Netball or not, Player Welfare and Safety is Paramount
View(s):“Referee! This is not Netball,” was a cry often heard from the stands during the 2017 Club season, as well as the 2018 School season. Many pundits, ex-players, and the public have been vociferously complaining along the lines of “Rugby has gone soft”. There has been continuous criticism that, there is an increase in ‘Yellow’ and ‘Red’ cards for high tackles, considered very harsh by those who sit comfortably in the pavilion. The comment of being harsh has been heard over broadcast too. Sri Lanka has not been alone, as the reaction has been common in other parts of the Rugby world.
It is not Netball and neither is it that the Laws on Dangerous Tackling actually changed in 2017. The definition of a ‘High Tackle’ today, is the same as it was 3 years before that. Only the sanctions being imposed have changed. What changed is the interpretation and application. Being Reckless attracted a Minimum Yellow Card and a Maximum Red Card. Being Accidental attracted a Minimum Sanction of a Penalty. The guidelines made it clear that ‘Player Welfare/Safety’ was Paramount.
Some of this may come across as harsh. Some may ask “Isn’t there a risk of making contact with the head in any tackle?” “How can it be a penalty if the ball-carrier slips?” What is important is to protect the head and neck of players, and everyone is rightly very cautious now. Rugby is a physical sport and there will always be a level of injury risk associated with it but, the sport is doing as much as it can to make it as safe as possible. So is every Referee in the game to do so, not just in Sri Lanka.
However, it is important to note that, like any Rugby Law, the Referee on the field is the one that interprets the Law to the situation in front of him, becoming the judge of fact and Law. Referees need to show commonsense, to keep complaints from the general Rugby public to a minimum. The Referees who understand what players are trying to achieve, are going to be the ones making decisions that make sense. But, if a Referee makes that call based on materiality and yet, receives pages of complaints, why then and not this time, things will remain the same.
What is required is to manage this conflict and not take criticism from the standpoint that we are the gods. Disagreements will inevitably arise and views have evolved regarding conflict. The traditional view of conflict argues that conflict must be avoided, as it indicates a problem within the group. Another view, the human relations view of conflict, argues that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any group and need not be negative, but it has the potential to be a positive force in contributing to a group’s performance. The third and most recent view, the integrationist view of conflict, proposes that, not only can conflict be a positive force in a group but also that, some conflict is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively.
It is time to shed the traditional view and be pragmatic and then, possibly, things will fall in line. It is important, as World Rugby (WR) trialed Rule changes in Men’s international Under (U)-20s competitions that included lowering the height of tackles to “Below the Nipple line”, to reduce the risk of head injuries.
The trial, however, is expected to be tried further in England, as WR seems to be moving away slightly from its stand, as during the U-20 trial, the feedback from Referees was about the practical difficulties seen on field judgments. While trialing will be on, it is unlikely there will be a Rule change, as there will not be any Law changes within the 1-year period leading to the World Cup. What is important, however, is not to wait till the mountain comes to Mohammed? You have to be ready to go to the mountain. Sri Lanka should start with the safety of the tackler and the injuries, by following a domestics variation at Junior level, as has been done by the Rugby Football Union . Then, by 2020, we will be prepared.
WR Chief Medical Officer Martin Raferty is quoted on fox sports.au as saying, “From the Referees, they said it was very difficult to monitor and do on the ground, just to actually identify those high tackles consistently,” What we’re trying to do through a number of processes is to bring the tackle height down to protect more the tackler, rather than the ball carrier”.
The introduction fondly called “Below the Nipple” has brought criticism, while being defended in many quarters. Interest goes further, as WR suggests that the risk of a tackler being injured is greater than in the case of a ball carrier.
WR did not change the Law, but simply made it clear and obvious that culpability for these types of tackles, rests on the head of the tackler.
What WR is now trying is to take this further, and 3 phases have been recommended. Phase 1 is increasing the sanctions. It is expected that, by increasing the sanctions for illegal tackles, we’re more likely to protect the ball carrier. It draws attention to that issue and therefore, the coaches start to improve the technique, which then brings about lowering the tackle height.
Phase 2 is the high tackle warning system. That’s about penalizing a tackler for being upright in a tackle, who then has clear and obvious contact with the ball carrier, and it doesn’t matter whether the ball carrier or the tackler is injured. The thinking being that, if they’re upright, there is a clear and obvious head contact and will receive an extra penalty, which is an off-field penalty.
The high tackle warning system, where a player who receives 2 warnings will receive a suspension, was used during the recent U-20s World Cup. Eleven players were given a warning by the citing commissioner during the U-20 WR tournament. The objective is to protect the player and to do it with evidence behind it, not making rash decisions. The argument is that, iIt seems quite logical; lower the tackle, you’re going to reduce the number of head injuries. It’s not rocket science.
“If it sounds sensible and is backed by research, I think, we should be doing it,” is what Rafferty said.
It looks as though, cemented though it may be before the next World Cup, more guidelines on the tackle will come to ensure safety. What is best is to be prepared and start with the juniors.
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, Coach and an Accredited Referees’ Evaluator IRB
| Isipathana College Rugby Coaching Staff | |
| The process and vision for selecting Rugby Coaches for Isipathana was explained by Rugby Committee Chairman Shabeen Sidik. “We looked at the future and changed expectations with emphasis on player welfare. Being a school with a Rugby tradition, we appointed a Committee of past captains chaired by Group Captain (Rtd) Nalin De Silva and comprising Dilroy Fernando, Shabeen Siddik, Selwyn Sally and Bandula Mallikarachchi . Having discussed and brainstormed their way forward, the Committee recommended the following Coaching staff. Head Coach-Director of Junior Rugby: Nihal “Viper” Gunaratne Backs Coach: Lasintha De Costa Forwards Coach: Henry Terrence Trainer: Navindra Dayan Shabeen explained they will recruit old boys to coach Junior Rugby and prepare them for the future.
|