The recent controversy surrounding Owen Farrell’s high tackle on Taine Basham during the England vs. Wales warm-up game has raised questions surrounding the review system being used at this year’s Rugby World Cup and thereafter.
Farrell, who was originally given a yellow card, eventually saw red during the game due to a new bunker system, which determined that his tackle was reckless and intentional.
This new bunker system takes a leaf out of the National Rugby League (NRL) rule book, removing excess pressure from the referee to make decisions which will affect the course of the game, and allowing an external body to review and act on players’ conduct accordingly.
The integrity of World Rugby laws came into disrepute when a disciplinary hearing after the game was held by an independent body to determine whether Farrell’s yellow card should have been upgraded to a red card, to which they decided it did not.
World Rugby has since appealed this decision, which has resulted in a 4-game ban for Farrell, meaning that he will miss the first two group stage matches of the World Cup against Argentina and Japan.
Without a doubt, the correct decision was ultimately reached in line with the laws of the game, but questions have since been raised as to the disciplinary process in which the game is adjudicated. Former players, current players, coaches, journalists, and fans have recognised that the swaying between decisions from the referee, the bunker system, the disciplinary board, and World Rugby is a net-negative for the sport.
Since a legal lawsuit was filed by over 200 ex-players last year, World Rugby has been forced to adopt stricter laws regarding player welfare because of the concern over brain injuries that ex-players have been experiencing in later life. Notably, Steve Thompson (England) and Ryan Jones (Wales) are currently suffering from the disturbing effects of various head traumas with memory loss and dementia.
World Rugby needs to take a stronger stance on reckless conduct such as Farrell’s. It is clear that a more strategic approach is required to maintain player welfare, not ambiguous resolve which angers rugby fans. The general consensus on social media is that the disciplinary board got this decision badly wrong. So, in the context of the betterment of the game, how can this be allowed to happen?
The consistency of these disciplinary hearings has also aggravated critics as a result of the ban given to George Moala (Tonga) in August, who received a 5-week suspension for a tackle very similar to Farrell’s against Wales. Improved adherence to the laws of the game benefit rugby union as a whole, as it creates a safer environment which players can thrive in.
The reaction from World Rugby shows that they are moving in the right direction. The system that they have created for the laws of rugby to operate in is unsatisfactory and will need revising after the World Cup.
Commenti