Sport writer Kieren Williams reports on the UoB Kickboxing Team's latest competition successes in a four-part special for Redbrick Sport, in Part 4, he reports on the evening of finals for UoBWritten by KierenJWilliams on 4th May 2018
Rugby Union: The Controversy of High Tackles
Sports writer Alex Goodwin explores the controversy surrounding World Rugby's decision to clamp down on high tackles
Last week, World Rugby announced that new, harsher penalties will be inflicted for high tackles after attention has been brought to the number of Head Injury Assessments (HIAs) occurring in every game.
The red card awarded to Saracens' prop Richard Barrington for the high tackle on Exeter Chief’s second row Geoff Parling highlighted the penalty's controversy amongst fans, coaches and players.
The implementation of a new rule mid-season often receives backlash. This is because players have not had suitable time to practice new legal forms of play, for example, changing the way in which one tackles in order to make sure they are outside the infringement zone. However, this ‘zero tolerance’ of high tackles has underlined a grey area of the game.
The incident between Barrington and Parling came about after Saracens Centre Brad Barritt made a swinging arm tackle on the lock, which meant his body was already positioned low, thus arguing Barrington’s tackle was an unfortunate incident that otherwise would not have been high. It seemed the TMO tried to push the referee into reevaluating the situation, which saw Barritt’s tackle clearly being a further penalty than that of Barrington’s. If World Rugby wants to ‘lockdown’ on high tackles, how can they award one red card and not two for the same infringement? Barritt’s swinging arm is to any rugby fan a much more malicious and reckless act than that of Barrington’s high tackle.
“The days of an individual playing on after he was clearly knocked out are over, and this is clearly a good change to the game
The other issue with this rule is that concussions and head injuries are just as common with legal tackles. The same game saw four other individual players removed for concussions and HIAs, two of which were due to perfectly executed low tackles. Usually, a newly implemented rule is ‘tested’ before it comes into play, however this rule has been implemented without a transition period, initially putting the tacklers at a higher risk of head injuries.
Rugby has and always will be, a rough game, and whilst statistics indicate that concussions have soared in the past five years, it is more likely that coaches now take more precautions after a player has experienced a knocked head. The days of an individual playing on after they were knocked out are over, a welcomed change to the game. However, whilst statistics show a 60% increase in concussions over the last 5 years, this is more likely due to fewer risks being taken within this area of injury, increasing a player’s long-term safety.
Hopefully the implementation of zero tolerance on all high tackles will not negatively affect players for the remaining games of the season. I hope it will bring clarification to a grey area of the game, rather than confusing and endangering players further. Many new reforms have been trialed and little change to the number of concussions has occurred. In a game where head injuries can happen at any point due to the sports nature, it seems this new rule may be another wasted effort by World Rugby. The Six Nations (beginning February 4th) will be a good international indicator for how this new rule will continue to play out in games to come.