Sam Warburton claims ‘everyone is focusing on the wrong moment’ regarding ‘contentious’ Lions versus Wallabies decisions
Carlo Tizzano in action against the British and Irish Lions
Two-time British and Irish Lions tour skipper Sam Warburton has joined the debate over the late-game Jac Morgan clear-out in Melbourne on Saturday – and it doesn’t make for pretty reading if you are the Wallaby Carlo Tizzano.
With the ball secured at the breakdown, Andy Farrell’s Lions class of 2025 struck a few phases later for the try that secured them a comeback 29-26 win on the night and also the Test series with one match to spare.
It was a classic match, but the fallout has been dominated by the commentary on the Morgan/Tizzano collision.
Wallabies boss Joe Schmidt drove a petrol truck into the fire with his post-game media comments, demanding that people look up law 9:20 and realise that “a player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders”.
“Made a real meal of it…”
The debate has since descended into an us-and-them affair, with battle lines drawn depending on which hemisphere you support.
Being a former Lions back-rower and an ex-Lions Test series skipper, though, means Warburton has added gravitas with anything he has to say on the matter, and he unloaded at length on Monday in his latest Times column on the tour.
He wasn’t shy either in calling out Tizzano, claiming that the Wallabies player “made a real meal of it, something I really don’t like”.
The retired Wales great, who was working on last Saturday’s game as a studio-based pundit for Sky Sports, began: “I’m a little bemused by the furore about the Jac Morgan clear-out of Carlo Tizzano in the lead-up to Hugo Keenan’s match-winning try for the British & Irish Lions on Saturday. What a fuss!
“I understand that there may have been some desperation in the minds of the Australians, as they had led the Test for so long and to be denied at the death, as they were, is always so cruel. Emotions would have been high, and understandably so.
“I thought I would go back to the start of the match and watch every single ruck. I am not exaggerating when I say that there was some sort of head or neck contact at one in every two rucks.
“That is rugby, that is the contact area. Just because there is head contact does not mean there is foul play. They are rugby incidents, as was the Morgan one.
“It is under the microscope because of when it happened, at the final ruck before the try was scored, and Tizzano made a real meal of it, something I really don’t like. I appreciate that the contact may have been on the shoulder/neckline, but additional simulation is something we don’t want in the game.
“Tizzano got himself into a great jackal position over the ball, but all No.7s know that you just do not react like that when you get hit. Not wishing to be all macho here, but I have got a four-inch scar on the back of my neck from doing that.
“You know what is coming when you are putting your head there at a ruck. Tom Curry had three jackal attempts early in the game and he got hit around the head and neck area all three times.
“Was the contact on Tizzano above the line of the shoulders? That is the crucial question. It is hard to say. I would argue it was on the back of the shoulders, but ultimately it was a 50-50 call of the sort that happens at so many rucks.”
British & Irish Lions: Match-winner’s candid revelation on his late heroics in Wallabies thriller
Warburton went on to claim that the actions of Morgan were perfectly legal. “Morgan and Tizzano went down together. That sort of stuff happens in a second. After the initial hit, you can see Morgan grabbing Tizzano’s leg, which is what you are coached to do. He just follows through…
“I thought it was a perfect clearout. To get that low was exceptional and great openside play.”
As for the law book and the passage referenced by Wallabies boss Schmidt, Warburton outlined the five sections it lists about dangerous play in a ruck or maul and concluded there was just one part where Morgan may have transgressed – the line of the shoulders contact point, and that was debatable.
“There was way more going for Jac than against him, and that’s how referees gauge these situations,” suggested Warburton, who reckoned that the more contentious decision was the Dan Sheehan try.
“If that had happened at the end and had been chalked off, I would have totally understood that. That is a grey area, because you are allowed to dive in the act of scoring a try, but you are not allowed to jump to avoid a tackle. Is he diving to score a try? Yes. Is he evading a tackle? Yes. That is so hard to call.”
