Jamie Mackintosh will miss the game against Manawatu this week due to a one-week ban he received for stomping/stamping on a Waikato player's back, which ripped the red, black and yellow hoops to shreds and left no doubt in our minds that this form of the game is well and truly being stamped out.
Originally, hacking (kicking people in the shins) and rucking were accepted parts of rugby, but slowly and surely these demonstrations of dominance, now considered barbaric and unnecessary, are being eliminated.
Of course, there are some barbaric acts that should be eliminated because they fall outside the formal and informal rules of the game.
Basically, any act that targets the head or comes from the head should be stamped out. This includes biting, eye-gouging, head-butting, head-high tackles, neck-rolling and rucking of the head.
However, the acts of thinking tactically, making wise decisions, and having empathy for those who have chosen to enter battle with you on the rugby field should remain.
In my opinion, the act of tap-dancing on someone's body (not their head) is the best way of self-policing one of the most complicated and mysterious aspects of the game - the ruck.
In the past, players knew not to lie on the wrong side of a ruck and pretend they were ''stuck''. More often than not, they quickly became unstuck if they felt boots on their back.
It was an unwritten agreement between players that lying over the ball would result in having the Irish jig performed on the offending piece of body, resulting in big welts that made you wince (but not whimper) in the shower.
Although I can understand why rucking near the head needs to be punished swiftly and severely, has a ruck to the body ever caused a player to sit out a game while they recover?Rugby is a contact sport, and surely the force of tackles in the modern game (and the damage they can cause) is more of a concern than the act of rucking.
The purpose of rucking an individual who is lying on your side of a ruck is to get access to the ball. As long as the rucking is a means to an end, and not an end in itself, all is fair in love and war.
During his one-week suspension, Mackintosh may want to consider whether his act is equivalent to what All Whites defender Ben Sigmund did to United Arab Emirates player Ali Mabkhout.
On both occasions, the act of stomping on another player occurred. Sigmund's act, however, was personal and an end in itself.
He made a legitimate attempt to tackle Mabkhout but, in a moment of stupidity, decided that, rather than jumping over the player to get the ball that was now free, he would land with intent on top of his opponent's legs with his sprigs.
Not only did he aim for one leg, but both, and not only did he use one boot, but two. There is no denying that his intention was to hurt or injure Mabkhout so as to eliminate him from the game. Either that or he was just frustrated and decided to take it out on a prone player who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The tactic backfired on Sigmund, who will, at the least, cop a one-match ban and at the most, a two-match ban, if found guilty of violent conduct.
Luckily for Sigmund, whatever punishment is dished out will only apply to friendlies so, in a way, he has got away with it.
Mackintosh hasn't been as fortunate. The ban means his milestone of 100 games for Southland is pushed back, another prop gets an opportunity to shine and, with Southland and Manawatu both desperate for wins, not having the captain on the field could cost the Stags the game.
Let's hope the rest of the Southland team have left their tap-dancing shoes back in Invercargill, not because it isn't a part of the game I see as playing an essential role, but because in this day and age of professional sport with short turnaround times, who is willing to rock/ruck the boat and buck/ruck the system at their own and their team's expense?
