I have published an updated version of this article, available here: World Rugby’s High Tackle Framework – An Update for 2020.

In May of this year, World Rugby published its new Decision-Making Framework for High Tackles. It is intended as a “systematic tool” to guide decision-making by referees, citing commissioners and disciplinary committees as to the appropriate sanction for potential acts of foul play. This article aims to explain and provide a brief analysis of the framework, considering where its sticking points might be. Overall, it is a very positive step towards more accurate and consistent outcomes, with player welfare concerns at its core.

World Rugby have published the guidelines here, including a helpful explanatory video.

The Framework

The starting point is the distinction between a “shoulder charge” and a “high tackle”. A shoulder charge is defined as being where:

“[The] arm of the shoulder making contact with the ball carrier is behind the tackler’s body or tucked in the sling position at contact”

A high tackle, meanwhile is:

“An illegal tackle causing head contact, where head contact is identified by clear, direct contact to [the ball-carrier’s] head/ neck OR the head visibly moves backwards from the contact point OR the ball carrier requires an HIA”

This seems a sensible distinction, as the two require somewhat different considerations. The key question, at least from the explanatory video, seems to be the position of the tackler’s leading arm: is it behind, or in front of the tackler’s body? In other words, has the tackler led with the arms, or the shoulder?

Shoulder Charges

If it is a shoulder charge, the first question is whether there was contact with the head or neck of the ball-carrier. The second question is whether there was a high or low degree of danger. If the answer to the first question is yes, a high degree of danger is presumed and the appropriate sanction will be a red card. If there no head/neck contact, a shoulder charge with a high degree of danger will result in a yellow card and, if there is only a low degree of danger, merely a penalty.

What does a high degree of danger look like? World Rugby cite the following as signs of a high degree of danger:

“The tackler draws the arm back prior to contact

The tackler may leave the ground

Arm swings forward prior to contact

The tackler is attempting an active/dominant tackle, as opposed to passive/soak, or “pulling out” of contact

The tackler speed and/or acceleration into tackle is high

Rigid arm or elbow makes contact with BC head as part of a swinging motion Contact

The tackler completes the tackle (as opposed to immediate release/withdrawal)”

High Tackles

If the incident is a high tackle, the first consideration is the point of contact on the tackler’s body – does the tackler make the high contact with the ball-carrier with their shoulder, head or arm? If the tackler makes contact with the ball-carrier’s head or neck, using the tackler’s shoulder or head, the question is then whether there was a high or low degree of danger. A high degree of danger will lead to a red card, a low degree to a yellow.

If the tackler makes the high contact with their arm, the question is then whether contact is made with the head or neck of the ball-carrier. If not, where the arm is above or over the shoulder (which World Rugby now define explicitly as a “seat belt tackle”), a penalty should be awarded.

If the tackler’s arm does make contact with the ball-carrier’s head/neck, the question is then whether this contact was direct or indirect – i.e. whether a high contact was made directly or if the tackler’s arm slipped up during the tackle. A direct contact to the head/neck with a high degree of danger will deserve a red card, and a low degree of danger a yellow. Indirect contact with a high degree of danger will see a yellow card but only a penalty if there is a low degree of danger.

Mitigation

The process outlined above gives the “initial decision”. However, this can then be altered by the consideration of mitigating factors. Firstly, World Rugby state that any mitigating factor must be “clear and obvious”, and that any mitigation will only take the sanction down “one level” – i.e. from a red card to a yellow card, or a yellow card to a penalty, or a penalty to ‘play on’. The existence of aggravating factors will prevent mitigation. The possible mitigating factors given are:

“The tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier’s head

The ball-carrier suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)

The tackler is unsighted prior to contact

“Reactionary” tackle, immediate release

Contact is indirect…”

It will be an aggravating factor that “the tackler and ball-carrier are in open space and the tackler has clear line of sight and time before contact”.

This graphic provides a good summary:

Examples

The explanatory video produced by World Rugby gives various examples of how the new framework will apply, using controversial incidents from the past 18 months. Such case studies are very useful and should aid future decision-making at the highest level.

In particular, World Rugby cites Owen Farrell’s infamous ‘tackle’ against South Africa in November 2018, as an example of a shoulder charge. The referee at the time ruled that the tackle was fair, while I suggested that it merited a penalty (here). According to the new framework, it should have been a yellow card: though there was no head/neck contact, there was a high degree of danger and no mitigating factors.

The new framework has already had an impact, during the World Rugby U20 Championships last month. It is worth noting its application in the disciplinary decision against Samipeni Finau, a New Zealand U20 player. In a match against Wales U20, Finau made a high tackle on the Welsh fullback, Ioan Davies, who had just caught the ball from an NZ kick. Davies bent at the knee when landing and Finau’s shoulder made direct contact with his head. The referee awarded a yellow card but, after being cited, the disciplinary committee held that the incident warranted a red card, subsequently suspending Finau for four weeks.

Applying the framework, the committee found that there had been a ‘high tackle’ and that the tackler’s shoulder made direct contact with the Davies’ head. Given that the player was “attempting to make a dominant tackle” and “followed through and completed the tackle”, there was a high degree of danger. Prima facie, therefore, the incident merited a red card.

The key issue was whether there were sufficient mitigating factors. Finau argued that the ball-carrier’s drop in height after catching the ball meant that the tackle deserved only a yellow card but the committee considered that it was insufficient – the drop, they said, was not “sudden” and was distinct from the examples given in the framework (trips/falls, diving etc.). It was also aggravating that the players were in open space and that Finau had a clear line of sight, and time before contact.

The committee also cited one of the stated purposes of the new framework: to “support protection of the head of both players by consistently and frequently sanctioning the tackle behaviour that is known to be the highest risk…”. They continued:

“Whilst the Committee had sympathy for the Player…he had a duty to exercise care towards that player who was in a vulnerable position. It would be dereliction of our duty and responsibility as a Committee to the wider interests of the game not to recognise this.”

This is a strong statement of intent. It reflects the shift in approach to high tackles which has been seen over the past two seasons and demonstrates a willingness to punish strongly conduct which poses a danger to players’ health, even where it is unintentional, placing the onus on tacklers to be careful. It is a core part of World Rugby’s long-term strategy of changing behaviour to protect against brain injuries.

Analysis

The examples discussed highlight that the new framework will allow for more accurate and transparent decision-making, in the interests of player welfare. It is a strong move from World Rugby, reiterating the importance of protecting the head and neck area and encouraging players to take greater care, at a time when the game seems more physical than ever. It should also make for more consistent decision-making which, as the Rugby World Cup approaches, is vital. The inconsistency in decisions on dangerous tackles has been a bugbear of many (myself included) for some time and this framework should change that. In particular, the clarity it brings over shoulder charges and seat-belt tackles is to be welcomed.

However, the framework will not be a panacea in this area. There remains significant scope for discretion and interpretation, and thus disagreement.

Firstly, determining whether a tackler’s arm is behind his body or not may prove contentious, while the ball-carrier’s head snapping backwards will not always mean that there as been head contact, as the George Smith case from this season demonstrated. Equally, a HIA may be necessary even where there was no head/neck contact made by the tackler. As such, classifying incidents as high tackles or shoulder charges may not always be clear-cut.

Secondly, there is room for debate as to whether the incident is of a high or low degree of danger. There are criteria to aid this decision, but there will remain marginal calls with which some will disagree.

Lastly, in the same vein, mitigation will remain controversial – among fans, at least. The dipping of the ball-carrier may prove to be particularly tenuous, and it will be interesting to see how and where the line is drawn.

It is hoped that referees and disciplinary committees alike will apply the framework thoroughly and consistently, such that it becomes easier to predict outcomes. This will be in the interests of all those involved in the game and will encourage the desired change in behaviour to protect player’s heads. That there will be room for disagreement in sporting decisions is inevitable but, as long as there is consistency, I, for one, will not complain.

UPDATE – World Rugby to Simplify the Framework

Following the World Rugby U20s Championship 2019, World Rugby released the following statement:

“Following input form [sic] operational staff, it was agreed to simplify the framework by removing reference to direct or indirect contact and streamlining the questions once a shoulder charge or high tackle had occurred.”

Such an amendment would, in my opinion, be a step backwards. Removing reference to direct/indirect contact will place the overriding emphasis on the level of danger, meaning that the referee’s interpretation and discretion will be more important. In other words, the application of the laws on high tackles will not differ materially from the way that they have been applied over recent seasons. There will be room for a significant amount of disagreement.

Though the framework is complicated, it allows for nuance and reflects the differing considerations which are relevant depending on the type of contact which is made.

What’s more, a more discretionary system creates less of an incentive to change tackling behaviour. If there is greater room for argument, players will be less concerned about ensuring that they do not make direct contact with players’ heads. The beauty of the framework is that it starts from the presumption that direct contact with the head/neck always carries the most potential danger, and thus merits a higher sanction. In that way, it affords greatest possible protection to the ball-carriers’ heads/necks, whilst rewarding players for trying to lower their tackle-height by providing that indirect contacts will receive lower sanctions.

Lastly, the logic of streamlining the questions once a shoulder charge or high tackle has occurred must be questioned. While the questions of direct contact, danger and mitigation must be applied equally regardless of the type of ‘offence’, the different variations of a high tackle (for example, a ‘seatbelt tackle’) mean that there are necessarily different issues to consider.

I am in favour of retaining the framework, and giving referees more time to practice using it. It is complex, but it takes the right approach, and is well-balanced. To abandon this well-intentioned endeavour already would be a step in the wrong direction.