Owen Doyle: Jac Morgan's clear out of Carlo Tizzano was not obvious foul play

Irish Times

28-07-2025

'In victory, I deserve it; in defeat I need it.' Winston Churchill was famously talking about champagne. Even a setback would not discourage him from enjoying one of his favourite tipples. But somehow I doubt if Joe Schmidt was popping corks after the narrow, controversial 80th-minute defeat to the Lions at a packed Melbourne Cricket Ground.
There aren't enough superlatives
to describe a truly epic rugby match
. It's a shame it ended with a question mark about Jac Morgan's collision with Carlo Tizzano – who made an unnecessary meal of it – just moments before Hugo Keenan crossed for the winning try. I know well how detailed Schmidt is in his analysis of referees, often seeming to know more about them than they know about themselves.
So he will have been aware that Andrea Piardi makes a good effort to referee the breakdown, unlike quite a few of his peers. Nevertheless, Schmidt is livid that the referee allowed Keenan's try to stand. Pundits in the north agree with the decision, down south unsurprisingly it's the polar opposite.
I'd remind the latter, and some coaches too, of their shock and horror when red cards were correctly issued for foul play which the same pundits considered to be just part of the game. You can't have it both ways.
READ MORE
Another look at the cleanout.
Again, perfectly good.
— Tight Five Rugby (@TightFive_Rugby)
Under immense pressure from the Wallabies to do so, Piardi checked it on screen and his conclusion was that there was no foul play. To say that this is hotly disputed would be the understatement of the year. Andy Farrell sees a brilliant clear out, Schmidt sees dangerous play – opposing opinions which are hardly surprising. Whichever way he called it, the referee would have had the guns of half the world trained on him.
The core of the matter, for me, is that Morgan did not target Tizzano's neck. They did arrive at more or less the same time, both travelling at speed. The collision was inevitable, but not clear and obvious foul play. Arguments that Morgan was off his feet don't hold water either, it has unwisely become par for the course to allow players to arrive like human torpedoes to remove opponents. It all points to a far bigger problem than this one single decision.
The problem is the distinct disparity in the way the breakdown is refereed. Some officials do attempt to sort out side-entry and sealing off, while others are happy to let most everything go. That disparity is where the issue lies. At the start of the tour this column pleaded that matches would be refereed consistently and correctly in this area. It's a pity that hasn't happened.
Harry Wilson of the Wallabies speaks to referee Andrea Piardi. Photograph: Morgan Hancock/Getty
The relevant laws need to be reinforced, not overridden by a series of protocols which are given precedence. It's not too late to pull it back to what was intended, even though at this stage it would require a decree from World Rugby to achieve it. It would also need the agreement of all competition owners which would not be automatic. The loose, laissez-faire officiating approach finds favour in some quarters.
Schmidt will also analyse some defensive sealing off of the ball by the Lions, a couple appeared to be missed by Piardi. Side-entry was also penalised, with several calls on the money. However, half-time approached with advantage being played to Australia for a knock-on, just as they were in the process of winning a ruck. Despite Jamison Gibson-Park and Tom Curry coming around the side, interfering with Australian possession, the ref blew for the knock-on and everybody headed to the dressingrooms.
The side-entry, which was the greater offence, should have been sanctioned with a penalty. Then we would have seen a kick at goal, or an attacking Wallaby lineout. Both options were taken away by calling half-time.
There has been lots of chat about Dan Sheehan's try, that he had illegally jumped over the defensive tackle attempt. Actually, it was perfectly okay, with Sheehan quite entitled to dive for the line, even if it did take him over defending players.
Dan Sheehan of the British & Irish Lions goes over to score his team's first try. Photograph: David Rogers/Getty
Overall, Piardi did well enough, but he was lenient in dealing with a nasty, cynical shoulder-hit into the back of Tadhg Furlong from Will Skelton which ignited a fracas. The game can do without this sort of stuff and 10 minutes in the bin might have given Skelton pause for thought.
Some rugby fans might have heard recently about Run It Straight (Runit). It's a new fad (I would not call it a sport), but the first thing to say is that this newbie has nothing to do with rugby union – in fact Runit should be banned.
This is what it's about. Only two players are involved in each contest, on a small pitch about 20 metres by 4. Alternatively, one is the ball carrier, the other the so-called tackler. They then charge at each other, the objective being to hit so hard that one player cannot continue. Unsurprisingly, a player is often knocked senseless, and one young man has died. If both are still standing after a series of charges, then 'victory belongs to the one who dominates the collisions.'
It is sickening – insanity gone berserk. With what we know about brain injury, dementia and chronic traumatic encephalopathy it's staggering that anybody plays it. But, as we know, money talks, with $200,000 for a recent championship winner.
Leading up to this second Test, both camps spoke of the massive importance of winning the collision battles, which, ultimately, would win the war. It's the same language as Runit, with the crucial difference that rugby requires a proper tackle – not that it always gets it.
Apart from that difference, rugby often sees a ball carrier deliberately seeking out a heavy collision. It has inevitably seeped down into the amateur game, including schools. It's not too hard to guess where Runit might have come up with their idea.