Murrayfield, November 9th, 1996. Scotland played Australia, a game won by the tourists, 29-19.
The match was notable as it was the first time a tactical replacement was allowed, and used, in international rugby. So, when the visitors’ Brett Robinson came on, he made a little bit of history. Twenty-eight years later, last November, Robinson opened a new chapter of much more significance; he became the first person from the southern hemisphere to be elected chair of World Rugby.
He will know that the whole question of replacements is once again being hotly debated, particularly the 7-1 (or 6-2) split. Or maybe it’s not? Very recently World Rugby told us there is no medical evidence to say that it causes more injuries. And, as a consequence, there is no reason to outlaw it.
Will Champions Cup blowouts come back to haunt Leinster?
But, that is hardly a stand-alone sequitur; there are other very valid reasons why this must be on the agenda for World Rugby’s meeting in May. It also looks like the management may have jumped the gun if they’re actually saying it’s off the table. I’m not sure that it’s in their remit to arrive at such a conclusion.
The chairman will find a room divided on the issue. First of all, and most importantly, it was never the intention of the law to allow other than 5-3. I was part of the law group that determined the IRFU’s position on how things work currently. In short, we agreed with what was being proposed. It was to ensure that there must be three specialist frontrow players on the bench, plus a secondrow, and a backrow player, hence five. The backs were allowed to cover the specialist positions of nine and ten. Finally, one utility back would be permitted, making up the three.
When the actual law was written, the frontrow requirement was specifically defined, and written into the laws. The other replacements were not defined. Nobody considered for a moment, even in a wild dream, that a 7-1 would ever be on the cards. Designing massive players – through planned, specific conditioning – who can only manage to play effectively for just about half a match is ludicrous, totally against the spirit of the game. It also delivers a game dominated by brutal physical power.
Small unions, such as Ireland, will never have six specialist frontrows who can match, say, the might of South Africa. It’s going to be hard enough for any team to wrest the World Cup from the rainbow nation. With a 7-1 split, it will be bordering on the impossible. If South Africa feel that, by taking this away, they are being victimised, the answer is simple – it was never intended to be allowed. And, whether you call it a loophole or not, it is definitely a very extreme case of unintended consequences.
Three Irish teams went out with great hope over the weekend, but only one came back alive and kicking. Munster fought like devils, particularly in the second half, but their lineout malfunction did for them in the final analysis. Nika Amashukeli had a variable day at the office, not in his best form. His awarding of a penalty try to Munster, for example, stretched the imagination somewhat.
I understand that the citing commissioner has a role to play if players take a dive to make something look worse than it really is. I’d put Bordeaux-Bègles’ Ben Tameifuna into that category after Jean Kleyn drove into him. Trying to get an opponent into trouble is a very low form of sporting endeavour.
Connacht, oh no, they will be kicking themselves, a real opportunity of progress went a-begging. I fancied them for a place in the final – at least. Christophe Ridley rightly dispatched Wame Naituvi with a straight red, plus a penalty try, for his appalling tackle on Finn Treacy. It met all the criteria – always illegal, clear line of sight, head collision, high danger.
I presume it definitely fits into red territory, even if the 20-minute replacement red card comes into operation. Meanwhile, the judiciary must throw the whole book at the Fijian. No wavering on this one, please.
In contrast, Owen Farrell escaped with only a yellow card. He’s spent a long time leading with his shoulder and the Lions coach, Farrell père, cannot have been particularly amused as he watched from the stands. Lord knows why players persist in this sort of cleaning-out action. If that’s all they can think of, then doing nothing instead is a far better option.
Leinster lifted their intensity from the previous match. Ripping Glasgow asunder, they conveniently took the referee right out of the equation. Luke Pearce, thankfully, was less grinningly loquacious on this occasion. Perhaps he’s starting to understand that nobody has turned up to watch him. Let’s hope that’s the case, but leopards and spots do come to mind.
There was more awfully sad news during the week, which underlines again the existential challenge facing the game. Sébastien Chabal, who we all saw as the rock of the French pack in his day, described his memory loss. Not being able to remember any match he played in does not augur well.
A couple of years ago World Rugby said that because the game is a collision sport, we have to accept that concussions will occur. I asked a rhetorical, obvious question about that statement: “does that mean we have to accept dementia?”
And now, there is another question, as this sort of news becomes all too frequent. It’s uncomfortable, unpleasant to ask, but also unavoidable. Who will we hear about next?
