Why the referees should really be looking at the Dan Biggar tackle on Samu Kerevi, not Rhys Patchell's
‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.’ (Charles Dickens – The Tale of Two Cities)
Wallabies coach Michael Cheika is in the middle of his own winter of despair after his side were defeated 29-25 by a disciplined and deserved Welsh side in the seminal and controversial pool D match at Tokyo on Sunday.
The combustible coach was left seething after yet more contentious officiating regarding a tackle contest between the ball carrying Wallaby centre Samu Kerevi and replacement Welsh flyhalf Rhys Patchell which ultimately saw Kerevi penalised for reckless conduct with his forearm for indirect contact with the throat of the upright Patchell.
Cheika said, “It was pretty funny because I thought I had seen that tackle before, it could have been Reece Hodge, I am not sure. When our guy makes that tackle and has the high tackle framework in his head, he gets suspended.
“This guy doesn’t think about the high tackle framework and we get penalised.”
Michael Cheika is somewhat justified in his anger, yet the comparison to the Reece Hodge tackle on Fijian Peceli Yato in the opening pool match which saw Hodge suspended for three weeks is not the tackle example Cheika should be comparing the tackle that drew the attention of TMO Ben Skeen.
In fact, Cheika should be looking at the tackle that effectively introduced the reserve Patchell into the contest in the first place.
The Dan Biggar tackle on Samu Kerevi.
Let me explain; The Rhys Patchell tackle on Samu Kerevi is lawful, albeit high, as there is no contact with the head or neck of Kerevi. Ironically its lawfulness is assisted by the ball runner himself.
If you look at Rhys Patchell, he is very upright and appears to be attempting to affect a ‘soak tackle’ on Kerevi thus preventing Kerevi from offloading and creating further attacking momentum for the Wallabies. Yet what would be a probable consequence if Kerevi were to have kept his arms straight down by his side (something very hard to down when you are running)?
I submit that the head and or shoulder area of Patchell would have either directly or indirectly come into contact with effectively the same area of the ball runner Kerevi thus rendering the Patchell tackle unlawful per the new troublesome World Rugby High Tackle Decision Making Framework.
Continue reading below…
Now turning to the Dan Biggar tackle on Samu Kerevi a short time before the Patchell tackle. Here we see Biggar going into tackle Samu Kerevi but importantly Biggar himself places his head in a dangerous position, that being in front of the ball runner.
Kerevi, as he should have complete right to do is looking to bump off the defender Biggar with his right forearm and shoulder. Subsequently, contact was made between Kerevi and Biggar with the ball being dislodged and Biggar being removed from the field for a head injury assessment that he later failed.
The rationale inference is that the head area of Biggar come into direct or indirect contact with the body of Samu Kerevi namely the right shoulder forearm area thus dislodging or contributing to the dislodgment of the ball and injuring his head at the same time.
Yet not a peep out of the TMO, assistant referees or match referee Romain Poite. Why not? We have a player with a head injury. Or were they happy to accept that Dan Biggar contributed to his own demise by poor tackle technique?
Clearly, there is a player who has sustained an injury to the head as a result of contact with a ball runner who is leading with a shoulder forearm, albeit at a lower height. Yet Samu Kerevi was not deemed to have been dangerous or reckless in this incident.
Turning back to the Patchell tackle, at the point of contact Kerevi has his left shoulder and forearm also tucked into his body, it is the follow-through that slides up onto Patchell’s throat, effects no injury what so ever yet is deemed reckless by the officials. Despite advocacy by Wallabies skipper Michael Hooper arguing that poor tackle technique was a factor in the Patchell incident referee Poite was having none of it.
The tackle techniques of Biggar or Patchell were poor. Both had contact made to the head and throat respectively due to where they chose to place their heads not directly due to the actions of the ball runner Samu Kerevi who on each occasion at the point of contact had his respective forearm tucked to his own body.
One received a head assessment injury, the other attracted a penalty for his side. If World Rugby is concerned about player welfare, why was the incident concerning the injured player, not an issue for the officials at the time yet the other ‘reckless’ and worthy of a penalty?
It is contentious and inconsistent officiating that frustrates player, coach and fans alike and such accompanying confusions breed discontent, despair and ultimately disillusionment with the game. It is difficult to fathom that during a World Cup, the showcase of the game, that the Code’s governing body World Rugby has facilitated such a tense atmosphere when it comes to the point of collision during a match despite its good intentions with its new High Tackle Decision Making Framework.
Whilst the Code is not dying, I suggest the officiating of the point of collision in this tournament requires a ‘recall to life’. I’m not convinced justice is actually being done to the players affected by the officiating and the World Rugby’s Judicial officers.
“Whatever is, is right” is the dictum of the Old Bailey. Should not apply to World Rugby and how it administers the game but I fear it is heading in that direction and perhaps further judicial reform is required to avoid further contention.
It is a game of two teams and a game of two halves, but to prosper it should only ever be a game of one clear understanding.
Cheika and Hooper reflect on loss to Wales:
Comments on RugbyPass
Article intéressant ! La question devrait régulièrement se poser pour les jeunes français originaires de Nouvelle-Calédonie, Wallis-et-Futuna et de Polynésie entre la Nouvelle-Zélande et la Métropole… Difficile pour la fédération française de rugby de se positionner : soit le choix est fait de dénicher les jeunes talents et de les faire venir très tôt en Métropole, au risque de les déraciner, soit on prend le risque de se les faire “piller” par les All Blacks qui, telle une araignée, essaye de récupérer tous les talents des îles du Pacifique… À la France de se défendre en développant l’aura du XV de France et des clubs français dans ses collectivités d’Outre-mer !
2 Go to commentsWrong bay. He needs to come to the REAL BAY which is Bay Of Plenty and have a crack at making the Chiefs.
2 Go to commentsIs Barrett going play full back??? They already have all the centers…
15 Go to commentsForgive my ignorance, I might not fully understand so would appreciate clarification: Didn’t the Bulls have to fly with three different carriers, paid for by the South African Rugby Union, whilst Edinburgh got a chartered flight sponsored by EPCR? Also, as far as I understand it South African teams don’t yet share in the revenue from the competition and are not allowed to host Semi-finals or Finals at home. Surely if everyone wants South Africans to “take the competition seriously” then they must make South Africans feel welcome, allow them to share in the revenue, and give them the same levels of access as the teams from the other countries. Just a reminder that South Africa has a large and passionate Rugby audience. Just by virtue of our teams being a part of these competitions means that more of us are likely to watch the knockout games, even if our teams haven’t qualified. It would be silly to alienate such a large audience by making them feel unwelcome.
18 Go to commentsFirst of all. This guy is very much behind the curve. All the bleating, whingeing, whining and moaning took place days ago already. Not adding anything to the topic other than more bleating, whingeing, whining and moaning. 🍼 Second of all, not one mention of the fact that South African teams can’t get home semi finals or finals. The tournament was undermined and devalued by the administrators. 🤡 Thirdly, football teams often have to juggle selections in mid week games, premier games, champions league games etc. and will from time to time prioritize certain titles over others. 🐒 And lastly FEK Neil, and anyone else for that matter, for insisting on telling teams how to manage themselves. If they make what is largely a business decision that suits them and doesn’t suit you - tough shite. 💩 It’s not rocket science as to why the Bulls did what they did. If this guy is too slow to figure it out (and is deliberately not mentioning one of the key reasons why) then he isn’t a journalist. He should join the rest of us pundit plebs in comments section. 🥴
18 Go to commentsSo the first door to knock on Rob is Parliament followed by HMRC. The Irish Revenue deliver a 40% tax relief rebate on the HIGHEST EARNING TEN YEARS of every pro Irish rugby players contract earnings at retirement. That goes a long way to both retaining their best talent and freeing up wages for marquee players. Who knows, if that had been in place in the UK, you might not have been able to poach Hoggy and Jonny Gray from Glasgow…!!!
2 Go to comments1. True, if that “free” ticket means access to all but the prized exhibit - EVIP only. SA cannot host semis, even if they’ve earned it (see Sharks vs ASM Clermont Auvergne at… Twickenham Stoop). 2. Why no selective outrage over Lyon doing the exact same thing a week earlier? Out of all the countries France send the most “B teams”, why nobody talking about “disrespect” and “prioritising domestic leagues” and “kicking them out”? 3. Why no mention of the Sharks fielding all of their Springboks for the second rate Challenge cup QF? No commitment? 4. Why no mention of all the SA teams qualifying for respective euro knock out comps in the two seasons they’ve been in it? How many euro teams have qualified for KO’s in their history? Can’t compete? 5. Why no mention of SA teams beating French and English giants La Rochelle and Saracens? How many euro teams have done that in their history? Add no quality? The fact is that SA teams are only in their second season in europe, with no status and a fraction of the resources. Since joining the URC, SA has seen a repatriation of a number of players, and this will only grow once SA start sharing in the profits of competing in these comps, meaning bigger squads with greater depth and quality, meaning they don’t have to prioritise comps as they have to now - they don’t have imports from Pacifica and South America and everywhere else in between like “European” teams have - also less “Saffas” in Prem and T14, that’s what we want right? 'If the South Africans are in, they need to be all in' True, and we have to ensure we give them the same status and resources as we give everyone else to do just that. A small compromise on scheduling will go a long way in avoiding these situations, but guess what, France and England wont compromise on scheduling because they ironically… prioritise their domestic comps, go figure!
18 Go to commentsthe success of the premiership can be summarized by : only 10 teams. It makes a huge difference with the overcrowded top 14 (let us not talk about Leinster and URC…)
1 Go to commentsGood for him. The ABs were fooling around again with converted fullbacks that had a penetration of a marshmallow. Laumape or as Aki has shown for Ireland, go forward is important in the centres. If it had been DMac - Aki- Aumua - Ioane- Telea- Jordan in France the final result would have been different.
4 Go to commentsDan Carter a apporté son professionnalisme, des méthodes de travail, un esprit qui manquaient à l’USAP. Son influence, même une fois blessé a été énorme. Et pour citer une anecdote, certains soirs il venait de lui-même à l’entraînement des jeunes pour dispenser ses conseils. On ne peut pas compter ce qu’il a apporté au club en heures de jeu sur le terrain. Est-ce que le club en a eu pour son argent ? Avec la publicité sur son nom et le titre, je suppose que oui.
1 Go to commentsThe SA sides are suffering from a bum rap here. There isn’t a side anywhere in the world that would do things differently in their shoes. They’ve been set up to fail in the EPCR comps by vested interests, with last minute intercontinental travel requirements that costs an arm and a leg to book in advance just on the possibility they might be required. And the total nonsense that denies any chance of home venues is entirely biased and absolutely unsporting. Either EPCR, the Top14 & the Gallagher Premiership get it sorted on a fair and equitable sporting basis for ALL participants or expect the ridicule to continue. Right now, these comps are a joke!
18 Go to commentsSA sides should do the right thing and leave the champions cup, they are lowering the standard with completely one sided games, not up to the right level. The greatest club tournament in the world is being banjaxed by the weak SA sides.
18 Go to commentsCouldnt agree more. SA sides need to show more committment and really have a go at the Champions Cup. Its quite possibly the most prestigious title in Europe and SA sides need to respect that prestige and serve up their best. EPCR needs to do more to ensure that sides from South Africa and sides travelling to and from SA have a better chance in this competition. The Bulls were put in a really difficult position of having to travel there and back in one week. One could argue that this is what the SA sides signed up for and that La Rochelle didnt complain or send out weakened sides despite having to travel to SA and back and play on successive weekends but surely the situation is also unfair on La Rochelle as well and so EPCR needs to think about successive gameweeks and the travel effect of the competition
18 Go to commentsI hadn’t watched much Canes this season but sat through a replay of that Chiefs game with no distractions. That pack is beastly. I really like the look of Iose. He loves the tough stuff. The first Quins clip may be the best I have even seen for a TH driving his opposite into oblivion. i need to take your word for the contribution of Walker, but Collier there with a straight back pushing up from under was a lovely thing to see. Have you fallen in love with Baxter also, Nick? I think Stuart Barnes may have written his column about him recently, naked. He positively frothed.
14 Go to commentsSmart guy. I wish he was running the RFU or something!
2 Go to commentsWhy Barrett, when Leinster already have at least 4 top centres.?
15 Go to commentsGood write up, Brett. Rebels are an interesting one for sure. 88 points scored in the last two games, but against two teams that are unlikely to be in the top 4 at seasons end. However the other side of the coin, against the Hurricanes, the team to beat atm, they conceded 54 points, and add in another 53 points to the then high flying Reds, and things don’t look so good. The acid tests will be against the Blues and the Chiefs. I do hope they do contest the finals this year, if only to confound those working on their demise. Les Kiss has made a big difference to the Qld. Reds, and they could so easily have now been sitting unbeaten at the top of the table. But they have now lost some games in a most disappointing fashion, and now step up against the Highlanders this weekend seriously depleted, four absolute key players down, two to suspension, two injured. Of the other Australian sides, the Brumbies look unlikely to fold to anyone any time soon, while the Waratahs and Force both disappoint. But still and all, winning games against the NZ sides is very welcome, and one would hope for more to come. Who will come out on top ? A North Island side for sure should contest the final, but I would hope an Australian side might just get there this year. Brumbies most likely, Qld. Reds could be formidable with a full team back on the field.
12 Go to commentsThe stat that illustrates some progress compared to recent years is that Aussie sides have won 5 of 12 games against Kiwi sides. The Tahs have lost 2 tight games against Kiwi sides, while the Reds and Tahs have contrasting experiences in games against Kiwi sides decided by that farcical thing called golden point.
12 Go to commentsThe Hurricanes pack has stepped up in a huge way this year. Their improvement at scrum time has been a big contributor to their success. Aumua looks like he is playing with a lot of confidence and put in a really good display at both set piece and in general play on Saturday. Him and Numia are putting in a good case for higher honours, A dominate combination with Lomax will help their case. And their loose forward depth is class. Iose has benefited from regular game time and Lakai has shown his versatility and promise. Thanks Nick. Hope all is well.
14 Go to commentsSamoa have enough former internationals who want to flick a switch for a country most have probably hardly set foot in. If you’re that passionate about Samoa, go live and play rugby there to qualify instead of just waltzing into the side and kicking a player actually from Samoa out of the squad. All these ex internationals hasn’t really made them that much more competitive because most look like they're going through the motions.
2 Go to comments