The controversy surrounding Jac Morgan’s clearout in the build-up to the British and Irish Lions‘ match-winning try against Australia has sparked intense debate.
The incident occurred late in the second Test at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, a game the Lions narrowly won 29-26.
As Hugo Keenan crossed the line for the decisive score, scrutiny quickly turned to Morgan’s earlier involvement at the ruck, where some believed that he illegally cleared Carlo Tizzano out.
Match officials reviewed his contact with Australian flanker Tizzano, which some claimed was dangerous and illegal.
If the try had been disallowed, the series would have remained alive heading into the final Test in Sydney.
Laws Involved
One of the main laws which is being stated by Wallabies fans and pundits is law 9.20, which states: “A player must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto another player.”
It also states that “making contact above the line of the shoulders with an opponent is a dangerous play and is prohibited”.
Take a look at the contrasting opinions that have been debated about this same incident.
Welsh former World Cup final referee Nigel Owens described it as the “perfect clearout” and referenced law 9.20 when speaking to BBC Radio Wales, saying “It was the perfect clearout.
“I know some people in Australia are quoting the law and saying he is going in low. But if you are quoting the law you have to recognise both players were low coming into the ruck.”
“There are a lot of experts on social media and a lot of pundits who think they are experts at refereeing as well,” said Owens.
He went on to say, “The Australian player gets in and he is very low. This happens throughout the gam,e and you see many of these incidents.
“Jac goes in and tries to get in very low or underneath him to clear him out. So it’s textbook clearing out for me.”
Another former red, Wayne Barnes, spoke on the incident in his column in The Telegraph, and said, “Rugby is a dynamic game with lots of moving parts and yes, player safety is at the heart of everything the game is currently doing, but these things happen.”
Head Coach Reaction
The two head coaches had understandably differing reactions to the incident. Joe Schmidt said, “I think everyone can make their own decision on that.
“Players make errors, match officials make errors. Our perspective is that we felt it was a decision that doesn’t really live up to the big player safety push that they’re talking about.
“You cannot hit someone above the level of their shoulders, and there’s no bind with the left arm; the hand’s on the ground.
“That’s what we’ve seen; we’ve watched a number of replays from different angles. It is what it is, we just have to accept it.”
The Wallabies head coach went on to reference rule 9.20, stating that to understand why it was a penalty, people should read that rule.
After the game, Andy Farrell said, “I thought it was a brilliant clear-out, didn’t you?
“It depends on what side of the fence you come from, I suppose, but I can understand people’s opinions.”
Australian Reaction
The Australian media have not been huge advocates of the officiating, to say the least.
Former Wallaby and now commentator Morgan Turinui did not agree with the decision, saying, “There is a really simple law around making contact with the head or neck of a player at a ruck or maul.
“It was clear that they should have disallowed that try, so the Wallabies should have won that game.”
“You can be filthy about the decision, but you’ve got to look in your own backyard and go, you know what, that far up, we should have closed it out”.
Those views were echoed by former Wallabies captain Michael Hooper, who said, “I can see what the referee is saying, but there’s a penalty there. Whether it’s on head on neck or going straight off his feet to the ground.
“I would say if that is minute one, that’s a penalty.”
It is effectively the case that those from the Home Nations agree with the decision, and those from Australia do not.
Former Lions captain Martin Johnson backed the referee, “I didn’t think there was enough there for a penalty that would change the game. You have to be very, very sure to change the game on a ref’s decision.
“I thought it wasn’t a penalty.”
James Haskell
Another former Lion, James Haskell, was perhaps the most passionate when it came to agreeing with the decision, and he gave a big rant on The Good, The Bad and The Rugby podcast, saying that Tizzano should have been red-carded.
After being asked whether Wallabies boss Joe Schmidt was right to feel aggrieved, he responded: “Absolutely not.
“Honestly, I never get that passionate about stuff, but I could not believe from every fibre of my being that it was even a thing.
“The only bit of foul play and nonsense in that incident was the Australian player diving. That should have been red-carded because that is utter crap.
“That was a clearout I did every day, every game for 20 years. It is the only way to clear out; there is no other way to do it.”
By Charlie Elliott
Features
OSCAR WILSON
BUCS Super Rugby
Cardiff Met’s Gus Patterson on becoming Bridgend’s next rugby star
The best betting sites
You must be logged in to post a comment Login