Rugby Championship 2021 Thread

Intent isn't a factor in game, but it is at the citing hearing.

It's a terrible call. Whatever about not banning him, overturning the red is crazy. How can you not be reckless when you've made contact with someone face with your studs!? Its like saying that a driver who looked away from the road and ended up hitting someone who "encroached on their driving space" isn't reckless. Of course it is. Its utter madness. And now gives the green light to players raising their feet and using their studs in the same way. Player welfare my backside.

I've no interest in going down the "NZ always get away with this stuff" malarkey. I think what this shows is a fundamental attitude difference within the Southern Hemisphere generally on these things. Adam Hastings got 3 weeks for the very same thing. The "games gone soft" brigade I'm sure are only too delighted.

In your example above the person initiating the contact is the tackler. Barrett initiated it in this case though, so they are fundamentally different things.

And nobody wants multiple red cards in every game. Theres no need for that sort of hyperbole. Referees getting the blame for handing out reds is unfair and wholly misplaced. Players need to modify their behaviours so we don’t see red cards, not referees.

Koroibete initiated the contact. He went in for the tackle. I wonder what would have happened if he had been a bit lower or 6 inches to the side and ended up under Barrett's leg. Chances are he would have been penalised.

I do get the feeling that NH refs are more willing th o hand out reds than SH refs.

The motion of Barrett’s leg is not a corrective one for balance. That is a complete red herring argument. After he catches the ball he brings his leg up to be straight out in front of him. This is not a natural movement to create balance. Yes your leg might rise by about 15-20 degrees as a counterbalance. Bringing it up to a 90 degree angle is a conscious choice. His leg doesn’t start to rise till after he catches the ball at which point he isn’t leaning back. He put his leg out deliberately to prevent the possibility of a tackle in the air. In doing so he caught a player full in the face with his studs. There is no mitigation in that, it’s dangerous play. Even if he was trying to protect himself.

He's not even slightly in Barrett's landing space, unless you count the full length of an outstretched leg away as being in his landing space.

Agreed on the judiciary thing. Overturning the red card and declaring it not foul play was insane.

Try jumping and raising your leg to that angle. Regardless of any hearings, physics dictates it’s not a balancing act. Therefore it’s a red herring to say it’s for balancing.

Did those two hearings say that it was done for balance?

Does it matter if it was for balance or not? If a player tackles someone high because they lost their balance is it deemed to be any less of a high tackle? At the end of the day, if you are putting yourself in that position, be it as a tackler or jumping for the ball, you are responsible for the outcome of your actions. The balance excuse might mitigate things in terms of the citing sanction, but shouldn’t be a factor in terms of the card at all.

I’ve long been of the opinion that WR need to look at the whole player in the air thing anyway. The player in the air is at risk, but if we’re now also saying that anyone within full leg length distance is also at risk then we need to address that.