World Rugby Head Contact

Heaf wrote:I'm not seeing how the Argentinean challenge on Ford is not a red based on the protocol?  Head contact, reckless, high level of danger.   The argument used around direct versus indirect contact only seems to be relevant when considering the level of danger, and I can't see how any initial contact with Ford's shoulder meant there wasn't still a high level of danger when smashing him in the head and knocking him to the ground.

BigGee wrote:They are kind of missing the point really.

These tackles are all getting penalised because they they are high and are hitting other players heads.

In my opinion whether they first graze a shoulder or touch the ball is beside the point.

If they just tackled lower, then we would not be having this conversation.

These tackles did not really exist when I played many years ago. They have been coached into the game and need to be coached out of it!

Inconsistent refereeing decisions on head injuries are sending a confused message to youngsters playing grassroots rugby, World Cup winner and former England second row Simon Shaw has said.

Speaking on the eve of the new grassroots season this weekend, the three-time British and Irish Lion branded the varied approaches to referring head-on-head collisions during the opening round of the World Cup matches “incomprehensible”.

His comments come after Tom Curry’s red card for a high tackle in England’s match against Argentina split opinion last weekend, while comparable incidents involving South Africa’s Jesse Kriel and Chile’s Martin Sigren were not met with the same punishment.

Kriel’s tackle on Scotland’s Jack Dempsey was neither penalised at the time nor cited. ITV froze a replay of the collision during their half-time coverage to illustrate that head-on-head contact had been made, with John Barclay, the former Scotland captain, insisting Kriel should have been sent off.

“The inconsistency of decision making means that it’s an incredibly confusing environment which youngsters don’t understand,” said Shaw. “The whole area is muddied by these kinds of decisions.

“When young players see their heroes on TV hitting players around chest height, invariably it’s something they want to repeat.

“Until there’s a consistency of decision making around it, players will continue to go high instead of hitting someone in the gut – it’s a lot more difficult, but that has to be the goal.”

Since retiring in 2013, Shaw, 50, has co-founded Love of the Game, a charity whose aim is to reduce concussion-related issues across sport. The charity has worked with the government to develop the first concussion guidelines for grassroots sports.



“The reason for the grassroots guidelines is to highlight that concussions are going to happen, and when they do, you have to do the right thing,” the former Wasps and Toulon lock said. “You need to give it more credence, you need to have youngsters playing in a safe environment, and if in doubt, sit it out.”

Despite Shaw’s emphasis on recognising the risks of concussion, he argues that changes in the laws which have led to a dramatic increase in the number of red and yellow cards for high tackles have “completely missed the mark”.

Under the laws, direct contact with the head of an opposition player deemed intentional, reckless or avoidable is deemed an automatic red card unless there is mitigation.

“The commentators and everyone in the public are talking about whether or not it should be a red card. They should be talking about whether the players are concussed – if so, they should be receiving treatment,” he said.

Rather than penalising players for inadvertently clashing heads, Shaw – no stranger to concussion, having fractured two eye sockets over a playing career that spanned three decades – would prefer the focus to be on risk-reduction.

“People have always clashed heads and sustained concussions as long as the game has been played. I don’t think any rule change is going to ever change that,” he said. “It’s about understanding what concussion is, trying to prevent it from a skills and musculoskeletal perspective, then properly diagnosing it when it happens, removing players from the pitch and treating it.

“Unfortunately in society, the opinion has become fairly polarised. You have on the one side people in grassroots rugby continuing to gloss over the risk of concussion. And then you have a group that goes, ‘no, my little Johnny is not playing rugby anymore.’

“If we are to expect thousands of kids to take up rugby, the professional game needs to be leading the way in sport safety. If we don’t do that, there’s no hope for any future generations playing contact sport because the risks are deemed to be too high.”

Heuer27 wrote:The whole clip would show Van dear Flier holding him in by his leg. It was a bit of old school justice

Heuer27 wrote:The whole clip would show Van dear Flier holding him in by his leg. It was a bit of old school justice

Heuer27 wrote:I didn’t justify it. I just pointed out the whole story. Don’t be so butt hurt

neilthom7 wrote:

Heuer27 wrote:I didn’t justify it. I just pointed out the whole story. Don’t be so butt hurt

Yes you did.  The bit at the end where you said 'it was a bit of old school justice' is you justifying it