Loose Pass: Disciplinary, officiating and head injury assessment inconsistencies

Lawrence Nolan

This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with disciplinary inconsistencies, officiating inconsistencies, and HIA inconsistencies…

Keep learning

One of the South African coaches involved in the URC confided earlier in the tournament, as his team took its first uncertain steps on the damp pitches and squally weather of Europe: “It’s very different. The refereeing as well. They are slower to whistle breakdowns and maul stopping, let a lot of neck rolls go. We sent in nearly 40 queries about calls after one game, the head of the national refereeing panel came to meet us. That’s when we twigged they were not so careful about technical offences like neck holds, like jumping across the line or at mauls.”

After Dan McFarland’s post-match smoulder in Cape Town – “I have to be really careful what I say here” – and several other side comments from visiting coaches during the European tours down under, it’s safe to say that both sides are still searching for complete understanding when in the other hemisphere.

That might go for referees as well, after Italian referee Gianluca Gnecchi appeared somewhat nonplussed at the decision by South African TMO Quinton Immelman to disallow what would have been a winning try for Ulster.

The URC head of refereeing Tappe Henning has since said that the try should have stood because of the protocol of following the on-field decision when there is no conclusive evidence; certainly the initial reaction of the Stormers players as Callum Reid dived over the line was not that of a team who felt the try should not have counted either.

Did the TMO exceed his powers? Possibly, yet for every decision that has gone one way at one end of the earth, there’ll be another that has gone the other way at the other end, both from upstairs and down on the pitch. The South African coach’s reaction to the interview with the referee referred to above – “so we’ll have to coach our players differently then” – was indicative of how overall refereeing can drive playing culture and style, and how frustrating it can be when a referee’s culture and style are at odds with the coach’s.

But this is fundamentally what makes the tournament more interesting – and it will make it even more so next year when South African teams are in the Champions Cup. It is also what makes the tournament more enriching for the players and coaches involved.

Difference is not bias or favour. Referees are perfectly within their rights to interpret the game as they do, so long as they are correct in points of law. Mr. Henning also added at the end of his analysis: “If you go microscopic in this game then every decision on the pitch becomes a minefield.”

Aside from begging the question about why we have TMOs at all, it’s a good point well-made. Teams and their coaching staff have a rich opportunity for learning and reacting here, but not all are taking it.

Exactly what is beyond ‘entry level’?

We can talk about officiating inconsistencies all day, but the three-game ban handed to Bismarck du Plessis is indicative of a far more serious problem within rugby administration: that of disciplinary inconsistency.

How Du Plessis’ act of lifting an opponent up over his shoulders and dropping him from shoulder height vertically onto his head is only an entry-level, or low-end offence is beyond all here at PR Towers.

Even watching the clip in real time, it is impossible to avoid the notion that he knew exactly what he was doing – making his butter-wouldn’t melt in the mouth pleas immediately after it even less palatable and, to our mind, even more damning. Mitigation? Not a jot.

Worse sentences have been meted out recently for tackles which carried a huge degree of mitigation, even if you can rightfully point the finger at technical improvement. But there was no mitigation here, not one of speed, not one of weight-motion dynamics, nothing. Consistency in the disciplinary would have seen this ban measured up against similar offences and punished as such.

But it wasn’t. Instead it was handed a weak entry-level designation, mitigated by factors that had nothing to do with the recklessness of the incident itself and thus was rendered an example of just how rugby’s disciplinary bodies often pay only lip-service to the supposed crackdown on dangerous play.

Head cases

As if to underline that prior line about lip service, the problem surrounding good surveillance and administration of head injuries is not going away soon; nor is the problem of losing players to head knocks early in careers and nor is the problem of later-life problems.

There is a fair chance that Beauden Barrett may never play again after repeated head knocks, while the current procedure of Head Injury Assessments during games has been revealed by Tomas Francis-gate to be clearly flawed. England’s handling of Jack Nowell against Italy is also under the microscope, as is an incident in the England v Italy U20 match.

Officiating inconsistencies are a rich source of discussion and learning if used right. Disciplinary inconsistencies are infuriating. Neither, ultimately, are deeply detrimental to the game But the HIA inconsistencies, well, they are a far deeper problem.

READ MORE: Opinion: Player management in focus as United Rugby Championship enters crunch phase for South African sides