Good reason for Ta’avao to feel aggrieved

Try telling Brodie Retallick that Andrew Porter’s contact was an ‘‘absorbing tackle’’. The big All Blacks lock is set to miss most of the Rugby Championship with a broken cheekbone, while Porter gets to enjoy an Irish summer without a ban hanging over his head.

Porter was yellow carded after the collision in the 50th minute of the third test in Wellington.

He was cited for a dangerous tackle but argued at his disciplinary hearing that while it was foul play it wasn’t a red card offence.

The World Rugby judiciary concurred, ruling that it ‘‘did not meet the red card threshold due to the absorbing nature of the tackle’’.

All Blacks fans, however, are left scratching their noodles wondering whether there were many degrees of difference between Porter’s case and that of New Zealand prop Angus Ta’avao, who was sent off in the second test after a head clash and banned for three weeks.

The rugby public is still in the dark about the Porter case due to World Rugby’s failure to spell out what an ‘‘absorbing’’ tackle actually means.

Presumably, they are intimating that Ta’avao was banned because he was moving forward at the point of collision with Ireland midfielder Garry Ringrose, who had stepped slightly before contact. By contrast Porter was more static at the moment of impact with Retallick.

If that’s the case, why not tell us explicitly?

The closest we’ve had to an explanation was referee Wayne Barnes’ audible television comments that ‘‘Number one [Porter] is upright, so we have got foul play. It is an absorbing tackle, not a dominant tackle, there is no mitigation’’.

Barnes’ ruling was accepted by an independent judicial committee comprising former Springboks back Stefan Terblanche and exScotland coach Frank Hadden and chaired by Australia senior counsel Adam Casselden.

Such an esteemed group would have given due weight to World Rugby’s head contact process, which pledges zero tolerance of foul play where head contact occurs.

The process allows for mitigating factors to be considered, including whether a tackle was ‘‘passive’’ or ‘‘dynamic’’.

Retallick might have difficulty accepting that the impact that fractured his cheekbone was ‘‘passive’’.

In reaching their ‘‘absorbing’’ tackle verdict, the panel has effectively ruled the foul play in this case meant the ‘‘yellow card issued at the time by match officials was correct in the circumstances’’.

Under the protocols, they were thus entitled to issue their judgment saying there would no further sanctions.

Yet, how does a head contact case which results in a player breaking his cheekbone and missing two months of test rugby merit the same punishment – 10 minutes in the sinbin – as a miscreant marched for a deliberate knock-on or persistent offside at a ruck?

Would it now be worth NZ Rugby attempting to appeal Ta’avao’s ban, using the Porter case as evidence?

Would Ta’avao – left seeing stars with blood seeping from his own head – have been sent off if Barnes had been charge of the second test, refereed by South Africa’s Jaco Peyper?

Retallick left the field hurt, while Porter did his time in the Cake Tin cooler, and Ireland were able to finish the game with 15 men and clinch an historic first series win in New Zealand.