“Feral” was one word a pundit used to describe what we were watching. The dictionary explains its meaning: “of, or characteristic of, wild animals; ferocious; brutal”. It is, of course, a dreadful descriptor, but hard to think of a more telling word.
The third Test was indeed all of those things, and also troubling to observe. Four failed brain injury assessments, including James Ryan being knocked senseless for several very worrying minutes. It was accidental, but it’s another concussion for the stalwart secondrow.
There was a very intemperate undercurrent throughout. Both teams wanted desperately to win, and at times nasty stuff surfaced. The leading Australian protagonists were Will Skelton, the biggest man on the pitch, and Nic White, perhaps the smallest. Both have made a career out of rattling their opponents’ cage.
The Lions responded in kind, particularly Tom Curry and Dan Sheehan: never a backward step. There was constant sledging, faux-grinning and taunting from the start. Owen Farrell’s incensed verbal outburst aimed at Joseph Sualli was an awful look.
Is all of this really what rugby wants to be? The match was a travesty of the sport. It failed miserably to uphold the game’s stated values. Respect for the opposition was nowhere in sight. How sad that was to see. The Lions’ objective was to win all three Tests, but they played as if the party had started a week early. Perhaps it had.
Sheehan, inexcusably, had a real go at the prone Tom Lynagh. It was an unworthy and disgraceful cheap shot. In marked contrast to Jac Morgan last week, the Lions’ hooker entered the breakdown late, targeting his opponent with a very dangerous strike to the head. It was not picked up, a negative mark against the TMO, South Africa’s Marius Jonker.
The TMO also called the referee’s attention to a completely innocuous incident, which Nika Amashukeli took but a moment to dismiss. A typical Farrell shoulder hit also went unseen; it’s been his trademark calling card for far too long. Jonker needed to be better.
Until recently, Sheehan would have received a straight red card. Under the global trial, it should have gone to the bunker for upgrading (or not) to the correct colour. At times like this we often hear the excuse of what else could the offending player have done. Well, if that was the player’s only option, he should have done nothing, and waited for play to develop. He would have been more useful elsewhere.
I had the good fortune to share a pitch with Michael Lynagh, father of Tom, on several occasions. Enjoyable evenings too. He has always been the epitome of modest excellence. He must be horrified to see his son on the receiving end of some appalling hits, this time failing his brain injury assessment. Given the number of times Lynagh gets thumped illegally – at least twice in these three Tests – it’s impossible not to think that the replacement red card is involved. Playing just an extra 10 minutes reduced to 14 players is a small price to pay if it gets rid of a key opponent.
Sheehan was correctly cited, although he didn’t think it was correct or that he had even committed an act of foul play. That viewpoint is as nonsensical as his dangerous action. His non-acceptance of the charge resulted in a lost week of mitigation, and, subject to him completing a coaching intervention course, he will serve a meagre three-match ban, instead of a paltry two. Imagine the furore if Finn Russell had been forced off in similar circumstances, and the perpetrator denied any wrongdoing. The uproar would have been totally justified; as is Australian anger on this occasion.
The suspension is once again too light. How often is it necessary to repeat the words – sub-concussive head knocks, concussion, dementia, chronic traumatic encephalopathy – before those sitting at the high table decide that deterrent-level sentences are necessary.
It would be good to hear from World Rugby. So far, chief executive Alan Gilpin has indicated their support for Andrea Piardi in the second Test, but hasn’t told us whether Morgan’s clear out was judged correctly. It would be ridiculous if World Rugby got involved publicly in every controversial decision, but on this one we could all learn a lot if the silence was broken.
On a general point, there is a distinct difference in how breakdown side-entry is refereed on either side of the equator. Down south a sanction is as rare as a hen’s tooth, while in this neck of the woods the clear and obvious ones are rightly meant to be sanctioned. We saw it across the three tests: Piardi and Amashukeli actually refereed the area, while New Zealander Ben O’Keeffe’s approach was very laissez-faire. World Rugby needs to sort it out, it’s an extremely unhealthy divide.
Amashukeli was a very good choice for the final match of the tour. He is a strong operator, unflappable too. His calm assuredness was essential when dealing with the various flare-ups, and for giving necessary warnings, which he did even-handedly.
In all the prevailing circumstances, including horrendous rain, and the stoppage for lightning, it’s unlikely that anyone could have done better. In a match that came with a very high degree of difficulty, he can be quietly pleased with his performance.
And what of those who were avidly watching this “feral” match? There is a very serious, existential debate among parents, sometimes in the same household. The motion: “Is rugby is a suitable sport for my kids?” This match will have spoken very emphatically for those against the motion. At the same time it will have done nothing for those in favour. Absolutely nothing.
