I don't like the article one bit. I agree with the underlying message wholeheartedly but the way it's presented is terrible.
Is there another system of law in the civilised world that goes from the legal – the desirable, even – to the ultimate sanction with no steps in between?
Hundreds. Actually no, thousands. Actually, millions.
The most obvious example i can think of is tax evasion vs tax avoidance. One makes you the company's and shareholder's favourite while the other makes you a criminal no one wants to be associated with. The difference? Sometimes is black and white but half the time, a good lawyer and the judge's mood. One gets you a multi-million bonus, the other one a fine and jail time.
And the examples can go from truck drivers (rewarded for being fast, penalized (legally and in-house) for infractions/tickets) to shooting someone on self-defence (can go from being a hero to a criminal).
The thing is, rugby is not as complex as real life. We just keep changing the rules, or interpretation of the rules and that's what ******* annoying.
The question is no longer "was that a penalty/yc/rc? ". The question now is "how will the ref see that?". The level of interpretation for some of these calls is just monstrous.
This is a contact sport and people are getting bigger and faster.
And lowering the tackle area is a **** poor solution. Now all attacking players need to do is go head first and that alone puts them in a catch 22: if they touch the head/shoulders it's a penalty, and if they don't they loose 1/2 mts which sometimes is all the attacker needs. What is the defender supposed to do? Laws should give everyone a viable choice and i don't see that's the case here.
I agree with the fact that we should accept the risk associated with the game.
Otherwise, we'll end up watching sarcastaball very soon.