A week has passed since the ‘new measures’ issued by World Rugby relating to high tackles have come into effect. The law changes increase sanctions for contact with the head. Any ‘reckless’ contact with the head is now, at the minimum, a yellow card (with the amount of force deciding if a red is needed). Any ‘accidental’ contact with the head will be a penalty. The head has always been a no-go area on a rugby field, so this isn’t so much a law change as an escalation in sanctions.

The effect of these changes will be monitored carefully; we should only hold on to these changes if they are good for player welfare. Let’s review what impact the new measures have had so far and look forward to how they may affect the game in the longer term.

Let’s focus on two incidents. Those involving, as unfortunate victims, Geoff Parling and Aled Davies. Both of these resulted in a card; one red and one yellow. Both carded incidents, I think, could have resulted in more severe sanctions. Let’s take the Aled Davies incident.

In times gone by the tackle on Davies wouldn’t have been penalised at all. The Reidy tackle, coming over the shoulder and down onto the chest is not very dangerous. It’s also the only way he could possibly have made the tackle. But under the ‘new measures’ because Reidy’s forearm makes contact with Davies cheek, it’s already a penalty. And because Reidy must have known that he might make contact with the head, it’s reckless and therefore a yellow. That’s fine. The problem with this incident is that there is a second, potentially more dangerous tackle attempt.

Andrew Trimble steps in with a swinging arm which catches Davies squarely in the chops. Does it make contact with the head? Most definitely. Is it reckless? Yes, with his arm swinging like that Trimble can’t be in complete control. So by the letter of the law, it could have been two yellows, but I’m glad it wasn’t.

Now, to the Geoff Parling incident. Out of the two, this was by far the nastier one. As Parling carried into the space between the two defenders, Barritt throws out an arm to try and make the tackle.

He catches Parling first on the shoulder and *then* slides up onto the head. This is a distinction that used to matter, but under the new law change it isn’t taken into account. As this happens Barrington’s meaty shoulder hits Parling in the face, as he is falling to floor. The way that Parling’s neck snaps back made this really unpleasant to watch.

In my opinion both Barritt and Barrington could have been carded. I think a red for Barritt and a yellow for Barrington would have been appropriate, but as Alex Sanderson said, it “would have killed the game”. Since Saturday an RFU citing commission has let Barrington off and banned Barritt for three weeks. This, I think, is an interesting decision as Barrington’s tackle seemed to be the more forceful of the two. In the view of the commission Barrington was in a position to make a legal tackle, Barritt’s attempted tackle prevented this by ducking Parling’s head right into Barrington’s shoulder. In Barrington’s defence being nearly 20st probably means most things he does are forceful, whether he means them to be or not.

So in one weekend of rugby under the new law changes we have several questionable decisions. As with anything, it may be that the new law changes will take some time to bed in. This could just be an opening blip. But if it does continue like this, one would imagine a clarification from World Rugby is in order. As for the fact that more cards were issued in the Pro 12 than in the Premiership, there are enough factors (such as the referees, the scenarios in the games and human error) that there’s too much statistical noise to properly analyse whether the rules are being applied correctly across the board.

World Rugby have linked this law change with their ongoing attempts to minimise concussion in the game. But with such big men colliding so quickly and with such force, left, right and centre, whether it will do this remains to be seen. Lets take James Haskell’s auspicious return for instance – he was trying to make a perfectly legal, low tackle and still ended up being concussed (72% of HIA’s incidents in the tackle, are on the tackler). Concussions can and will happen even if players tackle lower. So as much as they say this is all about player welfare (concussion) it won’t act in that way.

If World Rugby were to change the game in a way that lead to a lower rate of concussions it would probably have to be something drastic that would reduce the size and weight of the players on the field, such as imposing a weight cap (whether it be by position or for the team as a whole), maybe even extending the length of the game for an extra ten minutes or making the rugby pitch bigger, meaning players wouldn’t be able to carry quite as much poundage. So it would appear to be more of a cosmetic change to the game, removing the horrible, head high shots and replacing them with more palatable, lower tackles.

One thing it may do in the short term is lead to players tackling lower. This tackling technique, once more prevalent in the game, has fallen out of fashion, and this law could bring it back. However, with players having to reacquaint themselves with this tackle technique there may be a period of more concussions. However a lower tackle will lead to the player going to ground quicker, potentially removing the choke tackle from the game, and moving the game back towards a contest on the floor. In the longer term, the game as a whole will hope to assuage doubts over its dangerous nature and that it avoids an NFL-style lawsuit over ex-player head injuries. That lawsuit is going to cost the NFL at least $1 billion. Rugby has taken a pro-active step towards preventing something of the sort whilst protecting player welfare along the way.

On balance, anything that can prevent the nasty injuries that can be caused by head high shots can only be seen as a good thing. But, it strikes me as somewhat of a cosmetic change. This doesn’t have to be a bad thing (it may drive participation and interest in the game) but there may be other, better, ways to prevent concussions from occurring.

By Angus Williams

As an add-on to this article, Wayne Barnes on BT Sport this week provides the referees’ viewpoint, which is worth a watch.