Ken Borland

The two yellow cards in the Sharks versus Bulls Currie Cup match last weekend in Durban have caused much comment but, in my opinion, if rugby is going to continue to be officiated in that fashion then the sport itself is going to be fundamentally altered, alienating both fans and players.

Both Sharks centre Marius Louw and Bulls prop Jacques van Rooyen were yellow-carded for tackles which made contact to the head of their opponent. The head is now an extremely touchy subject in the sport given WorldRugby’s efforts to avoid future mega-millions law suits as we have seen in gridiron, but they were the sort of incidents that are going to happen numerous times in any game of rugby.

Rugby is a collision sport, it’s all about the gain-line now, there are going to be clashes of heads and it’s a bit like expecting a boxer not to be hit on the head. With some sports, there are just inherent risks that come with the game and are accepted by the participants: boxers are going to get hit in the face, formula one drivers are going to crash and rugby players are going to clash heads.

If rugby’s rule-makers are going to continue with their clampdown then the game will be changed and not necessarily for the good of the spectators, who are the people who pay the money that keeps the professional game afloat and pays the salaries of those administrators constantly tinkering with the laws.

As tacklers are forced to go lower and lower, rugby will become a sport dominated by attack, more like Sevens. Players will be able to offload at will, making for a much faster, less physical game. Which will then lead to coaches choosing quicker, more endurance-type athletes rather than those with power. It will be the end of the big strong guys in the tight five and rugby will have lost its unique selling point as a game for all shapes and sizes. As Duane Vermeulen said, we might as well just go and play ‘touchies’ – touch rugby, where no tackling is allowed.

Of course concussion and related head injuries are an issue in rugby and we are not going to encourage parents to let their children play the game unless it is going to be safe, or as safe as it can reasonably be made. It is all about risk management.

From that perspective, rules to clamp down on any foul or reckless act that leads to the head being targeted are most welcome. Things like shoulder-to-head or boot-to-head should absolutely be – pardon the expression – stamped out. But if every single incident of contact to the head is to be penalised with a card then we’re not going to have many players left on the field and games are going to be ruined.

In a World Cup final, are the tackles of Louw and Van Rooyen really going to be dealt with in the same way? I am inclined to think referee Marius van der Westhuizen only picked up on the incidents because Morne Steyn went down after Louw’s tackle and Van Rooyen left the field due to bleeding after his head clash with Venter. Van der Westhuizen’s comment to the TMO (who he later overruled anyway) that they should start at the high end of punishment and then work their way lower was also absurd.

The actions of the ball-carrier also have a great influence on the tackle as a whole. If they duck down and go in head first, much like Venter did, then the likelihood of being hit on the head is so much higher; it’s almost unfair on the defender to expect them, at the last second, to somehow get underneath the attacker to stop them.

Acts of foul play or recklessness must absolutely be dealt with harshly if it leads to a head injury, but the current interpretation our referees are using is going to lead to a major final being decided by the softest of moments when a player has unintentionally erred in tackling the way he was taught all those years ago when he started playing the game.