SH Somewhat Different Ruling to Paolo.

[Neils]

Jordie Barrett cleared of red card for kick to head, raising questions about inconsistent punishments

A judicial hearing ruled that Barrett's kick was inadvertent, Odogwu's action were deemed 'reckless' and a six-week ban followed

ByTelegraph Sport8 September 2021 • 10:23am

All Blacks full-back Jordie Barrett is free to play in the Rugby Championship after his red card for a boot to the face of Australia winger Marika Koroibete was dismissed by a judiciary panel.

The decision has highlighted the vast differences in how rugby authorities punish offences, after a similar incident in the Gallagher Premiership in 2019 resulted in a six-week ban. 

Barrett was sent off after making contact with Koroibete while jumping to catch a high ball in the 38-21 win over Australia at Perth Stadium on Sunday. This year's Rugby Championship is being used to trial a new law which meant Barrett was replaced after 20 minutes by a player from the bench.

Governing body SANZAAR's judicial hearing ruled the contact was inadvertent while Barrett lost his balance in the air.

"With no intent to lash out, the hearing cleared him of wrongdoing and removed the red card from his record," SANZAAR said. “He legitimately went up in the air to collect a high ball, when in trying to regain his balance on the downward trajectory, his boot inadvertently made contact with his opponent’s head

“The accidental nature of the incident lead the judicial committee to find that there was no intentional nor reckless act of dangerous play, with the result that the red card is expunged from the player’s record.”

As a result, the committee found Barrett not guilty of contravening Law 9.11, which states that players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others after a hearing in which the All Blacks brought in two expert biomechanists to give evidence.

Barrett's action were defended by Ireland legend Brian O’Driscoll on Twitter following the match: “It is a totally natural action for the catching player to balance themselves out with an extended leg,” O'Driscoll wrote.

A different interpretation of a similar incident occurred during the Premiership in 2019, when Wasps' Paolo Odogwu saw red for making contact with the head of Sale's Jono Ross while claiming a high ball. Odogwu was banned for six weeks by the RFU for "reckless" play.


Like Barrett, Odogwu claimed his outstretched leg was there to "assist his balance" but that was rejected by the independent panel even though they agreed that the contact with the face was unintentional.

"He did intend to use his outstretched leg to fend off a potential oncoming player and was reckless as to whether or not it made contact or caused injury." independent panel chair Dan White said at the time.

"In this case the dangerous action of the player resulted in a minor injury to the Sale player.

"In our opinion this was nevertheless a top-end entry point; his disrespectful behaviour to the referee and crowd, after receiving the red card, only served to reinforce our view. His behaviour reflected poorly on the player and the game as a whole."

Barrett is now free for Sunday's match against Argentina on the Gold Coast as the All Blacks look for a third successive win in the competition.

"I'm just rapt with the outcome. They could see that I had no intent to hurt Marika in the game," Barrett said after escaping a ban. "Just super lucky to avoid sanction and excited for the week ahead."

[NellyWellyWaspy]

This comes entirely from ruling on intent and not outcome. As soon as you allow intent, you have get out of jail free cards available. Whilst 'natural justice' suggests intent should always be considered. Sneaky lawyers will always use it, thus it should not be allowed. Paolo made matters worse by his reaction, sadly. Should the iRFU specifically exclude 'intent'? IMO, yes.

[Brandnewtorugby]

Perhaps there were differences in the situations, seem to remember the ref at least thought that because Paulo looked at the oncoming player it was intentional. I wonder if similar incidents are reviewed by the citing committees, sort of like case law?

If you take a step back, it is odd that in a game where a team were clearly gunning for the receivers in an almost NFL type of way, that Paulo ended up banned for what was probably an instinctive reaction to his balance and the on rushing player.

[DGP Wasp]

The issue is more one of consistency though.  If the RFU don't take intent into consideration, then nor should SANZAAR.  World Rugby cannot afford to let any head contact go unpunished as they know a load of lawsuits await, and the recent bunch will only be the tip of the iceberg.  I totally get the notion that this an entirely natural movement to maintain balance in the air, but I thought they were trying to achieve a change in mindset where players don't compete in the air if they cannot do so safely.  Barrett didn't intend harm, but he still put himself in a position where there was potential for harm, and that is what authorities have supposedly been trying to eradicate.  Or does it depend on the profile of the player and/or the match?

[Raggs]

You thrust a studded boot out at head height in the air, in a game like rugby, and you're being reckless. Just as if you go in with a swinging arm at shoulder height and the player dips slightly.

This is far from the first time that the SH committees have overturned what I believe to be correct decisions by refs.

[baldpaul101]

its never a surprise when a high profile player gets treated slightly differently, especially when its a sainted all black & member of the Barrett family.

[matelot22]

This is very bad for the game IMO. The inconsistencies in refereeing are bad enough, but if governing bodies now deviate from the letter of the laws, things can only get worse, and the divide between NH and SH only worsen. My niece's Kiwi husband immediately put Barrett's red card down to the NH unions making the game soft, it seems SANZAR are determined to make it look that way with decisions like this.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Another one: Gavin Hastings 3 week ban.

https://twitter.com/rugbyinsideline/status/1435504564380356609?s=21

[Rossm]

Another one: Gavin Hastings 3 week ban.

https://twitter.com/rugbyinsideline/status/1435504564380356609?s=21

A chip off the old block? It's Adam Hastings not Gavin

[Bloke in North Dorset]

Another one: Gavin Hastings 3 week ban.

https://twitter.com/rugbyinsideline/status/1435504564380356609?s=21

A chip off the old block? It's Adam Hastings not Gavin

Oops. Must pay attention and proof read