braced shoulder as defence against a tackle. We saw several examples where leading with the elbow away from the body was penalised last season -long may that continue and if contact is made with the head or throat the culprit should be carded. I would like to see this law applied with more vigour-it is still too common. While on this topic, I wish commentators like Ben Kay would stop referring to the “fend.” By all means use “sheds” for changing rooms if you want to sound cool and appeal to New Zealanders, but to be clear, the “fend”, i.e. any form of deterrent to the tackler that is not an open palm handoff, is specifically prohibited in the laws.

Blocking runners should be penalised too if they make physical contact with a prospective tackler. Not only does their action unsight, or even unbalance the tackler, which may contribute to them making a clumsy a high tackle, the action itself adds to concussion risk by using shoulder or elbow to obstruct the tackler at upper body and potentially head height.

Another defender action I would wish to clamp down on is “afters” when a try is scored. Thankfully these are reducing but there are still players sliding into prone scorers with knee or boot. Referees tend to ignore these goal line offences if a try has clearly been scored. Why? Foul play is foul play even after the whistle and the danger has not reduced after a score. If anything, it is increased as the scorer is often unaware of the oncoming threat so unable to avoid it.

These wishes may sound like increasing the burden on referees already busy with a complex game. That surely is why touch judges have been upgraded to assistant referees? They should work as a team, three sets of eyes covering more than one, to clamp down on these offences. Surely the officials have a duty of care (and if that is not specifically stated in the laws it would not prevent necessarily a judge from ruling that they do) to the welfare of the players?

So, my proposal is that only one current law needs to change. I would change the ruck: require rucking on the feet and outlaw hands in the ruck and the jackal. That one idea alone is worth much debate as I know rucking has both supporters and fierce opponents. That change apart, I believe that the game can be made considerably safer and more fun to play and watch with more stringent application of some existing laws.