Update: In addition to the original video I posted with commentary in French, I have now located another video of the incident with English commentary. The second video shows much of the same footage as the first but also shows some interesting footage not seen in the first video.
There's an old adage that soccer is a game for gentlemen played by thugs and that rugby is a game for thugs played by gentlemen. Without wanting to be disparaging of either sport I think there is more than a grain of truth in this. The point of the adage (as I understand it) is not to say that one form of football (eg rugby football) is better than the other (eg association football) but rather to express the following paradox: Soccer is basically a "non-contact" (or perhaps a "light contact") sport and yet aspects of play can be very rough (eg a dive tackle from behind) and players' tempers can boil over and games get out of control. Rugby, on the other hand, is what you might call a "full contact" sport and despite the higher level of allowable violence, serious injuries are relatively few, there is usually very little animosity between opposing players and there is (arguably) more or a culture in rugby of playing within the letter and spirit of the law. Perhaps the higher level of allowable violence in the contact means that rugby players don't need to resort to conduct outside the law and engage in personal vendettas against opposition players -- they can just tackle the next opposition player hard but fair.
Anyway, one thing soccer has sadly become known for over the last few years is its lack of sportsmanlike behaviour, particularly manifested in the theatrics of its players. Diving to win a free kick or penalty, or feigning an injury in an attempt to influence the referee's decision are lamentably part and parcel of the game of Association Football. It didn't have to be like that, but the game has developed that way and the combination of letting things progress to such a point, as well as the massive amounts of money involved in the sport means we've passed the point of no return. It's become a part of the culture of the game and people accept it -- not just the players, fans and administrators but more worryingly the next generation of players. Younger players (eg kids playing the game) see this going on by more senior players (eg their heroes on TV) and adopt this culture as well.
For a long time these kind of "theatrics" were considered unthinkable in rugby, something you see on the soccer field but not on the rugby field. The game, has, however, been changing over recent years. The move from amateurism to professionalism has slowly been changing the game's ethos in more ways than one and for some time I had been wondering how long it would be until a team attempted to abuse the blood replacement rule and if so whether anyone would ever be caught doing it.
I don't know the exact answer to the first question. It's possible that it's been going on for some time without anyone being caught but the answer to the second question is now. Tom Williams of the Harlequins club has just been banned for 12 months for faking a blood injury and his club fined for its involvement in the incident (although the medical staff who attended to his "injury" got off scot free). For those of you unfamiliar with the intricacies of rugby's blood replacement rule something by way of explanation is in order. In the "good old days" there was no such thing as replacements. An injured player would either play on or leave the field without replacement, leaving his team a man down. At some point in time this rule was changed so that an injured player could be replaced so that injuries would not require a team to a team to play with less than a full team. However, the number of replacements was limited so that if the number of injuries exceeded the number of permissible replacements a team would still be forced to play with less than a full team of players. Importantly, tactical substitutions were not allowed and the only reason a player could leave the field and be replaced by another was an injury. Was this system ever abused? I honestly don't know. But the game was amateur at this point in time so perhaps the incentive to cheat wasn't as great and the overall ethos was one of playing within the spirit of the game. Eventually, however, a change to the rules was made so that both tactical substitutions and substitutions for injury are allowed. But once a player has left the field and been replaced by another the substitution is permanent. With a very few exceptions in unusual circumstances (which I will explain shortly) a substituted player may not take any further part in the match. The number of named substitute players ("reserves") and substitutions permissible during a match is limited which means that once a team has made its full number of allowable substitutions if a player then becomes injured and can no longer take part in the match he cannot be replaced by another player. Instead, his team will be forced to play without a full team of players. The result of this is that coaches/team management have to weigh the risks of making tactical substitutions against the possibility of a future need to for a substitution due to injury. If a team makes all of its available substitutions and then a player is forced to leave the field due to injury it has no choice but to play "a man down" (i.e. with one fewer player). This is a relatively rare occurrence as coaches are careful not to make too many tactical substitutions too early to leave themselves in this undesirable situation.
One further complicating factor in all of this is the blood replacement rule. This says that a player who has a "blood injury" can be replaced temporarily and then retake the field once the flow of blood has been stopped (but not after a certain time -- which I think is ten minutes -- after which the replacement becomes a permanent substitution). Blood replacements do not count in the number of permanent substitutions and in theory their allowable number is unlimited. The reason for the blood replacement rule is player safety. In the "good old days" when there was no such thing as player replacement a lightly bleeding player would just continue to play the game and more heavily bleeding players would either be "bandaged up" on the field to continue playing or would leave the field, leaving his team a man down until such time as the flow of blood had been controlled and he could retake the field. However, with the scare of AIDS and other blood-born diseases having bleeding players on the field coming into contact with other players was considered a health risk. As a result of this the blood replacement rule was introduced which not only permits a bleeding player whose flow of blood cannot be stemmed to leave the field until the blood wound has been cleaned (and sealed -- eg bandaged), it actually mandates it: Bleeding players whose blood wound cannot be cleaned must leave the field. Normally bleeding players do not want to leave the field (it is quite disruptive to the team's rhythm to have to temporarily replace a player for this reason) and medical staff are able to clean and seal the wound on the field and play continues. However, sometimes this is not possible and players do need to leave the field to have the wound attended to. If this happens the player is temporarily replaced and may subsequently rejoin the game.
People familiar with rugby (and perhaps other attentive readers) will recognise a potential conflict of rules in all of this. If substitutions are permanent and substituted players may not rejoin the game what happens if a team is forced to make a mandatory blood replacement after it has made all of its allowable substitutions? In this case there are no reserves available to take the field for the (mandatory) temporary blood replacement to be made. In this exceptional case a previously substituted player may rejoin the game. This is one of the few very rare exceptions to the rule that substitutions are permanent. It should be noted that the need for a previously substituted player to retake the field on account of a mandatory blood replacement is an exceedingly exceptional situation. First of all, players don't have blood wounds that often. Secondly, even when they do a blood replacement is usually not necessary since the wound can usually be cleared up and sealed by medical staff on the field. And thirdly, given that coaches are reluctant to leave themselves in a situation where they made all of their permissible substitutions until very late in the match (if ever), the chances of this situation arising are very rare indeed. It requires a player to (a) get a blood injury which (b) necessitates replacement and with (c) both of those occurring after all permissible substitutions have been made. But although unlikely such situations can and do arise from time to time. And importantly they can happen at a crucial time in a crucial match at a crucial point of the season.
And this is what happened in the case of Tom Williams -- or so it initially seemed. The match was a Heineken Cup quarter final between Leinster (who after winning the quarter final went on to win their semi-final and then the final) and Harlequins -- a knock-out match, the winner of which would proceed to the semi-final (and possibly on to the final), the loser of which would be eliminated. The match was drawing to a close and the score was very close. Harlequins were trailing 5-6. A drop goal or a penalty goal (each worth 3 points) would put them in the lead and potentially win them the match. Nick Evans -- their fly-half and regular goal kicker (who in a very tense match earlier in the season had kicked a drop goal at the death to bring his team from behind to beat Stade Français Paris) -- had already been replaced injured. Evans' substitute Chris Malone (also a recognised goal kicker) was subsequently injured. Harlequins found themselves within a kick of winning the match but without a recognised kicker. Then Williams -- who himself had come off the bench as a substitute -- appears to suffer a blood injury and is replaced by none other than recognised goal kicker (and the previously substituted) Nick Evans. Now watch the following video and see what you make of it. The commentary is in French -- I've not been able to find a good video of this incident with English commentary; also it's not the commentary of the match commentators but a discussion which took place after the match, after allegations of Williams "faking" his blood injury had been raised.
UPDATE: I originally posted a video woth post-match discussion of the incident in French. I have now located a video of the incident with live match commentary in English. For the most part it shows the same footage as the original French video but it also shows some footage not seen in the first video (specifically the trainer attending to Williams' "injury"). I have changed the references in the text below to refer to the new (English) video. The French video is still worth a look if you understand French.
And the original video in French:
At 1:11 [1:07 in the French video] onwards Williams has something red around his mouth and proceeds to leave the field with the trainer. The fourth official can then be seen talking to the referee as to whether a blood replacement can be made given that the team has used up all its substitutions. The referee tells the fourth official that if Williams has to go off as a result of a blood injury then a previously substituted player (in this case Evans) may rejoin the match. Within the letter of the law? Well if Williams really did suffer a blood injury then yes. Within the spirit of the game? Well if he really did suffer a blood injury and the flow of blood couldn't be stemmed on the field then again yes. But if the flow of blood could have been stemmed on the field then such a replacement is in effect a tactical substitution and against the spirit of the game. Bringing on a previously substituted recognised goal kicker (albeit one who was injured and therefore not as effective as he otherwise might have been) back on in an attempt to kick the winning drop goal is a most unsportsmanlike act. And in the almost unthinkable event that Williams didn't really have a blood injury but somehow "faked" it then his actions (and the actions of all others involved in this incident) are against both the spirit of the game and the letter of the law.
Interestingly at 0:37 on the video [1:43 on the French video] Williams appears to give himself up with a wry wink. Of course that in itself is not proof of wrongdoing that would satisfy a court or a properly conducted disciplinary committee. But the disciplinary committee's finding that he faked the blood injury seems right. From 0:27-0:41 [0:49-1:00 on the French video] he is walking towards the sideline with the trainer in tow, and no signs of a blood injury which would mandate his replacement. And then at 1:12 [1:07 on the French video] (and closer to the touchline) he suddenly has a red substance in and around his mouth which he then spits out of his mouth. Although red, what you see in and around his mouth doesn't have the appearance of human blood (see the photo at the start of this post; you can enlarge it by clicking on it). In both videos the commentators are sceptical. In the English video which has the live match commentary, Stuart Barnes (one of the commentators) asks sarcastically at 0:51: "Who punched Tom Williams in the mouth? Tom Williams?" while in the French video (which has post-match discussion of the event) the commentators suggest that Williams has either taken some kind of capsule (1:13) to make it look like he was bleeding from the mouth or that the trainer has given him tomato juice (1:50)!
One can only conclude that the trainer has given Williams something to make it look like he has a blood injury and needs replacing so that a previously substituted player can return to the field in an attempt to kick the winning drop goal. This is a very worrying development indeed. When I said earlier above that I was wondering how long it would be before someone tried to abuse the blood replacement rule I thought they would have at least had the nous to cut himself or use real human blood. That would be much harder to prove. But Williams and Harlequins didn't even bother to do that. And they were caught -- red-mouthed so to speak.
Now as it happens, Evans who had previously left the field with an injury was unable to kick the winning drop goal with his attempt going well wide, probably attributable to the injury he was carrying. Poetic justice? For Leinster (who went on to win the tournament) perhaps but for his part in this incident Williams subsequently received a 12 month ban (although word is he's thinking of appealing the decision). Now assuming that Williams and Harlequins did indeed fake the blood injury (and that's the only thing I can conclude from the video) what is a fair sanction in all of this? Professional Rugby Players' Association (akin to a players' "trade union") chief executive Damian Hopley was highly critical of the sanction meted out to Williams, calling it "extraordinary" and "entirely disproportionate", highlighting that Schalk Burger's recent eye-gouge only received a punishment of 8 weeks and Justin Harrison's use of an illegal recreational drug (after the season had ended) earned him an 8 month ban.
Does Hopely have a point here? In my view, not really. Personally I don't think 12 months for this kind of offence is excessive (although I also happen to think that Burger should have got more than a yellow card and an 8 week suspension for his efforts -- and I say that as a neutral observer; I didn't support either of the teams playing in that match and witnessed the event as a neutral observer). In looking at acts of foul play such as eye gouging or off-field incidents such as illegal drug use we're not comparing like with like when we try to compare those kind of events to the faking of a blood injury to make a de facto illegal tactical substitution in an attempt to win an important knock-out match. By all means make arguments that various acts of foul play are treated disproportionately -- eg why does one act of eye-gouging receive 12 weeks while a seemingly worse incidence receives only 8 weeks? Or why does an eye-gouge receive 8 weeks when a reckless and dangerous tackle receives 2 weeks? Those are reasonable questions to ask and when judging various acts of foul play we are right to accept that punishments meted out be in proportion to other offences. Acts of foul play should be punished. They are a blight on the game. But that's hardly what we're talking about here. We're dealing with an unprecedented and extremely cynical act of cheating not just by an individual player but also team management which was antithetical to the ethos of the game. This was not something reckless done in the heat of battle such as a high tackle or a shoulder charge but was a calculated and premeditated act of perfidious behaviour by a player and his club officials against the spirit of the game. It was nothing short of an act of treason against the laws of the game and the legitimate officials who make and enforce them. What Williams and Harlequins did was in my book indefensible and not at all comparable with an act of foul play. If he really was guilty as charged then I don't think a 12 month ban was too severe a sentence. I think it is about right for a first offence of this kind. The only thing about it all was how Williams was punished when the other individuals involved in this got off scot free. It is unthinkable that a young replacement player such as Williams acted alone in all of this. Chances are he was acting under instructions and those instructions came from the very top. If this is the case then not only the medical staff but also team management and the head coach were involved in this. The problem of course lies in proving it. We have television pictures which demonstrate Williams' guilt. But assuming he's unwilling to point the finger and everyone else keeps shtum how do you prove the case against the other individuals involved? The capsule (or was it tomato juice in a water bottle?) had to come from somewhere -- but where? And who put it there? And on whose instructions? The trainer? The doctor? The coach? The club board? Assuming we could adequately prove the allegations I say throw the book at the lot of them. Everyone involved in this incident should both receive a whopping fine and be banned from all levels of rugby for at least 12 months in my book. And if it could be shown that it came from the coach or the club board then ban them for life I say. They are a disgrace to the game they claim to serve.
It's important that we uphold the authority of both the laws of the game (and those that make and enforce them) as well as the ethos of the game. Importantly this may look different in the case of a punishment handed down for an act of foul play as opposed to an act of treason as we witnessed in the Williams/Harlequins incident. Rugby is and should be a game for "thugs" played by "gentlemen". By this I mean that roughness is an inherent part of the game but people are expected to play fairly and within the ethos of the game. Acts of violence (like Burger's eye gouge against the Lions) which exceed the allowable limits of contact between players should be punished. There is no place in the game for eye-gouging, tripping, stomping, biting etc and I'm not certainly one for going soft on these things. And if it's a sufficiently serious offence then I'm all for lengthy -- even life -- bans. But let us not forget that rugby is a contact sport and in a contact sport like rugby you are always going to get acts which exceed the limits of allowable contact. In a "game for thugs" -- even one played by "gentlemen" -- they are unavoidable. It's the nature of a contact sport such as rugby. When these acts of foul play happen they should not be tolerated and we should punish them appropriately.
But altogether different is the kind of offence we just witnessed in the Williams/Harlequins saga. That is not an act of violence that has exceeded allowable limits. Rather, it is an act directly attacking the laws and ethos -- and the continued existence -- of the game. What Williams and Harlequins did was not just cheating (and it was that), it was also an act of treason. There was no niggle, no hot-headed reaction of a player taking things a bit too far to a bit of provocation from an opponent. It was a calculated cynical act of defiance by a team against the entire game of rugby football in order to win a game using underhanded methods. What they did was an attack on the game of rugby itself. Rugby's reputation is of a hard and physical game which is played fairly and in good faith. Incidents such as we witnessed here with Tom Williams of Harlequins undermine all that rugby is and can be. On that day rugby stooped to the level of soccer and its shameful ham theatrics. Such a culture cannot be allowed to develop in rugby and a stop must be put to it -- now.
0 comments:
Post a Comment