It’s tough to get your head around this judicial decision

OPINION: Have your eyes adjusted to that thick blanket of murky cloud yet? You know, the one that has us left in the dark. Have your ears pricked up on that screeching silence yet? You know, the one with the cone around it.

If not, don’t worry, your head isn’t the only one left spinning like Waisake Naholo’s in Wellington on Saturday night.

It’s not so much that British and Irish Lions flanker Sean O’Brien got off his judiciary charge for his swinging arm on the All Blacks winger, but more about everyone not being allowed to understand the reason why.

Instead, it’s just another one for rugby’s land of confusion. Add it to scrum wheeling and breakdown laws.

That All Blacks second fiveeighth Sonny Bill Williams was red carded - meaning an automatic judiciary hearing - then copped a four-week suspension for his shoulder charge to the face of Lions winger Anthony Watson was understandable. Dealt with on-field, dealt with off-field, no issues.

That Lions prop Mako Vunipola was yellow carded for a dangerous cleanout on All Blacks first five-eighth Beauden Barrett and wasn’t cited was understandable. Dealt with onfield, then citing commissioner Scott Nowland didn’t feel further action was needed.

That O’Brien’s 59th-minute shot on Naholo was let go on-field was somewhat understandable - it didn’t look overly bad from a particular angle.

What was not so easy to understand, however, was how O’Brien was given a free pass to the Garden of Eden for Saturday’s blockbusting series decider.

O’Brien had forced Naholo into a concussion test - the same as what Williams had done to Watson. Thankfully both men passed.

But it’d just be nice to be able to inform the public and those masses of rugby fans about why O’Brien was deemed not guilty and why it didn’t meet red-card criteria.

The all-Australian judicial panel had just finished up on Williams’ case before O’Brien’s turn came, in Wellington on Sunday night.

A long day for the trio, but after a marathon near four-hour hearing, that’s some serious consideration.

But all we got is a paragraph which reads: ’’Having conducted a detailed review of all the evidence available, including all video footage and additional evidence from the player and submissions from his legal representative Max Duthie, the independent judicial committee dismissed the citing complaint.’’

While of course we don’t care for a word-for-word account of how it played out, just a bit more summary of why the verdict was reached would do the world of good.

Players will be left wondering what really is and isn’t allowed on the field, while fans will just be left scratching their heads further.