Rugby has a problem with head high shots. It’s not a state secret, and World Rugby has put in protocols to try and stop it.
Referees follow a strict protocol to determine whether it is a head high shot or not. And that protocol determines their next course of action if it is.
But what we have seen - as always seems to be the case - is the law of unintended consequences.
The highly controversial nature of a ruling about head contact is never easy, and it automatically gives a team an advantage through a yellow card, or a 20-minute red card, or in some circumstances, a permanent red card.
The opposition benefits from the imbalance in numbers and often takes advantage of that fact. Sometimes, as in two of the Springboks’ tests last year in the Autumn Internationals, the team with 14 gets stronger in resolve and wins from that position.
But that’s not the point.
PLAYERS FOCUSING ON POTENTIAL HEAD SHOTS
What we have seen slowly developing in games across the world is the sudden realisation that teams can get this advantage if there is a head shot that needs to be looked at. The hard line approach that World Rugby has taken makes it very possible that every review can lead to a card.
Teams have learnt this, and some more than others, are trying to exploit it.
They also know that World Rugby wants referees to come down hard on foul play, and we’ve seen a growing trend emerging of players - and players in particular from one country in the URC - trying to exploit this more and more.
It isn’t a surprise to see a captain in a Vodacom United Rugby Championship match ask the referee for a review of a supposed head shot. But for teams from Ireland, this tendency has become more of a strategy, it seems.
It’s hard to quantify if it is done deliberately, of course, and this is circumstantial evidence, but privately even the referees have been put on notice that this is happening.
Sources tell me that they have been told to watch out for it, and if necessary, march players back 10 metres if they challenge the referee too much.
URC OFFICIALS HAVE TAKEN NOTE
Any self-respecting rugby fan should welcome this. Players are generally very respectful to the officials in rugby, as opposed to football, where challenges are in the referees face and players look actively for fouls.
So it has come to the attention of the URC refs that one particular nation is challenging decisions a lot more than others. Don’t take my word for it, watch any URC game this weekend and see if it is true.
A lot of the attention seems to focus on trying to get the referees to review potential head shots, instead of letting the refereeing team - the TMO included - handle it on their own.
Now the URC hasn’t openly addressed this yet, but there are discussions happening privately about this in general. Refs don’t want to see players over-use the challenge option, and we can expect them to be a lot stricter when it comes to the playoff rounds of the competition.
Teams were told at the start of the season that only the captain can approach the referee and ask a question that is relevant to an incident if they feel there is one. Players can’t ask the TMO to review anything, and referees are not obliged to review anything if they feel it isn’t worthy of a review.
INDEPENDENT TMO TECHNOLOGY
The URC uses independent TMO review technology that reviews any potential foul play or incidents that lead to a try in any case, and that is done within World Rugby’s protocol.
At all times it remains at the discretion of the referee and TMO to decide if a review is necessary or not. If players go overboard, then the referee can refer it to a disciplinary committee.
It has become a talking point among the teams. Munster’s overzealous use of asking referees to check decisions was especially apparent in their games against the Vodacom Bulls and Fidelity Securedrive Lions this season.
In fact, the Lions are still fuming about an unfounded allegation that Siba Mahashe spat on one of their players. An allegation that the ref, TMO and later an extensive search by the Citing Commissioner (who is Irish) could not find. The Lions stopped short of demanding an apology, but are clearly upset about the incident.
PRENDERGAST’S DIVE
There were another few incidents in the Lions’ game against Leinster, especially a dive by flyhalf Sam Prendergast that referee Hollie Davidson warned him about. Why he wasn’t penalised for trying to fake an incident is beyond many rugby fans?
Leinster were in the referee's ear in that game and in their loss against Bordeaux in the Investec Champions’ Cup final on Saturday, sometimes at every stoppage.
And don’t forget, Jan-Hendrik Wessels was banned for eight weeks earlier in the season for an allegation that he had grabbed a players private parts, even though there was no video evidence for the claim, and the Citing Commissioner based his report on the word of one player without talking to Wessels.
It is clear that allegations will be made in the heat of the moment to try and get teams an advantage and the URC needs to be aware of this. But what if they are unproven? Or there is no evidence? Do we just accept the word of a player looking to get an advantage over another?
DO WE REVIEW EVERY ALLEGATION AND BELIEVE THE ACCUSER?
Do we just review every incident because a team asks for it?
Not only will it slow the game down incredibly, but it will lead to more unhappiness. Referees know they need to protect the players from genuine harm, and that should be the outlook.
But we need to be careful we don’t move into the grey area that is constantly challenging every decision and teams actively looking to get yellow cards given against the opposition.
That is a very dangerous path to go down, and rugby will be the loser if it happens.