WORLD RUGBY HAS announced a new framework for refereeing decisions around dangerous high tackles and shoulder charges.
The framework, which comes into effect immediately at Test level, has been designed with the intention of ensuring more consistent and accurate refereeing decisions around whether high tackles should be punished with a penalty, yellow card or red card.
Source: World Rugby/YouTube
With concussion remaining the biggest issue facing the sport, World Rugby is hopeful the new measures can reduce occurrences of head injury.
World Rugby’s research shows that 76% of concussions occur in the tackle, with 72% of those to the tackler.
The risk of head injury is 4.5 times greater when tacklers are upright, says World Rugby’s data, so the framework is “aimed at changing player behaviour in this priority area, via the promotion of safer technique.”
You can watch a video presentation on the new framework, which includes high-profile examples of shoulder charges and high tackles, on World Rugby’s website.
The detailed four-step framework begins with a referee deciding whether the offence is a shoulder charge or a high tackle.
Shoulder charge
A shoulder charge is where the “arm of the shoulder making contact with the ball carrier is behind the tackler’s body or tucked in ‘sling’ position at contact.”
As an example of an illegal shoulder charge, World Rugby’s video uses Owen Farrell’s hit on South Africa’s André Esterhuizen last November, which was not even penalised at the time but should have been a yellow card.
World Rugby’s video says Farrell’s shoulder charge against South Africa should have seen him yellow carded.
If the referee decides a shoulder charge has occurred, the next step is to assess whether or not there has been head/neck contact.
If yes, a red card applies – although mitigating factors can reduce that to yellow.
If there has not been head/neck contact, the referee must then decide on whether the ‘degree of danger’ has been low [penalty only] or high [yellow card].
Factors that indicate a high degree of danger are:
the tackler drawing their arm back prior to contactthe tackler leaving the groundthe tackler’s arm swinging forward prior to contactthe tackler attempting an ‘active/dominant’ tacklethe tackler’s speed and/or acceleration into the tackle being highthe tackler’s rigid arm or elbow making contact with the ball carrier’s head as part of a swinging motionthe tackler completing the tackle [as opposed to immediately withdrawing].
Mitigation does apply to shoulder charges, although there is also an ‘aggravating factor’:
If the tackler and ball carrier are in open space and the tackler has a clear line of sight and time before contact
In the event that this aggravating factor is present, mitigation should not be applied.
Otherwise, mitigating factors can see the sanction reduced one step [ie. from red card to yellow, or yellow to penalty].
The mitigating factors, which must be ‘clear and obvious’ are:
the tackler makes a definite attempt to change their height in an effort to avoid the ball carrier’s headthe ball carrier suddenly drops in height (e.g. from an earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)the tackler is unsighted prior to contactthe tackler makes a ‘reactionary’ tackle, with immediate release