New Zealand fullback Jordie Barrett's boot struck a lot of points in Cardiff. It also struck the face of Marika Koroibete very recently when New Zealand played Australia. As he rose to catch a high ball, Barrett's right leg shot out in front of him, and referee Damon Murphy gave the absolutely correct red card decision.
But the story isn’t over. The judicial panel bought fully into the explanation, provided by biomechanical engineers in defence of the player, that Barrett’s foot came up only because he was attempting to rebalance himself, and that the contact was inadvertent. Not intentional is agreed, but it’s far too big a stretch that it was neither reckless or dangerous. The result was that not only did Barrett get away scot free, the red card was expunged from his record. The judicial panel also reviewed the medical report of Koroibete, who, thanks only to good fortune, had not been injured.
My opinion on the rebalancing argument is that it is high quality horse manure and that the judicial panel have created a very dangerous and unwise precedent. Several previous such incidents have, quite rightly, all resulted in suspensions.
The length of a rugby stud is 21mm, pretty much the depth of an eyeball. So, here’s the question: if Koroibete’s eye-ball had been catastrophically punctured there would have been a scene resembling something from Quentin Tarantino’s darkly humoured, blood-filled, movie, Pulp Fiction, and what then would have been the decision of the experts? Again, just asking, but I think we all know the answer.
Another question is this: does New Zealand get what New Zealand wants? It is scandalous that all international test match judicial hearings do not come under the auspices of World Rugby. In this case it was the responsibility of the southern hemisphere’s Sanzaar to conduct matters. World Rugby must do a lot better here, take a leadership role, and not allow this state of affairs to continue. Unfortunately we will see more of this nonsense until that problem is fixed.
There is a right of appeal on judicial outcomes vested in World Rugby, but - perhaps wisely - they have done nothing formal, and avoided confrontation. But one can only hope that there are behind the scenes discussions on this one.
It was a cynical deliberate offence, and that's a nailed on yellow card. The referee and TMO needed to do better
World Rugby also need to tell us their view on this decision. It’s impossible to believe that such a so-called rebalancing argument will be accepted by the governing body, or by referees, when it occurs again. As confusion will come, unless we get that clarity.
On Saturday, New Zealand were dazzling, initially wearing down a weakened Wales, sensibly taking their penalty points, as the scoreboard ticked merrily along. As soon their opponents were on the ropes, the ball was moved at lightning speed and their passing skills were sublime as they racked up a total of 54 points, which well could have been more.
And yet, they came out in the right side of two foul play sanctions, and here's my third question. How come? A yellow was due after a deliberate knock-on by Beauden Barrett, but Mathieu Raynal ruled that there was New Zealand cover. Yes, okay, but cover or not, it was a cynical deliberate offence, and that's a nailed on yellow card. The referee and TMO needed to do better.
Just before half-time the New Zealand prop Nepo Laulala hit his shoulder high into Ross Moriarty. The replays were not at all pretty and the Welshman could not continue, leaving the field in considerable pain. The referee's decision here was yellow, not red, because another New Zealand player had caused Moriarty's body position to shift. Well, you've got to wonder.
Further, neither Raynal, nor the TMO, Brian MacNeice, thought it necessary to review the action of that other New Zealand player, Ethan Blackadder. He too had failed to make any attempt to tackle and had also made significant illegal contact with Moriarty’s head. It looked at least equal to Laulala’s hit, so surely it should have been similarly sanctioned. It deserved it more.
The punishment must also be seen to fit the crime, and the length of suspensions is currently not a deterrent, as argued here before
There was also a midair clash between Jordie Barrett and Wales' Josh Adams which resulted in the latter being pinged. Probably correct from the TMO who did well here, but not easy.
In the harsh reality of things, the referees are in the front line of all of this discipline business but there is a clear disparity between hemispheres as to what is, and what isn’t, a red card. We hear so much talk of player welfare, but when push comes to shove, there needs to be complete consistency, which there is not, and it leaves the officials in a quandary, on the horns of a dilemma. Nevertheless, I believe that they will stick to their task as best they can, and despite the huge pressure which they are under.
The punishment must also be seen to fit the crime, and the length of suspensions is currently not a deterrent, as argued here before. Fijian Iosefa (Joe) Tekori is a fine Toulouse rugby player but his tackling technique is often dangerous. Just a couple of weeks ago he received a red card for a completely illegal hit on Biarritz hooker Romain Ruffenach, who was seriously injured, with a badly ruptured anterior cruciate ligament.
Tekori received a six-week suspension, with a week (only) added because of his poor disciplinary record. But that total of seven weeks was then reduced to four because he apologised. Next, unbelievably, he received a further week’s reduction by applying to undergo specific tackling training. This was a measure introduced by World Rugby not so long ago, but surely safe tackling techniques should be a normal part of everyday coaching, rather than another way of reducing the sanction.
The result of all of this is that Tekori can return to play in three weeks. Meanwhile, Ruffenach will be out for at least six months, and have to undergo extensive treatment, plus weeks and weeks of rehabilitation.
It’s blindingly obvious that the whole process badly needs a massive overhaul, to become more professional, and - most of all - to be centralised, under the control and direction of World Rugby. If both hemispheres do not wish agree to that, there is yet another question. Why not?
