Tuqiri's tackle

Huge emotion

In Saturday's dramatic match between the All Blacks and the Wallabies, Lote Tuqiri tackled Richie McCaw in what is often called a spear-tackle. Even the New Zealand Prime Minister has had her say about it.

Tuqiri was cited, the hearing conducted, and then Tuqiri was suspended.

There has been outcry on at least three fronts:

1. the tackle itself

2. the memories of Brian O'Driscoll.

3. citing procedures.

We have so far given stats from the match (click here) and spoken about the Elsom try (click here). We shall also go on to talk about a few other interesting incidents from the match.

After the Brian O'Driscoll incident when the All Blacks played the Lions last year and Tana Umaga and Keven Mealamu lifted O'Driscoll off his feet and he plunged headlong down and was so injured that he did not play again on the tour.

The citing commissioner glanced at the incident and then hurried home, declaring that there was no charge to answer, therefore no reason to cite.

Because citing does no amount automatically to a guilty finding, it seemed silly not at least to have inquired into the action. That said, the citing copmmissioner of the day did not have the later evidence from a private camera that came to late many weeks later. Oh, if only hindsight could be more immediate!

It was a worse action than Tuqiri's on McCaw in that two players were involved, the crotch grip was used, O'Driscoll was more vertical and O'Driscoll was injured.

Tuqiri's tackle was nonetheless wrong. Since the O'Driscoll incident the International Rugby Board (IRB) went to considerable lengths to inform people throughout the world.

In both cases the outcry may be all the louder because the victims are such icons, such heroes in their countries, captains and stars.

It produced a ruling:

"1. The act of lifting an opponent off his feet in a tackle AND dropping or 'spearing' that player so that his head and/or upper body comes into contact with the ground first, is a dangerous tackle.

"2. The dangerous play described in 1. above is considered dangerous play no matter where it occurs in the game."

It made a video which it sent round with instructions to have greater strictness in dealing with the spear tackle. What Tuqiri did was worthy of a red card - which is what the citing commissioner and the subsequent judicial inquiry decided.

That the citing commissioner was the same one who had not cited Umaga and Mealamu is not really relevant for two reasons.

First of all, if he was wrong then, it would not provide a sensible precedent for carrying on being wrong. If a referee misses a forward pass, the game does not change to allow forward passes ever after. If he was wrong not to cite then, it is not wrong to cite now.

Secondly, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then in terms of legislation and awareness.

You do not have to be all that old to remember when nothing was done about tackling around the neck, high tackles in terms of the law. They were a part of the game but now there is great awareness amongst players, officials and spectators of high tackles.

You do not have to be all that old to remember when there was nothing legally wrong with tackling an opponent in the air. Now it is a sensitive issue and players and spectators get upset when such a thing happens.

The high tackle and the air tackle have become heinous rugby crimes.

The spear-tackle has now fallen into that category.

That maybe why the citing commissioner took a different view this time around and that may be why the New Zealand public, to give a charitable interpretation, is upset about Tuqiri's tackle on McCaw when they were not at all upset by the duo's tackle on O'Driscoll who was accused of whinging and being a pansy and so on.

The targetting of McCaw is not necessarily a bad thing and in a sense a compliment. After all players who play as he does are targetted - as George Smith and Schalk Burger know. The targetting is within law, which is why Phil Waugh was cautioned and acknowledged been cautioned though at the time the Wallabies had already been penalised but the referee then cautioned Waugh on the advice from a touch judge.

There are some people who defend Tuqiri's action on the grounds that it is a man's game. That is gross and does not bear discussion.

What may bear discussion was that there was no immediate action taken against Tuqiri in the match.

The ball was travelling down the All Blacks' line. Things were, as a result, out in the open. Leon MacDonald passed to McCaw. McCaw dropped the ball backwards as Tuqiri grabbed him. It is just worth noting that McCaw had the ball when Tuqiri grabbed him. It was not as some suggested a case of tackling a man without the ball.

The ball went backwards from McCaw. Tuqiri may well have been ignorant of this.

Tuqiri's tackle on McCaw happened about ten metres in from touch. The touch judge could well have had a good view. After all it is not hard to see 10 metres. The referee was about 17 metres in from touch, i.e. about seven metres from the action, again with the possibility of a good view.

But it seems that neither saw it. If either had seen it, he would surely have taken action.

Why would you not see it?

Perhaps the ball was a distraction - both touch judge and referee focussing on the ball. That is possible. You know how you can be reading a book next to a radio and not here a word of what is being said because your book is absorbing your attentions.

But why would the ball attract the touch judge's decision? Is it because of the tendency for the touch judge to go beyond his stated brief in assisting the referee?

The touch judge indicates touch, the success or failure of kicks at goal and foul play. Those are his real functions. Perhaps watching for off-side, forwards passes, knock-ons, collapsing of scrums and maul, hands at the tackle and that sort of things has moved his concentration off the task of watching for foul play.

to would take discipline for the touch judge to look behind play. In that movement, for example, perhaps he should have watched Stephen Larkham's tackle on MacDonald rather than the pass to McCaw and then the tackle on McCaw rather than following the bouncing ball.

Perhaps this is a form of discipline and training which the referee/touch judge is not used to. Because a man is a great referee does not necessarily guarantee that he will be a great touch judge. After all he may have a referee's inclination to watch the ball.

Perhaps rugby needs touch judges who are specifically trained ton be touch judges.