26 September 2011
Feature by David van der Merwe
For many years now the IRB has been changing and amending the rules of rugby to make it safe for the players. The scrum is a good example. In my days of playing rugby there was no "crouch, touch, pause, engage". You simply crouched down and the teams engaged at will. This resulted in some injuries, but a lot less reset scrums. The new way is safer but takes longer.
Spear tackles are another good example. In my days you tackled the other guy as hard as you could and if you up ended him that was fine. I do understand the necessity for the law change. It makes it safe and less injuries are incurred by this.
This is all good and well, but then the IRB goes and instructs referees not to stop play when a player goes down injured in general play. They can stop the clock when an infringement occurs. This doesn't make any sense to me.
On Sunday during the Argentina vs Scotland game, an Argentina player went down with a serious injury. The medical staff came onto the field to treat him and the referee waved play on. On three occasions this player and the medics got in the way of play. Yet the referee still didn't stop play. Where is the sense in that?
I wonder if the powers that be at the IRB will be happy if while play continues the injured player gets run over and the injury is worsened by this. I for one will sue them if it was to happen to me. Imagine a player down with a neck injury gets hit by the ball or a tackle happens next to him, hitting him again. That player might be paralysed afterwards. What then?
I believe the guys that made this ruling didn't think. If they had even peanuts for brains the decision would never have been made. This might make the game a bit longer but player safety should come first.
More about David van der Merwe, click here.
