That Irish prop Andrew Porter’s “tackle” on Brodie Retallick in the third Test in Wellington, which broke the All Blacks lock’s cheekbone, didn’t meet the current red card threshold according to a foul play judiciary encapsulates everything that is wrong with World Rugby’s foul play laws.
There is inconsistency in the application of the laws, and then, well, there’s this. World Rugby couldn’t send a message more mixed if they attempted to communicate to the world via a combination of Morse code and gibberish.
Days after former Wales loose forward Ryan Jones revealed he is suffering from early-onset dementia at the age of 41 – probably caused by the many head injuries he suffered during his career – and a week after Angus Ta’avao was red carded for colliding with Garry Ringrose (for which he received a three-week ban), Porter has got away with what World Rugby describes as an act of foul play that will rule Retallick out of the game for up to eight weeks.
Read more: Irish prop Porter escapes sanction after breaking Retallick's cheekbone
It was clumsy rather than intentional, but so was the Ta’avao incident, and anyone who has seen the replays of both will quickly realise that Porter made an intentional tackle and was guilty of poor technique, whereas the 125kg Ta’avao was wrong-footed and guilty of being involved in a collision.
Sports lawyer Aaron Lloyd broke down how the similar collisions were judged so differently. (Source: 1News)
Forget the finer legal points made in an attempted explanation - that is the bottom line.
Further, while professional players now are fully aware they are dicing with danger if there is even a hint of a head contact, the application of sanctions are usually focused on outcome, including injury.
Match officials are instructed to factor in the “element of danger” when deciding on yellow or red cards.
It may have been understandable that referee Wayne Barnes and his officials didn’t know how badly injured Retallick was, but a broken cheekbone is an indication that something has gone seriously wrong and yet the judicial committee set up to decide on Porter’s fate after he was cited post-match appears to have overlooked that.
That contrasts with the way lifting tackles are ruled by officials – the penalties are based on the consequences.
If a tackler lifts a ball carrier beyond the horizontal and the player in possession lands on his or her head, it’s generally a red card. If he or she lands on the shoulder area, it’s generally a yellow. Both tackles are the result of poor or clumsy technique – it’s the ultimate outcome which dictates the card colour.
World Rugby has put itself in a bind here by talking tough on head injuries for the sake of player safety (and in the attempt to avoid legal action by former players suffering from brain damage) but then failing to follow through via its judiciary, no matter the recent Tests in the July window that have been blighted by red cards.
The contradictions inherent in the Porter decision are confusing enough, but, as an aside, it might be helpful for the organisation to use different language, too, and stop referring to accidental head clashes as “foul play”, which has strong connotations of intent. “Dangerous”, or “reckless” might be more appropriate.
But that would assume the application of common sense.
At present, the way World Rugby is instructing its officials and judicial officers to run the game, it’s easier to assume the governing body has lost the plot.
SHARE ME