Amongst all the hubris from the weekend’s thumping of Wales, seemingly the biggest talking point is whether Samu Kerevi’s 42nd-minute high hit on Welsh flanker Jac Morgan was deserving of its on-field sanction.
Commentators on the Stan broadcast was animated in their belief that there was enough in the actions of Morgan to mitigate Kerevi’s penalty – so too has been the reaction of a number of punters and pundits in the days following the hit.
Our game has quickly evolved to adapt to the existential threat that head injuries present, and much to the dismay of some vocal corners of the rugby world – that means that any avoidable contact to the head is harshly punished. What may have been deemed a ‘rugby incident’ a decade ago is now heavily sanctioned in efforts to disincentivise reckless on-field action.
All head contact is adjudicated following the Head Contact Process (HCP), introduced to all levels of Rugby in 2021. This was preceded by the High Tackle Sanction Framework of 2019 – and before that, there have been various efforts by unions to combat dangerous play dating back to the early 2010s, including the first formalised ‘zero-tolerance’ approach introduced in late 2016.
All this to say, for those surprised or angered at the apparent harshness of Kerevi’s sanction, I respectfully ask you to join us in the present.
But what actually happened, and what specifically makes this tackle worthy of a send off? To preface, this isn’t a commentary on what philosophically should or shouldn’t be a red card. While debate around this is welcomed, this is purely a facts-based exercise looking beyond parochial hubris of sideline commentators to the specific actions of both Kerevi and Morgan, their roles in the collision and how referees are obliged to make decisions under the current World Rugby framework.
By now we’ve all seen the clip; Kerevi rushes from the defensive line in an attempt to put a dominant hit on Morgan. As Morgan braces for contact, Kerevi skips into the collision zone, rises into contact and plants his shoulder into Morgan’s at the same moment their heads collide. In the referral, James Doleman describes Kerevi as “upright” in contact. The decision has rightly been upheld at an independent disciplinary committee and Keveri’s been banned for three matches (two following the completion of tackle school).
So what made it a red card?
Samu Kerevi. (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)
Let’s start with the HCP’s first two questions: has head contact occurred, and, was there any foul play?
In this instance the answer to the first question is clear and obvious, though to the second it may be less so – thankfully the HCP provides some clearer guidelines to help decision makers make an assessment on what is and isn’t “foul play”, and asks us to consider whether the action was intentional, reckless, or avoidable.
A head-on-head collision while attempting to make a dominant tackle simply cannot be judged as intentional. It’s difficult to argue it was reckless either; as many pundits have pointed out, he is inches away from making a perfectly legal tackle.
Though it is avoidable.
Kerevi rushes from the line to cut down time and space. While speed into contact is not a problem in isolation (you can hit someone as hard and fast as you like) the onus is on the tackler to have control of their own tackle technique.
Tactical rush defence is common in most teams these days, and we have countless examples of players rushing from the line and then executing a safe, dominant tackle – this just isn’t one of those examples.
What more could he have done to avoid head contact you ask? Slow down and go lower. But isn’t he bent at the hips? Not nearly enough.
Upright does not mean standing tall – rather a lack of a credible attempt to get low enough. It’s accepted that all players will brace for contact and drop their height slightly in the moments preceding a collision, but the onus remains on the tackler to go lower than the ball carrier.
Kerevi’s body position leading into the collision indicates that, regardless of Morgan’s approach, contact any lower than the sternum was always unlikely – and by keeping a higher target to dominate the collision, Kerevi increased the risk of head contact instead of reducing it by further lowering his body height.
Maybe a version of Samu Kerevi that’s played more than two games in the past 12 months has the right amount of match fitness to execute this tackle better; but for now, he’s evidently not in control of his own body to put himself in a legal position to hit when Morgan braces. Thus, the head contact is avoidable through the actions of the tackler and we have foul play.
Moving on to question three: what was the degree of danger?
The HCP asks us to consider the contact point and level of force. The contact point is clear – there is direct head-on-head contact at the same moment their bodies collide. We can determine this is the case – rather than it being indirect – by looking at Morgan’s head, which would whiplash forward in the event of it being body first.
For force, we revisit speed. Joe Schmidt mentioned that Morgan’s mouthguard didn’t ‘ping’, meaning the actual force felt through Morgan’s head would not have triggered an automatic off-field HIA. At present, this technology isn’t being factored into decision making by match officials, and while maybe it should be, all that is used to make decisions is the footage available.
Should this same tackle happen in close quarters off of broken phase play, where neither Kerevi nor Morgan have the run-up to add considerable force into the hit, we likely have a different sanction. Jordie Barrett’s 40th-minute hit on Irish centre Garry Ringrose in the previous week is a perfect example of this. There is minimal space between Ringrose and Barrett meaning less force in the collision, and Barrett is passive (or going backwards) in contact – all triggers for mitigation.
So with foul play established, and direct head contact with high force – the degree of danger is judged to be high, and we’re in red card territory.
Finally – is there any mitigation?
This is the major point of conjecture. Angus Gardner recently reminded us in the England-New Zealand fixture that not all head contact automatically constitutes foul play, and the HCP gives room for nuance and allows referees to go from red card to play-on given the right context.
However, in this tackle we see Kerevi has a clean line of sight on Morgan in the lead-up, is dynamic and should therefore be in control of the collision.
Though, what about the actions of the ball carrier? The specific wording of the HCP asks whether there has been a sudden or significant drop in height or change in direction from the ball carrier.
Jac Morgan of Wales is tackled by Samu Kerevi. (Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)
The law or HCP doesn’t specify what constitutes sudden, significant or unexpected but a common logic applied is that a ball carrier will almost always brace for contact and dip slightly. This is predictable and expected that tacklers position themselves lower than this prior to the collision.
Morgan’s actions constitute neither a sudden or significant dip or change of direction as he barely moves an inch from his original running line, and is carrying as high as anyone would in the same circumstance which we’ve established is predictable. Kerevi driving upwards into contact eliminates his own defence of making a credible attempt to stay low.
The argument that the sanction is too harsh as Kerevi is mere inches from making a legal tackle doesn’t hold either, as there has never been a precedent in rugby to sanction dangerous or illegal actions by how close they were to being safe or legal. If I run a red light in my car, arguing to the magistrate that it was green only seconds prior won’t get me out of my fine.
I also don’t buy the strawman line that because Joe Schmidt has questioned the decision when he rarely questions officials, that somehow invalidates or casts doubt over the decision’s accuracy. Joe might have rightfully reached god status at home in recent weeks, but that doesn’t preclude him from being wrong on occasion and has no bearing on the apparent facts.
So all things considered, we land at red. The Wallabies should rightly feel aggrieved by some of the decision making on Monday morning and be proud of how they responded.
Philosophical debate over rugby’s response to foul play, head contact and the ways it is changing the modern game will (and should) continue as we try to strike a balance between maintaining the fabric of the game and prioritising player safety.
But those suggesting that the emperor has no clothes may do well to verse themselves in the way contemporary rugby is officiated, before passing quick and ill-considered condemnation on match officials correctly enforcing laws they didn’t write.