The rugby world (or at least the twittersphere) erupted into furore on Sunday after Will Spencer’s red card against Wasps. The Leicester lock was sent off in the in the 40th minute after the referee deemed his shoulder to have connected with the head of Wasps’ Tommy Taylor. The incident can be viewed here.
Many former and current players, including Leicester’s head coach, have expressed their disagreement with the decision but, to this author, it was, without doubt, the correct decision. It was correct not only because it applied the law precisely, but also because it was in line with the policy that has been introduced to better protect players.
The Law on High Tackles
Under World Rugby’s Laws of the Game (9.13):
“A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.”
The essence of this law has always been the same: tackles above the line of the shoulders are not allowed and will be sanctioned. What has changed in recent times, however, are the sanctions. In an attempt to reduce the number of head injuries within the sport, World Rugby in 2016 announced its ‘New Tougher Approach’ on dangerous tackles. This involved the creation of two sub-categories of dangerous tackles: ‘reckless’ and ‘accidental’.
A ‘reckless tackle’ is deemed to have been made if:
“in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway”
In the 2016 Guidelines, World Rugby made clear that the minimum sanction for such a tackle will be a yellow card, with the maximum being red. The way that this has been interpreted by referees is, where there is direct contact to the head of the player, at force, the tackler will receive a red card. Where a contact is more glancing, or less avoidable, a referee will more likely show a yellow card.
On the other hand, where “a player makes accidental contact with an opponent’s head…the player MAY be sanctioned” (an ‘accidental tackle’).
The Facts
In Will Spencer’s case, after the TMO alerted referee Ian Tempest to the incident, and after the referee reviewed the footage on the big screen, Tempest found that the contact was “direct to the head”. As such, following the laws and the way that they are implemented, the referee had little choice but to show Spencer a red card.
Having re-watched the footage, it seems clear that the contact is indeed directly from Spencer’s shoulder to Taylor’s head. Certainly, the contact seems to be at the top of his neck/base of his cheek/chin, as the image below shows.
This can be contrasted with an incident from the previous weekend, when George Smith saw red for Bristol after a challenge on Saracens’ Jackson Wray. The red card he was shown was later rescinded by the an RFU Disciplinary Panel, after it found that the contact had in fact been around the ball. This had caused Wray’s head to whip back, giving the illusion of a contact with the head when in fact it had been lower, as the image demonstrates. Spencer’s case was much more clear-cut.
What has caused some controversy, however, is the fact that, at the moment of contact, Taylor’s knees were bent, meaning Spencer’s hit was perhaps higher than he had originally intended. This mitigating factor was not noted by the referee at the time but, for this author, a red card was still necessary. While this may lead Spencer to receive a shorter ban than he otherwise might have, it is always foreseeable that a player’s body height might change as he nears contact. Players should know this and account for it by aiming to start their tackles lower.
Indeed, an example of a red card offence on World Rugby’s website, shows exactly this. In the clip at the bottom of the page, the Waratahs’ Bernard Foley is falling, but it is deemed that the Hurricanes tackler was always going high and, because he makes contact with Foley’s head, is shown a red card.
As such, it is fair to say that Spencer “should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent” – it was a reckless tackle and, given the point of contact, was therefore a red card.
The Reaction
One, of course, has to feel some sympathy for Will Spencer. Rugby is a fast-moving game, and mistakes happen; but he is the victim of a new policy – a necessary policy – which is designed to change the behaviour of tacklers and protect the welfare of players.
Recent years have seen a huge surge in awareness surrounding head injuries and concussion. Former players, experts, and grieving parents have started speaking out about the dangers posed by repeated head-knocks, and the sport’s governing body has taken note. The ‘New Tougher Approach’ is a reaction to what we now understand and is designed to reduce the number of brain injuries suffered.
It is, in part, driven by a fear of litigation – as this author has explained here – but it is also driven by a genuine desire to protect players. Often, they need protecting from themselves. The zero-tolerance approach to contact with the head is intended to make players tackle lower – much lower. They should not be aiming for the shoulders, but for the midriff. That way, if players do dip, or fall, then the contact will be around the shoulders – not the head.
It is for this reason that the comments made in the aftermath of the Wasps v Leicester game are misplaced and disappointing. For this policy to work, and for the number of head injuries to be reduced, a concerted effort is needed from all involved in the game: players, coaches, referees and even fans. We must all get behind it and change the sport for the good of its long-term health.
Tweets like those shown below, from Leicester’s Ellis Genge and Bath’s Freddie Burns, undo much of the work that is being done to make the game safer for all. Young players are not going to learn if their idols continue to denigrate the very system being built to protect them.
Worse still, are disparaging comments from those in positions of responsibility, like Geordan Murphy, Leicester’s interim head coach. After Sunday’s game he said:
“The game’s gone too PC…I see the game becoming very, very different to the game I played and loved”
And yet that is just the point: the game is different now. It had to change, and it must continue changing in accordance with our understanding of injuries and of the best ways to prevent them. To not bring the game up-to-date with modern knowledge would be entirely irresponsible.
Murphy also made two further points which are worth addressing. Firstly, he claimed:
“Will is 6 ft 10 and he’s tackling a bloke who is 5 ft 10”
But since when do shorter players receive any less protection from the laws? It is the responsibility of the tackler not to take a player’s head off, no matter how short they are. If a player is particularly tall, they must make a greater effort to get low. Foul play – deliberate or not – cannot be excused by genetics.
Secondly Murphy suggested:
“Tommy Taylor was fine…there was no HIA, there was no real danger to the player”
The fact that Taylor was not injured does not change anything, either. Frankly, Taylor was lucky not to be injured (and perhaps should have undergone a HIA anyway). To make comments like this, in the manner in which he did, is shameful – especially in the same week that one of his own players (Dominic Ryan) was forced to retire due to concussion.
Conclusion
Ian Tempest made the right call. It was perhaps an unfortunate incident, but Spencer should have taken greater care. The rules exist for a very good reason, and they must continue to be applied in this manner to encourage a change in behaviour for the benefit of all. To question this policy shows a lack of understanding and a disregard for the health of rugby players everywhere.
Spencer will face an RFU disciplinary panel this week and, given the contact with the head, the starting point will be a six-week ban, under the sanctioning guidelines. As Taylor was bending in the tackle, there will likely be some mitigation, in addition to Spencer’s good disciplinary record. If he accepts the charge, he may well also be credited. Therefore, this author would suggest that a three to four-week ban is likely.