It’s probably the most imperfect sport in the world, and it has not been helped by microscopic forensic investigation of play aided by technology.
Fans dislike TMO intervention because it stops the flow of the game, they hate it even more when it intervenes and gets it wrong.
With each potential wrong call the feedback we increasingly get is that apparently Rugby Laws are subjective.
The recent example of Carlo Tizzano vs Jac Morgan in the last Lions game has taken this to new levels as shown by the ever-evolving feedback as to why it was a correct call to not award a penalty. From quoting irrelevant ruck laws when one hadn’t been formed to referencing a binding action that wasn’t there.
In a sport that came up with logical decision trees known as “protocols” to ensure objectivity when making a decision, it is strange that there has been multiple varying interpretations as to why Morgan should have been allowed to clean out that way without sanction.
Even stranger is the referees did not use protocol language when analysing the incident.
If anything, I’m nostalgic for the days of ‘let the boys play’ rather than pushing more for perfection in the imperfect game. But I’m not going to be gaslit about this decision to not penalise Morgan on the weekend.
Rugby Union’s point of difference from Rugby League is that the ball is contestable at all times. It’s what makes it great theatre.
The Laws exist to ensure the ball is contested in fair and legal ways and if there is a contest where one player is contesting legally and another illegally, the player acting illegally should be sanctioned.
BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA – AUGUST 09: Carlo Tizzano poses for a portrait during a Wallabies captain’s run at Suncorp Stadium on August 09, 2024 in Brisbane, Australia. (Photo by Matt Roberts/Getty Images)
In the video of Morgan’s initial contact, you can see Tizzano’s collar above Morgan’s shoulder/arm. You don’t need to be an expert in anatomy to know what comes out of the collar of a shirt. It’s the neck.
The referee’s rationale — that both players arrived at the same time — is simply wrong. Tizzano is clearly over the ball, feet planted, before Morgan even begins his clean-out. And even putting aside the neck contact, Morgan is off his feet. That’s a penalty to Australia. Tizzano had full rights to the ball.
Being “low” doesn’t change that. A low body position doesn’t grant you the right to clean out illegally. If you can’t execute a legal clean-out, you don’t go for it. The player winning the turnover through good form and position deserves the reward — that’s the entire point of the contest.
In many other head/neck contact incidents, the defence of “what else was I meant to do?” has never resulted in the offending player being forgiven. There can be mitigation, but never reward.
This comes back to rewarding legal contesting of the ball vs illegal contesting of the ball – the entire foundation of Rugby.
The foundation of what makes rugby great – rewarding a good contest for the ball was not upheld in this instance.
The protocols for head safety were not run through when the referees analysed the event.
If the protocols were run through on Saturday night, the audience would’ve heard something like this.
“The Gold player is in a jackal position, on the ball. Red player comes in, connects with shoulder to neck. Hand and knee is on the ground, indicating an off feet diving action.”
But the audience did not hear that protocol language. They heard new things like “arrived at same time” (they didn’t). They were told a hand on the ground is a wrapping motion.
Nigel Owen has said that he wrapped his arm even though it was on the ground.
His off feet action has seemed to be forgiven because he went low even though he doesn’t have the right to clean out anyway he likes just because he was beaten to the ball.
And this is where the foundation of contestable ball as a great part of rugby was torn up in favour of making numerous excuses as to why the team with possession, who were about to lose the ball from a fair contest, had the right to retain the ball by any illegal means necessary.
I’ve heard and read it all since the incident.
Stop moaning (Sam Cane red card, Rassie’s video, Bairstow stumping).
He can’t get any lower (irrelevant, clean out legally or don’t).
He was binding (he wasn’t).
Text book clean out (knee and hands on the ground diving forward with no control).
His head can’t be lower than his hips in a ruck (it wasn’t a ruck).
You should’ve won the game before the event (but the Lions shouldn’t have?)
There are many incidents like that in a game (but they weren’t on the big screen with four refs watching).
He was acting (He was hit with a shoulder to the neck).
He came from the side (As mentioned, no ruck formed).
Not supporting body weight (Scooping action, no palms on ground. Doesn’t negate high contact).
It’s like a guilty person adding more and more to their alibi at the police station, even though they haven’t been asked to.
The lack of protocol language, changing excuse narrative and insults about being whingers is a curious response to the incident.
As a fan, am I meant to cop manipulative language, insults and inconsistency? Who needs that?
Max Jorgensen’s after-the-buzzer try against England last year was like the first sip of water after 30 days lost in a desert for rusted-on fans.
However, this Lions series for many people would be the first time they have switched on a Free-to-Air Wallabies game on Aussie soil since they saw Jonny Wilkinson’s field goal in 2003. Many don’t bother watching The rRgby Championship due to predictable results.
The ratings were high. The chance to take the series to a decider was there. Instead of running through the protocols and rewarding legal contesting of the ball, the referee team just spoke about how to avoid giving the penalty. Australian rugby didn’t need that.
So be it.
Rugby doesn’t have rules, it has laws. If I wanted to watch people get off scot-free due to wealth and power, I’d go sit in whatever magistrate court serves North Sydney as entertainment. But what I would like to do is just watch some sport.
