Rugby’s New Law: Lifting in Open Play
World Rugby has created a new law, for implementation with immediate effect. A World Rugby ‘proclamation’ states:
“Acting in accordance with the Bye-Laws and on behalf of the Council, the World Rugby Executive Committee have agreed to create a new Law 9.26 for implementation with immediate effect:
Law 9.26 In open play, any player may lift or support a player from the same team. Players who support or lift a teammate must lower the player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by a player of either team. Sanction: Free-kick.”
This comes as an addition to the existing provisions of Law 9 on ‘foul play’ and mirrors the existing rules on lifting in the lineout (Law 18). The move has been seen by many as a reaction to an incident involving Australia’s Israel Folau during the June Tests, which resulted in an injury to Ireland’s Peter O’Mahony.
As will be explained, the law seems well-intentioned and a sensible addition to the Laws of the Game; but questions remain. In particular, would the Folau incident have been dealt with any differently? This author would suggest not.
Analysis
Player Welfare
The first thing to note is that, from a player welfare perspective, the new Law 9.26 should be welcomed. When a player is lifted in open play, the risks, should they fall (or be dropped), are obvious. Falling from such a height undoubtedly increases the risk of suffering broken or dislocated limbs; a broken neck; a spinal cord injury; and concussion.
The latter – both concussion and catastrophic injuries – are high on the list of things World Rugby is looking to reduce the risk of. Indeed, after the aforementioned Folau-O’Mahony incident earlier this year, Wallaby Dane Haylet-Petty and Waratahs coach Daryl Gibson both questioned the safety of the one-man lift. While in a collision sport like rugby the possibility of sustaining such injuries can never be eliminated, it is World Rugby’s duty to ensure that the risks are controlled. This new law goes some way to doing just that.
“When the laws were first drafted, it was not envisioned that players would be lifted in open play, never mind that an opposing player might be able to jump high enough to challenge that player.”
The effect of Law 9.26 may well be to discourage lifting by a single teammate in open play altogether. Though it is a useful technique employed regularly by most teams, given the dangers outlined above, this is no bad thing. At the very least, however, the threat of a free-kick should encourage safer lifting. Whether this means greater focus/control by the lifter, more training on the skill of lifting, or even greater use of two rather than one-man lifts, it is a step towards reducing the risk of unnecessary injury.
At its core, Law 9.26 encourages teammates to look after one another. With the game as brutal as it is today, this must be seen as positive.
Mirroring the Lineout?
Secondly, it is clear that, in drafting Law 9.26, World Rugby has looked to replicate the laws which apply to lifting in the lineout. As the only other area of the game in which lifting occurs, this seems entirely logical.
Law 18.28 states:
“Once the lineout has commenced, any player in the lineout may:
…
c) Lift or support a player from the same team. Players who support or lift a team-mate must lower the player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by a player of either team. Sanction: Free-kick.”
However, it is worth noting an oddity in the wording of these provisions. Both 18.28 and 9.26 state that the player must be lowered to the ground safely “as soon as the ball is won by a player of either team”. Interpreted literally, this would mean that the rule does not apply before the ball is won. As such, a player could be lifted and dropped recklessly before the ball reaches them or, perhaps, where the ball goes loose. In reality, the new law will surely not be refereed as such, but it is a strange wording for a provision aimed at player safety.
The reason for this is perhaps because Law 9.26 has been taken directly from the lineout provisions. It is suggested that the primary focus of 18.28, certainly at the time it was drafted, was not that the player is lowered safely, but that the player is not held in the air too long, as it would advantage the team with the ball – when a player is held aloft in the lineout, the opposition cannot bring him to ground (Law 18.28(e)) nor engage in a maul.
“the wording of the law does leave something to be desired, as it creates a potential loophole. It would be fascinating to see how such an argument would be met if put forward in a disciplinary hearing.”
Of course, similar concerns are true of lifting in open play. However, the provision could have been drafted better to reflect the focus on player safety. This author suggests that Law 9.26 (and indeed the relevant parts of 18.28) would read better as follows:
“Law 9.26 In open play, any player may lift or support a player from the same team. Players who support or lift a teammate must lower the player to the ground safely. The player must be lowered as soon as the ball is won by a player of either team, if not before.”
A final point of interest regarding the lineout comparison, is that regarding Law 18.19, which states:
“Players in the lineout who are going to lift or support a team-mate jumping for the ball may pre-grip that team-mate providing they do not grip below the shorts from behind or below the thighs from the front. Sanction: Free-kick.”
This particularly detailed provision was evidently drafted at the time when lifting in the lineout was first introduced to clarify exactly what was permitted. It must be presumed that such requirements will be read across into Law 9.26, in the interests of player safety. A separate law on lifting in open play would be even clearer.
How will it be applied?
Lastly, there are still questions about how exactly this new law will be applied. Three example scenarios are worth considering:
- A player is lifted by his/her teammate to receive a kick-off. The player is not challenged in the air but, in reaching for the ball, falls dangerously.
- A player is lifted by his/her teammate to receive a kick-off. The player is challenged in the air legally – there is a “fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball” – but the lifted player falls dangerously.
- A player is lifted by his/her teammate to receive a kick-off. The player is challenged in the air illegally – there is not a “fair challenge”, there is “no contest” – and the player is pulled down, landing dangerously.
The first scenario is clear-cut. The lifter owes a duty of care to his/her teammate to ensure that he/she is lowered safely. If the player is not lowered safely, a free-kick will be awarded against his/her team.
The second scenario, too, must be interpreted this way. If there is fair competition for the ball, there is nothing to displace the responsibility of the lifter to look after his/her teammate. He/she has put the player in that position, so must ensure their safety.
However, the third scenario is less clear. Indeed, this example is closest to the Israel Folau incident referenced above. In that case, Ireland’s CJ Stander lifted his teammate Peter O’Mahony to receive a kick-off. Australia’s Israel Folau jumped (in some attempt to claim the ball) but, in the process, caused O’Mahony to land dangerously.
From the footage available (see here) it did not appear that Folau was in a realistic position to catch the ball, he made contact with O’Mahony (who was in the air), which caused him to fall dangerously. In fact, certain angles suggest that he pulled O’Mahony down.
In this situation, how would Law 9.26 be applied?
Contrary to some views in the media, this author suggests that the outcome would be no different: Law 9.26 does not create an immunity for the opposition. According to Law 9.17:
“a player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground”
According to a World Rugby directive dated May 2015, a yellow card will be awarded for breaking 9.17 where there is “not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side”. This was what happened in the Folau case, and Law 9.26 does not change that. A yellow card was the right decision.
A causative analysis explains why this should be so. All that 9.26 does is create an additional duty on the lifter to return their teammate safely to the ground. Superficially, if a player does not land safely, it is thus the lifter’s fault. However, the ‘chain of causation’ between the lifter and the dangerous landing must surely be broken if there is another – more serious – act of foul play. If an opposition player intervenes in an illegal way, such that it becomes impossible for the lifter to return his/her teammate safely to ground, the lifter cannot be held responsible for that dangerous landing. In the Folau case, O’Mahony would have landed safely but for Folau’s illegal challenge – he only landed dangerously as Folau effectively flipped him over.
Therefore, in the third scenario (a Folau-type case), the lifter would not be sanctioned, but the opposition player (i.e. Folau) would be.
Conclusions
To conclude, the new Law 9.26 seems to be a positive addition to World Rugby’s Laws of the Game. It is premised on protecting players and must be lauded for doing so. The laws must continue adapting as the game itself changes. When the laws were first drafted, it was not envisioned that players would be lifted in open play, never mind that an opposing player might be able to jump high enough to challenge that player. This amendment is a necessary reaction to a potentially dangerous trend. It remains to be seen, though, if it will have the desired effect.
Nonetheless, the wording of the law does leave something to be desired, as it creates a potential loophole. It would be fascinating to see how such an argument would be met if put forward in a disciplinary hearing.
Furthermore, Law 9.26 creates a duty of care between teammates but does not excuse reckless challenges in the air – Israel Folau is not ‘exonerated’ by this provision.
The final question is; when will we first see a team sanctioned for breaking this new rule? The Laws of the Game have now been officially updated, meaning that it should be refereed globally from this weekend onwards.
