Controversy Surrounds British and Irish Lions' Second Test Victory

By the letter of the law, the British and Irish Lions should not have won Saturday's second Test, but the problem is those laws have been consistently ignored in the modern game.

The dramatic, match-winning try from Hugo Keenan was preceded by a controversial ruck moment by Welshman Jac Morgan, which was checked by Andrea Piardi and his refereeing team.

Piardi got the call right, but there's a lot wrong with why I think it’s the right call. The breakdown area is a particular issue in the game at the moment and a part of the game that I’ve had a problem with for some time.

It’s impossible to know what’s right and wrong, even when you study the laws and pick out examples.

In fact, reading the laws after watching the Morgan incident would actually confuse avid rugby supporters, never mind the casual watcher or newcomers to the game.

Law 9.20 states a number of illegal acts that Morgan may have fallen foul of: \"A player must not charge into a ruck or maul.\"

I don’t believe that what Morgan did in his act of clearing Carlo Tizzano out of the ruck is now considered to be charging.

He had outstretched arms in an attempt to wrap them somewhere around the defensive player. In the current game, I think that can be considered a decent enough effort and shouldn’t be sanctioned.

However, is that action a genuine attempt at wrapping, by the letter of the law? I don’t believe so. Rucking has become far removed from what it was originally intended, without anything or anyone stating that the action was allowed to change in this way.

The more pressing issue here is the fact that according to law 9.20.c, \"a player must not intentionally collapse a ruck or a maul\". Maybe more accurately, law 15.12 states that \"players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck\".

These laws might as well not be written down. Morgan didn’t attempt to stay on his feet. He’s not the only one, it’s a common tactic to take other players away from the ruck.

In a professional playing capacity, we were always told that it was fine if you took another body away from the ruck with you, and if you have energy for another action, at least try to get back on your feet. We see it repeatedly during games. Yet, the law should be clear.

Law 9.20.b says that \"a player must not make contact with an opponent above the line of the shoulders\". That’s exactly what Morgan did, except in this case, Tizzano’s neck was actually below the line of his shoulders, considering he was hinged and practically upside-down in his positioning (below).

And this is the big issue with the laws on the defensive side of the play. Tizzano is in a modern 'jackal’ position, questionably supporting his bodyweight, with his head below the level of his hips. Therefore, as the attacking player arrives at the ruck, staying low to go below the shoulder level of his opponent meant that Morgan was initiating contact in a more dangerous way.

The argument is what is he supposed to do in this instance? He can’t make low and meaningful contact without the act being dangerous, we know he can’t roll or twist the defender, and he definitely doesn’t want to give the ball away. Surely the issue here is with the jackal position being permitted, despite the laws speaking to the contrary.

These laws are obsolete and aren’t adhered to, so why are they written at all? No wonder there’s constant debate after the event, especially after a win in this manner.

Research by Scott Mitchell and Gregory Tierney following the 2019 World Cup showed that 37% of all breakdowns had an infringement in them. Of that 37%, 79% of these infringements were not called as penalties or free kicks. The highest frequency infringement that wasn’t called was players entering with their heads below their hips.

The second highest frequency of uncalled infringements was for players going off their feet. The attacking team was also responsible for 70% of true infringements, but were penalised less than the defending team.

If you want to know how exactly we got here, to this level of uncertainty around decisions, then look no further. The referees are doomed to failure. The law book exists, yet the game is refereed through common law, judgements and with an attempt to create a flow.

This isn’t the fault of the referees, it’s the fault of many stakeholders and what we accept within the game.

Attempting to find a final piece of evidence showing that the Morgan clearout happens all the time, I went back through some of the Wallabies dominant phases to find a similar instance. I thought it would be very common and easy to find. Yet it’s difficult to find an instance in the Wallabies attack.

Joe Schmidt coaches a clean breakdown. He demands that his players arrive early and stop the competition without so much as a collision, where possible. They arrive before the tackler can reload to their feet and stand over them to ensure they cannot get up. The contest is normally over before it begins, and therefore rarely relies on sheer physicality.

As a result, Schmidt (above) is right to feel aggrieved. He doesn’t coach the same tactics in the breakdown, his attacking coaching is done within the laws, and the Morgan clearout isn’t legal, by the letter of the law.

Despite everything said above, and it’s quite contradictory to say, it’s still wrong to give a penalty against Morgan for foul play. It’s clearly not accepted as foul play in the current game. The result would have been a deciding third Test in Sydney, something everyone but the Lions players and staff would have wanted.

The issue is within the laws. What we accept now is not what is written within the laws, so change them or enforce them.

What is legal at the breakdown needs a review, with clarity and safety being the main aim. If that means the game will change, then so be it. The 79th minute of a Test match is not the time to decide how the lawbook should be written or accepted.

Currently, there’s more confusion than ever, and therein lies the problem. Games are won and lost within tactics, moments and the accumulation of actions, yet it could take one decision to tip the scales and that’s what we saw last weekend.

Continuing with a dated and disregarded law book will bring more controversy and difficulty for referees, which they don’t need.

We should be talking about Keenan, Finn Russell, the James Lowe offload for Tadhg Beirne’s try, the Joseph Sua’ali’i and Bundee Aki line breaks, the Australian turnaround.

We shouldn’t be this distracted by the laws.

Follow a live blog of Australia v British and Irish Lions on Saturday from 11am on rte.ie/sport and the RTÉ News app.