Geech on Friday
By Sir Ian McGeechan, Lions legend and Telegraph columnist
In my Telegraph column last Sunday, I wrote that I didn’t agree with the referee’s decision to send off Scotland’s Zander Ferguson in their Six Nations match with Wales last Saturday.
I received quite a few responses from readers accusing me of looking at the game through Scotland-tinted specs. But I haven’t changed my mind. Had it been Tom Curry or Justin Tipuric I would have felt exactly the same.
As the laws stand right now, I believe Fagerson should have received a yellow card. He was committed to the ruck and he was clearing out a player competing for the ball. At the same time, Wales’s Wyn Jones was lifted. Fagerson didn’t intend to make contact with Jones’s head. In my view there were clear ‘mitigating circumstances’.
Are we saying there should be no contact with the head? If so, let’s write it down in black and white. Let’s be clear. But if we are saying there can be allowances for ‘mitigating circumstances’, then surely context must be taken into account?
I thought the decision handed down by the Six Nations disciplinary committee to suspend Fagerson for four weeks was harsh given that the previous week Peter O’Mahony was suspended for three weeks for a far more reckless collision with the head.
It seems Fagerson was given a lengthier ban because he did not accept that his offence was premeditated, whereas O’Mahony accepted responsibility for his.
I don’t think players should be afraid to defend themselves if they feel there were clear mitigating circumstances and their offence was accidental.
What all this highlights to me is that the laws as they stand surrounding the breakdown are not fit for purpose. There is too much grey area. Combined with the serious injury suffered last weekend by Jack Willis, the victim of a ‘crocodile roll’, it’s clear the breakdown needs an awful lot of attention.
Any time you have static defenders being hit by dynamic players, you are going to get injuries. And that is happening too often.
The breakdown has become inherently dangerous because the interpretation as to when a ruck has formed differs from referee to referee. Jackals dive in to retrieve balls if they feel they can get away with it. Perhaps it would be easier to say, if a player is tackled, and the ball is on the floor, it should not be played with the hands? That would remove the grey area between when a tackle has been made and when a ruck has formed.
But whatever happens, coaches and referees and lawmakers need to act swiftly to clarify what is and what is not permitted under the current laws - or else redraft them to make it clear. Because at the moment I can only foresee more injuries and more controversial red cards. And in the current climate, with contact sports such as rugby in the dock, that is not helpful.