Barely a week goes by during the rugby season without some controversy on the disciplinary front and it was the same story in the summer internationals. Just about the one consistent factor right now seems to be inconsistency.
In particular, there has been huge debate over the contrasting way incidents of head contact are being handled. That, of course, is all the more pertinent amid growing concerns over brain injuries and Ryan Jones’ revelation that he has been diagnosed with early onset dementia at 41.
Rugby correspondent Simon Thomas runs the rule over the key cases of contention over the past month and reflects on where the game stands now and the continuing challenges facing the powers-that-be in terms of preventing concussions.
Read next: Andy Powell in row with Gareth Anscombe's wife after messages in wake of Ryan Jones news
Barrett kicks it off
The opening game of the opening weekend and we had our first controversy. In the dying minutes of the first Test between New Zealand and Ireland at Eden Park, All Blacks flanker Scott Barrett appeared to catch opposite number Peter O’Mahony to the head with his shoulder in a ruck clear-out near his own line.
English referee Karl Dickson penalised him for not using his arms in the clear-out, but ruled he connected with the body of the veteran Irishman. So he opted not to issue a card, while South African TMO Marius Jonker didn’t intervene.
Cue outrage on social media with Barrett being labelled “a lucky boy” and the incident dubbed “sickening” and “horrible”, with many insisting it was a red card offence. Yet there was to be no citing, sparking fresh disquiet and head-scratching in some quarters.
Darcy Swain red card
Among the litany of offences in rugby union, hair-pulling isn’t one you see too often. But that was at the centre of the big talking point incident during the first Test between Australia and England.
Wallaby second row Darcy Swain was red carded for a headbutt in retaliation to hair-pulling from his England opposite number Jonny Hill in a hugely eventful encounter in Perth. Swain was sent for an early bath by Kiwi referee James Doleman while Hill was sin-binned following a dust-up which seemed to have petered out only for the Aussie lock to add a fateful foot-note - or more accurately head-note.
Given his reaction on Sky Sports, former England prop David Flatman said: “There is absolutely no defending it at all. There was a little bit of mucking around, a little bit of silliness. The hair-pulling from Jonny Hill is too much and the head to head from Darcy Swain, he just lost control. Whatever way you look at that, you can not do it.”
Despite being down to 14 men for more than half the game, Australia went on to win 30-28, amid England No 8 Billy Vunipola being yellow carded for a shoulder to the head of Wallaby skipper Michael Hooper, levelling up the numbers for a crucial period in the second half.
As for Swain, well he was banned for two weeks, a sanction which was seen as unduly lenient by some given the longer punishments handed out to some players for accidental head contact.
Angus Ta’avao also sees red
You couldn’t take your eyes off the second Test between New Zealand and Ireland in Dunedin for a moment because there was so much happening. You had a catalogue of cards and a series of contentious incidents.
The one red card was issued to All Blacks replacement prop Angus Ta’avao after half an hour for making head-to-head contact with Garry Ringrose while attempting a tackle. Some watchers took the view it was an accidental collision and a rugby incident, but South African referee Jaco Peyper was crystal clear in explaining the ruling in the context of current efforts to reduce concussion in the game.
He said: “At the moment, there’s a higher responsibility on the tackler to level change. He’s upright, he’s always high, he steps right into him, there’s direct head contact. There’s no level change and no change of direction.”
Some felt New Zealand were fortunate to avoid another red card, with winger Leicester Fainga’anuku making contact to the head of Mack Hansen with his shoulder in an airborne collision. A sin-binning was the outcome there, with TMO Tom Foley saying there was contact to Hansen’s chest before his head was touched. Giving his thoughts, sports scientist Ross Tucker suggested it should have been a red due to there being “very high danger and no mitigation”. The debate goes on. As for the match, it ended with Ireland winning 23-12 to level the series.
Going back to Ta’avao, at his subsequent disciplinary hearing he admitted an act of foul play but maintained a red card was not warranted due to mitigating factors. The committee disagreed and he was banned for three weeks.
Andrew Porter escapes sending off
A week later and Kiwi fans were up in arms. It was another upright tackle by a prop and a further head-on-head contact. This time it was Irish loosehead Andrew Porter on All Blacks second row Brodie Retallick. After what had happened with Ta’avao, many would have been expecting another red.
But English referee Wayne Barnes saw it differently. He ruled it had been an “absorbing” tackle by Porter rather than a dominant one, and so there was sufficient mitigation to come down to a yellow.
It was a decision that infuriated New Zealand supporters and caused plenty of confusion on the back of the previous week’s incident. On social media, it was described as “madness” and “indefensible”, with the inconsistency dubbed “staggering”.
Speaking after his team’s series-losing 32-22 defeat, All Blacks coach Ian Foster agreed with the suggestion it was another example of rugby’s card lottery.
The outcry increased in volume when it emerged that Retallick had sustained a broken cheekbone. Scotland international and pundit Jim Hamilton commented: “Brodie Retallick looks like he ‘absorbed’ that tackle by breaking his eye socket.”
Former referee Paul Smith told RugbyPass : “Given that Retallick was unable to continue, we can presumably safely assume that a level of force was involved despite the fact that Porter was going backwards when the contact was made.
“Was Barnes correct to downgrade to a yellow? Was Peyper correct to show red (last week)? For me, under the existing protocol the incidents were so similar that the outcome had to be identical – a red card.”
It soon became clear the match commissioner agreed, as he cited Porter, meaning he viewed it as a red card offence. But now there has been yet another twist to the tale, as the citing complaint has been dismissed.
An independent disciplinary committee, which featured former Ospreys and Springboks wing Stefan Terblanche, plus ex-Scotland coach Frank Hadden, considered all the available evidence, including multiple broadcast angles and submissions from the player and his legal representative.
After doing so, they agreed with Barnes’ on-field decision that the incident didn’t reach the red card threshold due to the absorbing nature of the tackle, so there is to be no further sanction. Opinion will once again be deeply divided.
As one confused reader tweeted to me today following the citing being dismissed: "Absorbing nature? Didn’t Retallick fracture his cheek? I thought the whole idea was to get tacklers to lower at hips?"
The debate will rage on.
Wales' yellow cards
First things first. Over the course of the three Tests against Wales, South Africa deserved their series victory. But there will always be that nagging annoyance over a couple of yellow cards handed out to Wayne Pivac’s team at crucial moments.
In particular, there was the sin-binning of Louis Rees-Zammit in Pretoria when the winger seemed to have done everything right in pulling off a defensive tackle-jackal. It came at such a key point in the game, with just six minutes to go and Wales leading 24-22. The decision seemed harsh at the time and looked more so with each subsequent viewing.
With Alun Wyn Jones already in the bin for a cumulative team offence which confused many at the time and Rhys Carre to head the same way, the tourists were briefly down to 12 men amid chaotic scenes. The fact they came tantalising close to drawing or even winning the game in such circumstances says much about their resolve.
Ultimately, the further yellow card for Alun Wyn in Bloemfontein didn’t cost them as they overcame his departure to secure a historic victory, but it’s still a call that rankles, with the big man having been penalised for hands in the ruck when the ball appeared to come off a boot. But such are the vagaries of the game amid split-second decisions and in the end the ‘Boks were worthy winners of the series, albeit Loftus will long remain a what if.
Conclusion - rugby is at a crossroads
Yet again, the game finds itself at a crossroads following events of recent weeks. The ever increasing focus on dementia cases and litigation puts an even greater onus on the powers-that-be to find a way of reducing head contact and concussion.
To my mind, there is a central problem. The game is still dealing with the legacy of years and years of rugby league-influenced coaching where the emphasis was on upright, ball-and-all tackles designed to prevent defence-splitting offloads. That became ingrained in the sport and moving away from that is clearly proving a challenge. Yet it’s that technique which is behind much of the concerning contact we see, whether it be head-on-head or shoulder on head.
So the game needs to decide whether it is really serious about stamping it out and getting players to lower their tackle height. There is an argument that the only way to change behaviour once and for all is to have a zero tolerance approach when it comes to head contact as a result of upright tackling.
At present, there is perhaps too much focus on mitigation where we look for factors that allow sanction to be reduced to a yellow card. In particular, the issue of force and the difference between dominant and absorbing tackles has taken centre stage.
Yet judging force is such a subjective thing and even if a tackler isn’t smashing into an opponent, significant damage can result from a collision, as Retallick’s fractured cheekbone testifies. By the same token, a lack of intent or an impact being accidental doesn’t change the scale of the impact, so really shouldn’t come into the disciplinary process.
The game is on a precipice and action has to be taken. At the moment, contention and confusion abounds. My own feeling is we need a much simpler and more straightforward framework when it comes to head contact, with fewer caveats, and there needs to be clarity and consistency, moving away from mitigation and enforcing the kind of change in behaviour which saw the spear tackle eradicated.
READ NEXT:
Nigel Owens column: Stop blaming referees and look at other reasons for what's just been happening
Ryan Jones suing WRU and World Rugby after devastating dementia diagnosis
Wales' new pecking order in every position as stars cement their worth in South Africa
The real world rugby power rankings right now as All Blacks in full-blown crisis and Wales sold shor t
