Thought some of this interview with Frank Hadden, ex Scotland coach and all round good egg, was quite interesting around the disciplinary process and head knocks etc:
The last time France hosted the Rugby World Cup, Frank Hadden was Scotland’s head coach. The now 68-year-old will be back there in September and October, this time as one of the judicial panel members who rule on punishments for red cards and citings.
World Rugby, the game’s global governing body, has made concerted efforts to shift the balance of power in these set-ups away from the lawyers and towards individuals with significant frontline elite rugby experience.
As such, Hadden will be joined at the tournament by figures such as Stefan Terblanche, the former South Africa utility back, Olly Kohn, the long-serving Harlequins and Wales lock, Becky Essex, who won the 2014 World Cup with England, and Donal Courtney, the respected Irish former referee.
“The hearings that take place can involve up to 20 people, if there are translators plus multiple lawyers, coaches and managers,” Hadden said. “We are an independent panel appointed by World Rugby to listen to both sides of the argument and the ex-pros, known as wingmen to the chair, do the bulk of the interrogation. Depending on the outcome, upholding rather than rescinding the red card, we then start the sanctioning process. Our role is to be the ‘spirit of rugby’.”
Hadden, who led Scotland between 2005 and 2009, first got involved in the disciplinary sphere when he was working with the Scottish Rugby Union to introduce a new conference structure for the schools and youth game — a particular passion point for a man who came to coaching prominence at Merchiston Castle before moving into the professional ranks with Edinburgh.
“While working on the conferences, I heard from within Murrayfield that World Rugby was looking for ex-professional coaches, players and referees to join the judiciary panels in both hemispheres. The reason being that teams wanted their players interrogated by people who had a better understanding of the professional game.
“I hadn’t coached at under-13, under-14 for such a long time, and here I was trying to organise a new structure. I went out and did some coaching at under-13 and under-14 to find out how dangerous the game was. There is a concern out there in the public, particularly among parents who haven’t been involved in the game, only watch the pro game and think it’s too dangerous for wee Jonny.
“I found out pretty quickly that at that level, you’ve more chance of being injured in the playground than in rugby. There is no doubt, however, that schools rugby is so much more physical now than it was when I was coaching.
“I felt an obligation to get into this to try to help make the game as safe as possible. Without being overly soft, to really try to change behaviour. That’s the purpose of the high-tackle framework: to try to change behaviour. It’s succeeded already with the dump tackle, which you just don’t see: I’ve done one of them in the last four years.
“Some of the cases we deal with are pretty straightforward. Back in the day, there was a lot of kicking, headbutting, punching, that sort of stuff. Since this new era started, the high-tackle framework into the head contact process, I haven’t had any what I would call intentional stuff.
“You’ve got ‘accident’ at one end [of the scale], ‘intentional’ at the other with ‘reckless’ in the middle. You’ll still hear old school guys saying things like, ‘you’re getting punished for entering the ruck at speed, but surely that’s what you want to do?’
“Well, it used to be. But now you have to weigh up what’s in front of you and minimise your recklessness. You still want to hit the guy hard, but make sure there is a clear path of entry, then you bear the consequence of what you do.”
Hadden — whose disciplinary work is unpaid — firmly believes that the message is landing with professional players about their responsibility to look after themselves and each other, especially in relation to head impacts. He does, however, acknowledge that sanctioning requires “constant review” to iron out perceived inconsistencies.
“I was at a wedding with a lot of pro players from England. Sitting round the table with a lot of them, asking what they thought [of how the disciplinary process work]. They thought it was the best thing — they were saying things like, ‘I don’t want to have concussion, or have to worry about things in later life. I want to survive this game and keep going for as long as I possibly can’.
“With World Cups, there is a much bigger onus on everyone because if a ban is issued, you are effectively sending a player home. That also means that players are far more likely to challenge decisions.
“If you fail with a challenge, you get an extra week chucked on. You’ll then see something that was quite close to being accidental being challenged and they end up with four weeks, while a guy who doesn’t challenge who has hurt someone quite seriously only gets three weeks. In the World Cup, everyone wants to challenge because whether it’s three or four weeks doesn’t make a difference, they’re gone. The hearings will take longer as a result.
“Most of the work is done in what we call the calibrations. Joël Jutge [World Rugby’s head of match officials] sets a multiple choice exam. We watch a series of clips and are asked to decide [whether it should be] red, yellow, penalty kick or play on. We watch each clip multiple times from all sorts of angles putting years of experience to the test then make our decision. We never find out who came top of the class but I’m sure most of us keep score. Invariably there are disagreements, especially at conferences but it’s not and never will be an exact science.”
side rolls seem like a great idea until the jacklers start popping ankles and knees, and then you have a new problem.