Quick Tap: Uruguay, High Tackles, and Fitness

The World Cup is well and truely underway, many results have gone exactly as you'd expect, we've had a couple of thrillers, and another which will go down in history. Here are my three main talking points so far from the events in Japan.

Week One in Japan will live long in the memory for many people.

Forget Brighton, it's the Kamishi Miracle now
We can't start anywhere else than the result which will most likely define the pool stages of 2019. Uruguay's majestic win against the Flying Fijians. Going into the tournament a number of people were looking for the game which would match Japan's famous victory against South Africa four years ago, with fixtures such as USA v France, Samoa v Scotland, and Australia v Fiji touted as potential shockers.

Juan Manuel Gaminara's post-match interview
was one to remember. 

Instead of being the shockers, Fiji was shocked by an Uruguayan side fuelled by passion and desire. On Wednesday morning (in the UK) this was a game many switched onto expecting to see some classic Fijian tries of wonder and awe. Instead, we were treated to the game of the World Cup, a stunning encounter which you could not switch off. Fiji scored five tries, made dozens of linebreaks, and forced over 40 missed tackles. In the end that counted for nothing against a performance full of sheer determination, grit, heart, and giving your all for the bloke next to you. Every time Fiji broke the lines, Uruguay chased back like rabid dogs to haul down the islanders. It was beautiful, soul-lifting, heart-warming rugby, that makes you want to pick up the ball and play yourself.

Midway through the second half you just knew Uruguay weren't going to lose - partially helped from a woeful display from the tee from Matavesi - they were hounding Fiji, diving on every loose ball, running after kicks, and carrying like champions. This was no fluke, Uruguay was the better side on the day, better organised, and more committed to the cause.

Off with his head!

The chart referees are meant to follow
in the event of a head collision.

It's been a major talking point in the last 12 months, the officiating of dangerous high tackles. How harshly were referees going to officiate the law at a world cup? With red cards all the more likely, no official was going to want to pull out the first one. The furore over the one-handed to Warburton still looms over the World Cup eight years later. World Rugby had released clear guidelines with how referees should process any high-shots, ranging from just a penalty to red card.

Despite this clear cut framework being made public, somehow we still have had considerable controversy already in Japan. The most noteworthy being Reece Hodge's "tackle" on Peceli Yato in the opening game of Pool D. A terrible, high speed, shoulder charge which saw the Fijian captain leave the field with concussion, and Hodge go unpunished. It was a failure of the officiating team, which was retroactively corrected with a three-week ban, but that didn't help Fiji at a critical juncture. This incident prompted World Rugby to release a letter admitting that their referees hadn't been performing as well as they should have.

And yet questionable decisions have continued. Since then we've seen Samoa handed two yellow cards for reckless tackles, in both instances referee Poite felt there were mitigating circumstances. One of them at least should have seen Ray Lee-lo leave the pitch permanently. And yet Poite backed away from such a controversial decision. England and USA traded headshots, in the case of Francis it was from the first whistle, and yet they were missed by the officials, including the TMO.

We did see the first red card, for a truly horrific blow on Owen Farrell by the American John Quill. It was an easy decision for the referee, it was late, straight to the head, and a shoulder charge. With the red card damn broken, will we see referees more willing to give them, or players more scared of receiving them. Only time will tell.

This tackle sparked confusion and anger at the World Cup, especially at how
 the referee and his assistants missed it, without even a TMO review.

Do teams know how long a game is?
Has anyone else noticed that, other than Ireland against a lacklustre Scotland, no Tier One team has successfully put together an 80-minute performance? Australia took till the second half to remember how to play, New Zealand and South Africa shared momentum and dominance, England looked rusty and struggled, Wales let Georgia dominate most of the second half, and then there was the rollercoaster France and Argentina played out.

The scoreline flattered England in the end, they
lacked conviction and control.

Considering that so many teams spent the summer months suffering through strength and
conditioning camps in an effort to be ready for the humidity and warmth of Japan, it's so surprising that teams are struggling to compete for the full 80. Especially against "lesser" nations who you wouldn't expect to be able to stay in the fitness battle themselves. Of course, it could simply be a matter of teams adapting to their environment, shaking off the rust, and finding their groove in a climate they've never experienced. Although considering the amount of prep time nations have these days, I don't buy that excuse.

Some teams are lucky, they can get away with a slow start. Wales and England were gifted nice openers, and Ireland came up against an apathetic Scotland. They'll all have to switch on soon enough or face an embarrassing defeat at the worst of times.