E-mail Article Print-Friendly Version Contact Us

Voice from the Stands

Tuesday 08th July 2008

Brad Thorn: Regretful, but it wasn't THAT bad...

There's been much wailing and gnashing of teeth in South Africa this week. You normally touch John Smit at your peril, but when you upend him off the ball and during a stoppage in play... well, you'll be lucky to ever gain entry to the rainbow nation again!

The phrase 'spear tackle' is being bandied around the media columns of a lot of publications with reckless abandon, as is the anger that Thorn was not a) red-carded, and b) banned for a longer period of time.

Actual spear tackles are very very rare. The last clear-cut case of a spear tackle in a Test match that I can remember was Lote Tuqiri's on Richie McCaw in last year's Tri-Nations.

There are criteria for what constitutes a spear tackle. The tackled player must be lifted. He must be tipped over so he is upside down. The tackler must tip himself in such a manner as to drive the tackled player into the pitch, head/shoulder first.

Thorn did indeed lift Smit, and he did tip him, but he did not drive him into the pitch, and Smit did not go down head first. He landed on his back. In the absence of both of those events, what Thorn did was reckless, stupid, and dangerous, but it was not a spear tackle.

It thus warranted a yellow card and as to whether it warranted a longer suspension... well, that's one for the judiciary. Most people, myself included, argue yes, but Thorn's would not be the only case of leniency in such circumstances over the past couple of years.

As for the rest of the match... it reminded me eerily of the early Super 14 matches this year as the players struggled to get to grips with the pace of the ELVs. The shape of the game took a while to form, but it did so in the second half, and it was no coincidence that the All Blacks began to dominate once it did.

It will be interesting to see what tactical nuances evolve over the coming few months. Kicking for touch is less and less, but kicking from hand appears not to have diminished. Turnover ball is more, and certainly there was more running, particularly at and through the centres.

But it will have to be carefully monitored. Players still go off their feet at rucks and enter from the side to slow ball down, in the knowledge that should the ball be 'legally' killed they will win turnover set piece, and should the referee spot an illegality it will only be a free-kick.

That last part is exclusively for this Tri-Nations tournament. As of August 1, all offences that constituted penalty offences last year will do so again; only in the Tri-Nations are they persisting with free-kicks for everything bar offside and serious foul play. I don't think it works. A penalty makes offenders think twice, a free-kick does not. Most of the ELVs on show on Saturday did have the desired effect of speeding the game up; sticking with penalties rather than free-kicks will allow for the necessary structure in the game for teams to flourish as well. It would be an ideal compromise, it's a shame we won't see it in this year's Tri-Nations.

Still on the subject of rules: the reason this column is a day late this week is that the Blue Bulls-Sharks game has only just finished after marathon referrals to the TMO. Well not really, but...

In total, nigh on 20 minutes was used by the TMO, 15 minutes of those for non-scoring incidents which would not have gone upstairs in former times. It is far too much. Television helps the spectator on his sofa, but those few in the stadium prepared to part with their cash ended up cold and confused, surely the people who should be at the forefront of rugby organisers' minds.

As for the players... well, the ones who have not asked for referral end up frustrated and annoyed, and those who do end up the same way when nothing is found wrong, as has often been the case. The extension of the TMO powers (a colleague referred to the new TMO as Too Much Officiating) is an experiment that was worth a try, but is clearly not working. All it does is sow doubt in the minds of the officials who are already under enough pressure as it is without having the control of the game taken away from them.

Finally, the IRB announced on Tuesday that it would be announcing the hosts for the next two Rugby World Cups next year, dropping as strong a hint as can be that one of the venues would be a country outside the top eight - or the 'senior core markets' as Bernard Lapasset so revoltingly put it - with Japan surely in the mix. About time. But please let it be 2015.

Your thoughts on the rugby world this week?

By Danny Stephens