In dealing with dangerous tackles, referees were instructed to start with the red card threshold and work backwards towards a yellow or just a penalty, if perhaps only one of the three elements under consideration was present.
In watching Vaea Fifita of the Hurricanes get a yellow card and England's Manu Tuilagi being red carded for shoulder charging "tackles", I was somewhat mystified by the comments and processes being displayed by the referees involved.
Both kept referring to the leading arm of the tackler being tucked down, something I hadn't heard talked about in considering the type of action involved in dangerous tackles.
However, the refs were ahead of the game, as the new NZ Rugby guidelines for high tackles and shoulder charges now specifically refer to such actions.
These guidelines (for NZ referees at least) define a "shoulder charge" – where the initial contact is made by the tackler's shoulder against the ball carrier, with the connecting shoulder's arm either tucked in a sling position or behind the tackler's body and not raised.
If the contacting shoulder's arm is not raised, or only the opposite arm is raised, then this is considered a shoulder charge.
Clearly, in both cases last weekend, the two would-be tacklers led with the shoulder and had the leading arm lowered as if it was broken.
A "high tackle" is defined as an illegal tackle which goes above the line of the shoulders and may continue to contact with the head or neck of the ball carrier.
Referees have been given new guidelines on the decision-making process for high tackles and shoulder charges.
1. Feel: what decision is this? Having just seen this happen in front of you what is the initial instinct? Red card, Yellow card, Penalty Kick only, or play on?
2. Is this foul play and if so, what type? Are you looking at a shoulder charge or a high tackle and where has the contact been made?
3. What is the degree of danger aligned with the initial instinct? Does it align with the initial feel for the decision or is it actually worse?
The key difference in the new process is referees can now include mitigating circumstances for their decisions, whereas before the actions of the tackled player weren't considered.
If the ball carrier had slipped or fell into the tackle, then too bad, because all the onus was on the tackler to make sure he used legal actions.
Using mitigating circumstances is a major change in thinking, and in my opinion a far more sensible one.
Mitigation means any action taken by the ball carrier, which means the tackler cannot be held fully responsible for the contact which is involved.
So, if a ball carrier slips or falls so that he suddenly changes height and is no longer in the expected upright running position, and the tackler ends up making contact with the head rather than the upper body, then can now be a consideration in deciding what action the referee will make.
Or, the ball carrier suddenly changes direction and the tackler instinctively puts an arm out and makes contact with the neck or head, then a penalty-only decision is now more likely than a yellow card.
However, no amount of mitigation will save a player if he shoulder charges an opponent, with the ball or without it as in at a ruck, with a high degree of force.
There is no place in the game for this type of foul play.
But it does mean I now have to think what position the leading arm of the defender is in at a tackle or shoulder charge, as well as all the other considerations.
And, at club level, I won't have the benefit of a video referee to help in the decision-making process.
The first consideration in the new guidelines will continue to be at the forefront of that process.
