Scott Barrett’s red card in the first Bledisloe Cup test of 2019 has provoked outrage and controversy across the rugby world. The decision by referee Jerome Garces to send off the All Blacks’ second row for a shoulder charge on Australia’s Michael Hooper has been labelled by some as “ridiculous” and “the least deserved” red card in history. Such views could not be more wrong or more out of place in rugby union today.

Garces applied World Rugby’s high tackle framework explicitly and precisely, arriving at an outcome mandated by the international governing body in the interests of player welfare. This morning it was announced that Barrett has been handed a three-week ban.

This article will consider the incident in detail, applying the high tackle framework and explaining why a red card was the correct outcome. It will also explain why this is so important and will explain the disciplinary sanction that the player received from the SANZAAR foul play review committee.

The Red Card Decision

World Rugby’s decision-making framework for high tackles (the “Framework”) was explained and analysed in an earlier article on this blog (here) but has been brought into focus by the events of this weekend. The framework itself can be found here.

This video of the incident provides clear evidence of nature of the collision – the use (or not) of arms, the point of contact, the body heights and the force.

The starting point under the Framework is whether the collision is a “shoulder charge” or a “high tackle”. A shoulder charge is where:

“[The] arm of the shoulder making contact with the ball carrier is behind the tackler’s body or tucked in the sling position at contact”

This collision was evidently a shoulder charge. As the below image shows, Barrett’s arm was “tucked in the sling position at contact” – there was no attempt to use his leading arm in the tackle.

The second step is to determine the point of contact with the ball-carrier (Hooper). As the image above shows, there was contact with the head and neck. The initial point of contact appears to be at the bottom of Hooper’s neck, and Barrett’s shoulder and elbow then make contact with Hooper’s head.

Given that there was head/neck contact, the answer to the third question (of whether there was a high or low degree of danger) is presumed: it is always highly dangerous.

Thus, according to the Framework, wherever a shoulder charge makes contact with the head/neck, the appropriate sanction is always a red card – unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Mitigation

The mitigating factors given by the Framework are:

“The tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier’s head

The ball-carrier suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score)

The tackler is unsighted prior to contact

“Reactionary” tackle, immediate release”

Barrett and the All Blacks might argue that Hooper’s body height at the moment of impact was so low so as to mitigate against a red card. However, the Framework emphasises that there must be a sudden drop in height. In this case, there is no such drop – as the following two images show. Hooper picks up the ball and drives at a low angle. He is grabbed by All Blacks’ hooker Dane Coles but, at the moment of contact with Barrett’s shoulder, Hooper’s body height has not dropped significantly from the initial pick-up. It is only once he collides with Barrett’s shoulder that he falls to ground.

In fact, there are arguably aggravating factors. The Framework notes that it will be an aggravating factor if “the tackler and ball-carrier are in open space and the tackler has clear line of sight and time before contact”. Though it would be difficult to argue that this occurred in “open space”, Barrett did have a “clear line of sight” and “time” before making contact. During this time, and in spite of the clear line of sight, Barrett made no attempt to raise his leading arm to make a legal tackle and deliberately led with the shoulder.

Whether he intended to strike Hooper’s head is irrelevant. Barrett was reckless as to making contact with another player’s head (with force) and is thus fully deserving of the sanction he received on the field of play – not to mention any sanction he may receive subsequently.

The Wider Significance

This is not the first time I have set out the importance and significance of the new approach to high tackles and contact with the head. Earlier articles (here) and (here) have explained how the new protocols are driven by a concern for player welfare – a concern driven by evidence on the enormous increase in the number of tackles taking place each game and the corresponding figures showing the rise of concussion.

Just this week, World Rugby noted in a press release that ball in play time has risen by 50% since the 1987 Rugby World Cup, leading to a 252% increase in the number of tackles, and that tackles account for 76% of all concussions.

Of even greater concern is that the long-term dangers of repeated concussions are themselves becoming increasingly well-documented, and there have been numerous players who have had to retire as a result. Moreover, the legal implications of ignoring such a problem could be huge for those in charge of the administration of the game – as discussed in detail here and here.

The idea behind the Framework, and the new approach to high tackles, is to change players’ behaviour. It is intended that there will be harsher sanctions for any contact with the head/neck area, intentional or not. In cases where the contact was unavoidable, there is room for discretion such that there will be no sanction but, unless this is the case, players and teams will pay the price for not taking greater care.

This approach is centred around the importance of players showing a degree of care towards each other on the rugby field. This may sound counter-intuitive given that rugby predominantly involves players crashing into each other and trying to knock their opponents backwards, but with head injuries a unique approach is required. Broken limbs can be reinforced, torn muscles strapped, and wounds stitched up; but we only have one brain. It is far more vulnerable to irreparable injury and there is far less that can be done to repair it.

It is against this background that the rugby world must take collective action to lower the height of tackles and keep players’ heads out of harm’s way in so far as possible. It is against this background that players, teams and coaches must expect to see more red cards, for a time. And it is against this background that comments by the likes of Eddie Jones, Will Greenwood, NZ Herald journalist Gregor Paul and pundit Andy Goode appear rather foolish – and entirely out of place.

The Disciplinary Sanction

Lastly, it is worth explaining the disciplinary sanction that the player has received. In an initial version of this article, I speculated that Barrett would have been charged with “striking with the shoulder” under World Rugby Law 9.12 (“a player must not physically abuse anyone”) or, in the alternative, under Law 9.13 (“a player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously”). In actual fact, the charge was brought under Law 9.16:

“A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player.”

Under Appendix 1 to World Rugby Regulation 17, which provides guidance on sanctioning for all Unions and international organising bodies, “any act of foul play which results in contact with the head and/or neck shall result in at least a mid-range sanction”. The mid-range sanction for 9.12, 9.13 and 9.16 is six weeks.

Thus, the starting point for Barrett’s sanction was six weeks, subject to the consideration of mitigating (and aggravating factors), including consideration of the player’s off-field conduct, remorse, guilty plea (if applicable) and previous disciplinary record (World Rugby Regulation 17.9.5). Under Regulation 17.9.6, the maximum mitigation of the sanction can be 50% of the starting point.

The SANZAAR committee stated that they had taken into account:

“mitigating factors including the Player’s exemplary judicial record, his expressed remorse and the fact the Player has pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity”

Full mitigation was awarded and thus the player’s ban was set at three weeks.

The All Blacks play only two more tests before their opening World Cup match against South Africa on 21 September – against Australia on 17 August and Tonga on 7 September. It might seem, therefore, that the player should miss the opening World Cup fixture. However, the All Blacks’ lawyers must have argued that the player would also play in domestic competition between now and the World Cup, such that any ban (which applies to all competitive rugby – not just international) would expire before then.

In 2018 it was reported that Barrett had re-signed with Taranaki (a New Zealand provincial side which plays in the Mitre 10 Cup). Though he has not yet been called into the squad for this season, it would not be a surprise if the All Blacks argued that they were planning to allow him to get some game time at provincial level between now and the World Cup, particularly as Barrett has only just returned from injury.

As such the SANZAAR committee held that the player “is therefore suspended for 3 weeks, up to and including Sunday 1 September 2019.” Barrett is eligible to play against the Springboks come September.