Justice done for O’Brien despite Kiwi campaign to get even

Take a bow Jerome Garces for bucking the trend of referees turning a blind eye to All Black indiscretions over the last half century by sending off Sonny Bill Williams in the Lions’ second Test victory over New Zealand last weekend.

Congratulations also to an Aussie disciplinary panel that – for once – did not rule in favour of the old ANZAC alliance in the fall-out from the match by entering into a tit-for-tat banning following the citing of Lions flanker Sean O’Brien.

French referee Garces refused to be swayed by either the weight of history, or a distinct “it’s your funeral Jerome” attitude on behalf of the other match officials, in his decision to send off inside-centre Williams in Wellington.

Williams’ no-arms shoulder charge to the head of Anthony Watson was brutal, dangerous, and a stone cold red card. It was just the good fortune of the laws of physics aligning in Watson’s favour that the Lions wing was able to play on rather than be carted off having been knocked unconscious.

However, if Garces had been looking for professional advice or moral support from either assistant referee Jaco Peyper or TMO George Ayoub there was not much forthcoming.

Peyper broke his normal habit of non-stop commentary during matches by maintaining an eerie silence, while Ayoub kept his contribution to offering Garces endless replays of the incident.

It went a long way to explaining why Williams was not just the first New Zealand international to be sent off on home soil, but the first in the 50 years since Colin Meads got his marching orders at Murrayfield in 1967.

However, having studied the evidence Garces knew what he had seen, and in the words of an apprehensive Kiwi touchline broadcaster “stalked” Williams before brandishing the red card at him.

What appeared suspiciously like an orchestrated Kiwi campaign to get even gathered momentum rapidly when footage appeared of O’Brien clipping the All Black wing Waisake Naholo with his forearm midway through the second half.

There was also growing local outrage – endorsed by New Zealand coach Steve Hansen – over the off-the-ball wrestler’s flop by Mako Vunipola on Beauden Barrett, which earned the Lions loosehead a 55th minute yellowcard.

However, Hansen and his cohorts in the local media overstated their case by saying that Vunipola’s intention had been to drop an elbow on Barrett’s head, and that it would have been a red card if he had connected. My reading of it is that while it was rash indiscipline, if Vunipola had intended a full-frontal forearm smash to the fly-half ’s face it would have been delivered.

If that had been the case, which it definitively was not, then the Lions loosehead would have merited a ban at least as long as the four weeks handed down to Williams.

There was, however, no word of censure directed at Barrett from any quarter for sitting up but then returning to a prone position in soccer-style ‘Hollywood’ distress mode. The cue for Barrett’s instant recovery was the arrival of the magic sponge man and Vunipola’s march to the bin.

If the increase of soccer-style shamming in elite rugby union is hugely unwelcome, it is not the only unwanted development.

The attempts to conflate the Williams incident with O’Brien’s collision with Naholo was a classic case of emotional clap-trap. They were not incidents connected by anything other than that they occurred in the same match, and yet when O’Brien was exonerated after a three-and-a-half hour hearing on Sunday there was an outcry.

The whingeing from Kiwi commentators, both broadcast and print, that if Williams had copped it that O’Brien also had to was non-stop. Their prem- ise was that because the citing officer, Scott Nowland (Australia), flagged O’Brien for the red card offence of a swinging arm to the head that he was instantly guilty of it.

However, when details of the Judicial Committee’s ruling were eventually released two days before the third Test their deliberations showed that, “on the balance of probabilities”, O’Brien was not guilty of foul play.

Instead, the disciplinary panel of Adam Casselden, David Croft and John Langford, dismissed the citing complaint on the grounds that footage of the incident backed O’Brien’s denial of using a swinging right arm.

They considered that the flanker’s claim that his intention was to wrap his arm around the ball, or get on it, was plausible – especially as the palm his right hand was open and that he did not swing his arm in a manner that was deliberate or reckless.

They also concluded that Naholo had dropped towards the ground in the split-second before the collision so that his head came into contact with O’Brien’s forearm.

Where Hansen and the recently knighted Sir John Kirwan did have legitimate grounds for complaint was the drawn out nature of the disciplinary process. Hansen said that the rulings should be published immediately while Kirwan made the more radical suggestion that the hearing should be public rather than behind closed doors.

Either of those suggestions would be a distinct improvement. What is not acceptable is the idea that the punishment of an offence committed by one team – such as that by Williams – must automatically be offset by a similar punishment for their opponents.

“There was no word of censure directed at Barrett for soccer style ‘Hollywood’ distress mode”