Let's first take the headline, where Powell kicks off with the words "If Courtney Lawes' tackle on Jules Plisson was legal..." - I need to get one thing straight here: there is no 'if' about Lawes' tackle; the referee consulted the TMO, where it was looked at multiple times, even in slow motion, and it was deemed perfectly acceptable. You know when something is looked at in slow motion, where everything invariably looks worse, but is deemed perfectly legal that it is fine and no further action is warranted. So his article gets off to a bad start immediately, where he questions something that has already been resolved and put to bed.
One thing that Powell does throughout the entire article is make parallels with football, which I am vehemently against. For starters, they are not even remotely the same sport, so what business is there in weighing them up against each other? None. But my main issue is that one is a contact sport and one is not. So by saying that, if Gerrard stamps and gets a red, then Courtney should have been sanctioned is, frankly, sheer stupidity. Gerrard got a red because he intentionally stamped on a player in a NON-CONTACT sport. Lawes tackled a player, very well I might add, in a CONTACT sport where tackling is one of the most vital parts of the game. Thus you cannot make parallels, because contact means utterly different things in football than it does in rugby.
Another one of my gripes is his 'out on the street' argument, which holds no credence. Mainly because it wasn't on the damn street. He makes the claim that, if Lawes had been caught doing that on the street, he would be done for assault. In simple words, yes he would have. But it wasn't in the street, it was on the rugby pitch. Plus, may I remind Jeff Powell that he writes about BOXING. Yes, what Lawes did would have been against the law on the street, but so would punching someone repeatedly until you effectively knock them out. And, only last week did Powell write an article on a boxing fight that he stated was 'fantastically brutal'. That's right, he commented on the brutality of boxing, yet he has the audacity to moan and complain about a hard-hitting tackle. I want you all to think about other sports where, if they were to be done on the streets, an arrest could well be made. Off the top of my head I can think of Javelin & Shotput (what if you hurt someone with them?!), Wrestling (people fighting each other!), Formula One (they do speed after all!), Ice Hockey (slamming people up against the sides is assault, right?!) and Archery (what if you shoot someone, huh?!)
We then come on to his apparent concerns about concussion, and the risk that a tackle like Lawes' one poses to other players. Concussion is a huge issue in rugby that we are all aware of, but any tackle made can be potentially dangerous in terms of head injuries. Yet no one has EVER suggested that tackling needs to be reduced, and why? Because that is sheer idiocy. What it is important to remember is there are protocols to ensure player welfare is a top priority and, if someone is concussed, they are given proper medical attention. But, I think the main reason to discredit this argument is to bring us back to the point that he corresponds on boxing - probably one of the only sports where concussion actually happens more than it does in rugby. So who the hell does Powell think he is to essentially blame Courtney for creating dangerous situations with his tackles? Every punch in boxing brings the risk of a concussion - every single one. And in the face of this, what does Powell do? Comment positively on the brutality of the sport - frankly, I find it abhorrent that he can be this hypocritical.
Finally, we come to Powell's ludicrous suggestions that Lawes should apologise. Is he serious? On what planet should someone have to say sorry for a legal tackle? There are hundreds of legal tackles made every weekend in rugby, but we don't expect every single one of them to come with an apology, if any! If the tackle had been illegal, then yes, he should have apologised and I have no doubt in my mind that he would have. But in this instance there is absolutely no need for Lawes to make amends, and if he was to do so he would potentially be conceding that his tackle was not entirely legal, when it is in fact the very opposite. And to go even further and suggest that all of those supporting Courtney's actions are 'rugby snobs' makes this article go from ridiculously unfair, stupid and pointless to damn right offensive to everyone in the rugby community. In my eyes, he is the snob for thinking himself so righteous with his words. But hey, if disagreeing with him makes me a snob, I could not care less.
Luckily everyone who has read the article finds it as awful as I do. The whole thing is "supported" (I say this lightly, as to have support it actually needs to be somewhat true) by extremely baseless arguments that hold absolutely no weight in any respect. I think we have always known that the Daily Mail is not exactly the most reputable paper out here, but this seems like a new low for them. It is an example of absolute shoddy journalism, and I found myself surprised at first that even the Daily Mail would publish it. There are no excuses for the absolute rubbish that the paper allowed to be published, and I think it's time they stop journalists from reporting on stories that they have absolutely no knowledge of. I think it's for the best if he just sticks to boxing rather than trying to weigh in on a debate where he is a fish amongst sharks in terms of what he actually knows. To go out there and offend everyone in the rugby community is very very hard to do, but his farcical attempts at trying to comment on the sport using just about the worst arguments possible to back himself up meant that he managed to do just that.
Jess.
Twitter: @JessKebbell @RuckMeGently
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ruck-Me-Gently/743970519052255
Email: ruckmegentlyblog@gmail.com
Website: ruckmegently.blogspot.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment