Courtney Lawes tackle
We all saw the Courtney Lawes tackle. We all collectively grimaced at the ferocity of it. Rugby aficionados persuaded the rest that it was a perfectly acceptable and great hit. Those who just wanted Ireland to win deferred to the referee and the Television match official who deemed that Lawes had been sufficiently committed to the tackle when Plisson had passed the ball.
So why is it still being talked about a full six days later?
An article from Jeff Powell ,a sports writer and boxing columnist, in the Daily Mail has completely denounced the tackle and the praise it has received.
There are some good points made by Powell, but he's certainly not trying to persuade some of the rugby public to agree with him, terms such as "rugby's dinosaurs" in the first line, or "rugby snobs" in the first paragraph, make that evidently clear.
Powell's point is that for a game that is supposedly for thugs played by gentleman, that it was a savage act. He contends that "if it had happened in a street outside the stadium police may well have been called to investigate if there were grounds for an assault charge."
He thinks that if that tackle is legal, then it explains why parents are apparently discouraging their kids from playing the game. Powell doesn't think that a blind-sided tackle is fair in sport, and is astounded by the lack of contrition shown by Lawes in the aftermath. He compared the action of Steven Gerrard in the recent Liverpool - Manchester United game, where after being sent off for "no more than a petulant irritant which threatened no real damage but he was rightly sent off and roundly castigated by football at large."
In contrast, "There has been no apology from Lawes for a violent act 24 hours earlier which cast a pall over an otherwise heroic England victory".
In the aftermath of the game, the French Federation of Rugby pointed out the incident to the citing commissioner in an attempt to have a retrospective look at the tackle. The citing commissioner did not agree.
Powell's issue with the tackle is the indecency of the blindsided nature of the tackle and it's apparent lateness that was widely lauded by the rugby fraternity as a great hit.
This article has been met with fierce resistance on social media. Former England hooker and BBC pundit Brian Moore described the article as "stupid".
@brianmoore666 just the worst piece of reporting I have ever witnessed. Clearly has no clue about rugby or sport.
— Lewis Moody (@LewisMoody7) March 27, 2015
@brianmoore666 what is the world coming to. If sport was played on the streets. We would all be locked up. — Scott Quinnell (@ScottQuinnell) March 27, 2015
....@jeffpowell_Mail Your article on Lawes is dreadfully one eyed and simply wrong Jeff. You imply Lawes is a thug, dangerous ground.
— Martin Bayfield (@MartinBayfield) March 27, 2015
@chrisponty @ScottQuinnell Yes, a point Powell seems incapable of grasping.
— Brian Moore (@brianmoore666) March 27, 2015
Intriguingly, the same paper has a response by it's rugby correspondent:
@FoyChris @brianmoore666 ahhhh... A man who actually understands our game. #neverindoubt
— Matt Dawson (@matt9dawson) March 27, 2015
First, whether or not it's a late tackle is cloudy. It was studied at the time, with slow motion replays and it was decided that there was no way that Lawes could have pulled out after Plisson had passed. The blindsided nature is unfortunate. The nature of the game means that opponents will want to tackle the player in possession, and they can only come from one side of the field. There was nothing intentionally malicious in that.
I do however have an issue with the tackle that not many people have mentioned.
As per the World Rugby laws, Law 10.4.j states:
Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Before the tackle, Jules Plisson's feet are on the ground. Lawes' tackle isn't late, he wraps his arm around Plisson like he should. Plisson's head then hits the ground first.
That can't be legal.
What do you think?
[interaction id="551533db7fdf079b4e13655f"]
