How long can you go as a pundit and retain even halfway relevant views to your sport?
Sir Clive Woodward, the head coach of the England team that won the World Cup in 2003, has been out of the game at the top end for 15 years but is still wheeled out by TV companies and also by one national newspaper to give his views.
Sir Clive’s connection with the game is only just about that now. He’s as close to the tactical nuances of the game of 2019 as anyone who picks up a paper to read him or turns on the telly to watch.
That’s okay, he’s a “name” and he’ll draw people in. Only when he has views like those on Reece Hodge’s suspension for his tackle on Peceli Yato, it’s getting kind of dangerous.
Sir Clive doesn’t think that Hodge should be suspended for his no-arms, shoulder to the head tackle on the Fijian flanker, who played no further art in that game. The tackle was not punished on the field, but a disciplinary panel quite rightly decided it merited a retrospective red card and Hodge was banned.
Australia’s camp complained about it, but at least they have a vested reason to. Sir Clive’s intervention was along the lines of the “rugby’s going soft” cabal who believe the game’s a bogey because players are being protected from potentially brain-damaging impacts.
This is where Sir Clive’s distance from the modern game makes him say things that are silly and downright ignorant. Players are hitting with forces far in excess of anything in his playing days but also his coaching days.
Impact hits to the head like Hodge’s and the two Samoan hits on Russians earlier this week have to be dealt with severely (there was no red for Ray Lee-Lo or Motu Matu’u either) if the practice is to be eradicated.
This means there’s going to be some marginal calls and possible injustices, yes. But the same thing happened with tip-tackling, and you hardly ever see one nowadays.
Don’t forget the biscuits
Hodge got a reduction on his ban for his “previously good record” and that old chestnut, “good conduct at the hearing”.
I always wondered why good conduct at the hearing gets this kind of credit. Has there been previous examples of players before the panel turning up in vest and shorts and swearing at the panellists? Do you have to wear a shirt and tie and bring nice biscuits?
Surely a basic standard of demeanour when before a disciplinary panel should be expected, not worthy of credit and a reduction in a playing ban.
Here’s the beef
Kobe is the rugby capital of Japan, and therefore it’s probably not a coincidence that it is also famous for its sake, Japan’s tipple of choice, and especially its beef.
The locals are inordinately proud of the quality of their beef, and there’s advertisements for restaurants all over the city selling the local product.
It is also inordinately expensive. One of the Scottish press corps watching the Uruguay-Fiji game idly ordered a burger in the part of the Scotland team hotel that has been branded by the tournament’s beer sponsor and made into a fan bar.
A handsome dish was presented to him, and the equally handsome bill – 3500 yen, or near to £30. It was a Kobe beef burger.
Two more of Scotland’s finest went into a restaurant in the city wanting just a steak – a normal one – and found the cheapest option was £100. Kobe beef formed into Chateaubriand was nearly £600. They turned on their heels, as expenses don’t cover that much.
But being resourceful types, the media are able to get around such mere fripperies as paying for a feed. The Kobe tourism people were kind enough yesterday to organise a tour of various attractions with a Kobe steak as lunch, although it would have done for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
And it is, I am assured – your correspondent is on a vegetarian tangent at present – incredible.