Laws and referees’ interpretations making game a hard watch

DIRECT contact to the head with force and no mitigating circumstances — red card.

That was how referee Damon Murphy and his crew ruled

Jordie Barrett’s foot contact with Marika Koroibete in Sunday’s Bledisloe Cup test.

To the letter of the law, it probably was not wrong.

That is where the problem is. There is so much ambiguity in rugby’s laws today. In so many ways, they simplify some complex situations.

It is making the game a hard watch and it must make the players feel as though they are walking on egg shells.

The referees are in a tough position, too.

Simplicity should make their job easier. But they are being directed by World Rugby to protect the head at what sometimes seems like all costs.

After the opening weekend of the last World Cup, World Rugby even came out and slammed its officials for not giving enough cards for “foul play”.

The precedent was set, and the parameters for what we all deemed foul play needed to shift.

A slew of cards followed, all in the name of player welfare.

Protecting players is important. But rugby is a fastpaced, contact sport. Accidents are going to happen.

Situations are going to arise when avoiding head contact is nearly impossible.

Then they pick and choose when those situations apply — how is a tackler making contact with a ballcarrier’s head any different from a ballcarrier dropping their shoulder into a tackler’s head?

Was Barrett’s contact — when he kicked his foot out midair into Koroibete’s head, while taking a high ball — really worth a red card?

Even a new 20minute red card, which vastly reduces its impact, can have a huge bearing on a game.

Barrett’s eyes were up the whole time. He may well not have known Koroibete was even there.

He seemed to lose balance in the air and stuck his leg out to regather momentum.

It was unfortunate, sure. But these are the sorts of incidents that will happen on a rugby field at times.

Was it reckless? Maybe. But that is ignoring the reality of the game.

The point of implementing cards for foul play is to be a deterrent, to reduce the number of occurrences.

Giving a red card for an incident in which the player had no idea what was happening is not going to stop it happening again.

There is a difference between recklessly flying into a ruck and doing what Barrett did. Yet there seems little scope for differentiating between the two.

And for an official — who has been publicly pressured to look after the head — is it any surprise that the goto response was to jump to the harshest sanction?

The All Blacks’ focus will now turn to Barrett’s disciplinary hearing, in which they will have to prove the incident did not justify a red card.

If they are unable to, Barrett could miss the rest of the Rugby Championship.