Interesting Breakdown Comments from Ian McGeechan

[Neils]

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.

[baldpaul101]

or alternatively, apply the laws correctly as they stand.....but I guess that doesn't sell papers etc

[hookender]

Just looked at incident again. Yes player has been lifted, but he goes in off his feet and and leads with his right shoulder. Chances are if player hadn’t risen it would have been a hit to top of head. Ferguson had no control of his actions once both of his feet are off the ground.Right decision reached .

Definitely need referees to apply laws as they stand. Yes more yellow/ reds will follow, but like high tackles teams will adapt.

[InBetweenWasp]

Agree hookender, for me had he of cleared out remaining on his feet, or in control and hid the head of Wyn Jones, I could accept and agree with Geech’s opinions about mitigation, premeditation and potentially a Yellow not a Red. 

But, when you fly off of your feet into a rock like an Exocet missile, it can only be described as reckless because you’re not in control.

[Nigel Med]

What baldpaul101 said.

Geech has got this badly wrong. The officials on the day judged it perfectly. Fagerson ran from quite a distance so had plenty of time to make a decision on what he was going to do. He launched himself at an opposition player going straight off his feet with absolutely no attempt to use his arms. Matthew Carley noted that his arms were positioned behind his body as he made contact leading with his shoulder. Regardless of where he made contact is was extremely reckless and dangerous. The amount of movement from Wyn Jones was minimal in slo-mo never mind real time so Carley was again absolutely right to judge that it wasn't sufficient mitigation. Red card all day.

Good to see that officials took the right action at the time so the team who suffered the foul play benefitted from the red card rather than leaving it to a citing panel who would unquestionable have banned Fagerson anyway benefitting the other teams that Scotland have to face but not Wales.

[wasps]

I see the difficulty here.

Firstly, it should be a serious offence for going on with no arms.
There's basically nothing subjective about that. He went in with a shoulder and no attempt to bind onto anyone.


However, the problem is the subjectivity in the laws regarding how to join a ruck.

Law 15.5 An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.

Fagerson was definitely on his feet at the time he arrived at the ruck.
Fagerson's last action when joining the ruck was to push off his left foot with force. Clearly on his feet when attempting to join the ruck.
However, he's essentially going higher than anyone in the ruck, so with that level of force, and no one to stop him, he's practically jumping over the ruck head/shoulder first. If a player was there to stop him then he'd stay on his feet.



Law 15.7 A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.

Absolutely no attempt to bind to anyone. Binding needs to be done with hand, and typically require a proper hold, rather than just touching.
There's absolutely no attempt to bind at all




The whole on feet / off feet is so subjective and often it varies outside of the joining players control. So I can see McGeechan's point in terms of needing to tighten the laws here

However, it's 15.7 that for me is the real gotcha.
Fagerson is certainly and undeniably acting against this law and in doing so, he's contacted the head of a player.
End result is penalty, upgraded to red card.