Good news for the All Blacks: Scott Barrett has escaped a ban. Bad news for the game: The law he transgressed for his second yellow card against the Boks is transgressed in just about every ruck in every first-class match.
And this is where the game is now in the wake of a Test at Twickenham which took 107 minutes (the first half alone took at least 60 minutes) and with the ball in play for only 33.
It’s riddled with inconsistencies in the application of the laws by too many officials which extends Tests past the limit of many supporters’ patience.
Not convinced? Take a look at the finding of the independent judicial hearing which cleared Barrett of any further sanction for his two yellow cards (which equalled a red) earned during the All Blacks’ 35-7 defeat to the Boks.
It has left Barrett, whose first yellow card was the result of a technical transgression after a team warning, available for the first World Cup match against France in Paris on September 9.
But it will do little to alleviate the concern that the tournament is set to descend into a plaything for overly officious referees, assistant referees, TV match officials and “Bunker” officials.
In charging into a prone Malcolm Marx near the end of the first half for his second yellow, Barrett fell foul of law 9.20 (a), which states: “A player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without binding onto another player in the ruck or maul.”
Barrett received a red card in the All Blacks warm-up match against South Africa over the weekend, which might have put his opening World Cup appearance in jeopardy. (Source: 1News)
The problem here is that players charge into nearly every ruck in a Test. Many no longer bother to attempt to even appear to stay on their feet. None bind onto another player before they do so.
Barrett’s charge into Marx, which connected with the Boks’ hooker’s arm and shoulder area (and went perilously close to his head) was reckless but it was the result of the All Blacks' lock landing on the wrong side of an incredibly fine line.
As a tight forward – and one of the best in the world on current form – Barrett’s goal is to clear out all of those primary threats to the All Blacks’ ball. That is the expectation and a Monday morning review would not be kind on him should he take a more passive approach here.
The tackle ball area is a hugely contested and physically dangerous place to be but while Barrett’s collision was at the upper end of the scale in terms of risk, plenty of similar collisions in that Test went unpunished.
One during the first half on an unsuspecting Dane Coles which hit the hooker on the back of his neck, for instance, apparently went unseen by the officials. It was certainly unpunished.
Moreover, the Barrett hearing committee decided, perhaps counter-intuitively, that “there was not a high degree of danger” in his actions “because the first contact was with the arm. We found that the player did not enter late, because the ball was still present at the time of entry, although the player did enter after other players. The player entered the ruck at a reasonable speed”.
It decided that the main issue with Barrett’s collision was that he “had charged into a ruck, driving down rather than driving through the ruck”.
Again, that’s not uncommon, either.
Fast forward to that match against the hosts at the Stade de France a week on Saturday, a hugely significant match for both teams which will be played out amidst global scrutiny and an unprecedented hype as the French begin their campaign to claim the Webb Ellis Cup for the first time.
The All Blacks, physically dominated by the Boks, will be seeking to make an immediate statement - the French, hyped by their home crowd, likewise.
What are the chances players break the laws of the game by charging into a ruck or maul? I would predict a figure not less than 100%.
How will the officials deal with it? Your guess is as good as mine.
SHARE ME