Ex All Black Conrad Smith has announced his retirement from professional Rugby
Maybe, now the dust has settled a little on the cards vs concussion debate, it's time further action was taken – more effective action.
The game must indisputably address concussion. But the high tackle laws which ruined two perfectly good local derbies in round two of Super Rugby will not solve the problem alone; anyone who thinks that is bonkers.
In the first match under the new tackle laws played in the UK last year, there were four concussions. All came from tacklers' heads meeting knees and hips as they tackled low.
The research most often used to highlight concussions is the 1500-game study by World Rugby from 2013-2015; it concluded 76 per cent of head injuries occur in the tackle – with 73 per cent suffered by the tackler.
A more recent survey from England's RFU revealed only 20 per cent of concussions were suffered by the ball carrier, 47 per cent by the tackler and the rest through accidental collisions, like at the breakdown.
Those stats – once the new laws have been in force for longer – will be interesting; my money is on an increase in tackler concussions.
In the Crusaders-Chiefs game in round two, the Chiefs lost two to concussion – neither from a head-high tackle. In the Crusaders' match against the Hurricanes last weekend, Sam Whitelock and Ryan Crotty were both concussed – but not by high shots.
Crotty had a nasty head clash with a team-mate; Whitelock cracked his head on the ground after attempting to tackle Beauden Barrett. That's right – 122kg Whitelock versus 91kg Barrett (and I'm not sure he even weighs that much); the big bloke came second.
All the talk of better tackle technique ignores the fact that, at elite level (immense, fast athletes with footwork), it is all too easy to get it wrong in the split seconds available. Some sideline commentators make tackling sound simple. It isn't.
Jordan Taufua of the Crusaders in action during the Super Rugby match between the Highlanders and the Crusaders. Photo / Photosport.co.nz
Players also know of the helpful side-effect of the high tackle laws; they often go low when carrying the ball, promoting the possibility of a penalty and/or card if the tackler gets it wrong.
So what's being done about the tackler? Or head clashes at the breakdown?
Improvements in tackle technique, though hardly foolproof, will help and maybe a leaf out of a rival code's book will too. League has made more of a science of the tackle than rugby.
So are our current top players being coached out of high-tackle habits and into better ones? The most effective way of inculcating a new tackle culture is at schools and junior level. Is that happening? Does anyone know?
High tackle laws are a case of rugby taking action but also being seen to be doing something. The game is protecting players, sure, but also itself against potential legal blowback (some NRL players are launching lawyers into action over head knocks they suffered during their careers).
So is this the start of a real movement or just a gesture? As Andrew Lloyd Webber's lyrics had it in Jesus Christ Superstar: "Could Mohammed move a mountain or was that just PR"? As players and fans are dragged into the new world, yes, it will take time to change techniques, minds and attitudes. But we also have to be careful the game doesn't damage itself by creating a whole new era of boredom while it is protecting the wrong people or, rather, not protecting all those at risk.
At the house where I was watching the Chiefs-Crusaders game, the audience of three immediately lost interest after Lachlan Boshier's try-saving tackle/card/penalty try. It was an anti-climax – like watching an exciting Oscar-winning movie but with the last 10 minutes of high drama suddenly replaced by filmed dentistry.
No sport can survive that amount of disappointment regularly applied. Concussion must take priority but we must get the balance right.
If we truly care about player safety, extra measures need to be taken, which is what World Rugby is considering. One idea is a version of league's "On Report" scheme which sees a player allowed to continue the match but punished afterwards for a tackle breach. That is where intent could be judged. Alternatively, remove the offending player but substitute him so the game doesn't suffer and fans don't turn off.
Some are calling for substitutions restricted to injury-only replacements. Instead of half a new team of power athletes arriving when players get tired around 60 minutes, they would have to play 80m.
Players have bulked themselves up to achieve maximum power in a 60m spell. For 80m, they would have to be lighter to reduce fatigue, less likely to be a wrecking ball in a concussion-promoting situation. Others say reducing physical contact in training will help.
There are no easy answers. Minimising concussion is key but won't happen if we protect only the ball-carrier.
The health of the game is also a vital element in the health of the players. In other words, if fans drift off to watch another sport with genuine competition and suspense (ie, one not decided by the refs), rugby could have another kind of headache.
