Rugby has a problem.
There have been two extremely high profile controversies in recent weeks where the reaction from the rugby public has been dreadful.
First a confession; I am a rugby fan. Rugby is my sport and I usually defend it, but there are times when things are taken too far.
The two controversies I'm referring to are Courtney Lawes' tackle on Jules Plisson in the final Six Nations game, and Nathan Hughes' red card in the incident that George North was knocked out.
If you can believe it, Lawes' tackle is still being talked about. First there was the immediate reaction where the FFR wanted Lawes to be cited. Then articles came out in the Daily Mail that were widely denounced amongst the rugby public. Finally, every Irish fan's favourite ex-England international Austin Healey penned another article about it.
I find the reaction to the tackle baffling. My ideal version of rugby would be a fast, hard hitting sport. One where it allows tough fair hits, that minimise players injuries. This is possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LIWUCFkwTQ
Lawes tackle was very nearly a legal tackle. It wasn't late, it wasn't high. But it wasn't legal.
No tackle where the tackled player lands on his head can be classed as legal. That is dangerous, and has a high probability of injury to the detriment of the game.
What can Lawes do if it wasn't late or high? It's clear that it's his momentum that causes Plisson to rotate such that his head acts as a ping pong ball. It's up to Lawes to make sure that doesn't happen. It wouldn't happen with a lower tackle of the same magnitude, or if he had taken more care in bringing Plisson to the ground.
As for Nathan Hughes' red, the perception out there is that becuase there was no intent Hughes shouldn't have been penalised. The argument is that the referee was too outcome-focused rather than intent. While I completely agree that an outcome-biased decision is wrong, I do agree with the eventual red card.
In the disciplinary hearing, Hughes' actions were deemed reckless but without intent. Reckless is defined as
Acting or done with a lack of care or caution; careless or irresponsible.
Hughes' actions resulted in someone getting concussed. That means a reckless action caused an injury. An avoidable injury. This is why it should be punished. There is no place in sport for reckless behaviour that causes injury and these punishments need to act as a deterrent.
Healey claims that you cannot make a sport with so many fast hitting bodies flying around safe. Which is true, rugby will never be 'safe', but it can be a whole lot 'safer' by outlawing a lot of reckless behaviour.
It's a very interesting and well argued point from Healey, if one that I don't agree with. There is a general argument that rugby should be outlawed for it's overly physical nature, which is ridiculous. But there are ways to eradicate dangerous actions that still exist in the game.
The sooner the sport realises this, the better the game will be as a spectacle.
