AGUSTÍN PICHOT THREW the cat among the pigeons in the world of rugby last week by suggesting that the sport is heading for disaster.
“I’m not going to be an accomplice to rugby’s ruin,” said the former Argentina scrum-half and now World Rugby vice-chairman as he lamented setbacks around the issue of the global calendar moving beyond the 2019 World Cup.
It had appeared that the calendar was set in stone after agreements between the decision-making powers in San Francisco last year, but Pichot vented his frustrations at the actions of Premier Rugby Ltd – owned by the 12 Premiership clubs and London Irish – since that meeting.
Essentially, the global calendar from 2020 to 2032 will see the existing June Tests moved into the first three weeks of July, allowing Super Rugby to be finished before the international window and also meaning more preparation time for Test players.
But PRL has since indicated its intent to expand the Premiership season into June, much to Pichot’s dismay.
Pichot’s warning was stark: “Players cannot carry on playing as they are now. You cannot have them playing 30-odd competitive club and international games just because you want bums on seats.”
Pichot was speaking from a players’ point of view and his opinion on the matter very much aligns with that of International Rugby Players [IRP], the body that represents the interests of professional rugby players around the world.
IRP’s CEO, Omar Hassanein, says top-level rugby needs a reality check around how much they are currently asking of the people who actually take to the pitch.
“The comments that Gus makes are of obvious concern to us, as far as player workload and the concerns in France and England, particularly,” Hassanein told The42. “That’s high on the agenda.
“I don’t know whether rugby being in ruin is necessarily how I would put it but certainly the player load and pressures on our athletes is a huge concern at the moment. He’s right, we’re burning players out.
“That coupled with the concussion threat to the game is something that could start deterring people away from it. It’s a physical sport and if we’re asking our players to play more and more matches… and it’s not even the matches.
“Training makes up about 85% of the overall workload of professional rugby players. When you’ve got players at national team training, then they’re training with Saracens, playing 30 or 35 matches a year and with little turnaround times, it’s pretty demanding.
“The risk is you cut short the careers of guys or they’re playing burned out and not at their best at all times.”
Hassanein’s words are those of the top international rugby players – IRP being their voice in situations where it’s difficult for the players to speak up directly for themselves.
Pichot pointing the finger at PRL again tallies with how professional players are feeling.
“What he’s saying has a lot of merit - suddenly, our players in England are put under pressure – and not only England but all of the Six Nations – because of commercial interests to add more matches,” said Hassanein.
“We risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we play these guys too much. It’s a genuine concern for the game.
“We’re realistic, we understand that at one end of the rope you’ve got commercial interests tugging and sometimes directly at the other end of the rope is player welfare interests but, at some point, the commercial side has to understand these guys can only take so much in a highly-physical sport.”
The global calendar as was agreed last year in San Francisco is to IRP’s liking, particularly given that the players’ association was one of the first to suggest pushing the June Tests into July.
That move would, of course, mean an even greater delay in the top international players featuring in the Northern Hemisphere club season post-summer, as Hassanein concedes.
“I was chatting to Joe Schmidt about it the other day,” he said. “For players coming back from their break, they will be straight into the tough European games quicker than they were previously, so there’s less time to warm up into that.
“There’s all these compromises that are needed in these situations.”
The aforementioned issue of concussion is a pertinent one for IRP in the realm of player welfare too.
World Rugby’s data-driven approach has focused on tackle height, leading to refereeing decisions that have sparked heated debate – most recently in the case of Leicester lock Will Spencer’s red card and four-week ban for an illegal high tackle against Wasps.
With World Rugby having recently trialled a ‘nipple line’ tackle height in the U20 Trophy competition and an ‘armpit line’ set to be used in the Championship Cup in England, it’s a divisive issue.
It has been intriguing to see so many active professional players speaking out against sanctions like the red card Spencer received, while the feedback to IRP has been eye-opening.
“We’ve spoken to a lot of players at the very top level and their view is that we’ve always got to be conscious of the fabric of the game,” said Hassanein.
“The game is doing everything it can to mitigate concussion and repeated concussion, injuries that can end careers, but if we’re tampering too much with the laws, then players aren’t too much in favour of that, generally speaking.
“One of the points that senior players have raised with me is that players will always find a way to manipulate a new law.
“So, if you can’t tackle above armpit height, for example, then will players try to use that to their advantage and go head-first in to score from a few metres out? How does a defender react to that?
“Have we considered how the new law might apply and might potentially be manipulated by players?
“Players will always look at how law changes can be manipulated.”
It’s a jarring sentiment for top-level players to be feeding back through IRP and certainly one that could cause referees serious issues.
However, Hassanein is keen to stress that rugby players are not taking the threat of concussion lightly.
While Hassanein says that players are generally happy with the Head Injury Assessment as a tool for diagnosing concussion, IRP does worry about the duration of the return-to-play protocols following confirmed brain injuries.
“We have concerns whether six days is adequate in the professional game,” said Hassanein.
“The amateur game requires players to sit out for three weeks, whereas the professional game involves the assessments and a player can be back on the pitch within a week.
“As a players’ association, we have an obligation to protect the players from themselves sometimes and we would be concerned about whether some players should be coming back a week later. We’ve seen quite a few examples in recent years.
“Again, we know that would be met with resistance. The opposite scenario is pulling every player out for three weeks – is that going to make coaches and management more wary of taking players off? It’s a very difficult area but we feel that player safety has to come first.
“The game has made big strides in that area in the last few years. I sit on the concussion working group with Dr Martin Raftery, who is a great operator. He’s doing all sorts of research and trying to find the best ways forward.
“Whether the return-to-play protocols are 100% foolproof is something that we think needs to be looked at.”
The42 is on Instagram! Tap the button below on your phone to follow us!
