Jordie Barrett’s Red Card

Disciplinary Disciplinary/Foul Play/Kick/New Zealand/Player Welfare/Red Card/Sanctions/SANZAAR/Southern Hemisphere/World Rugby September 12, 2021September 13, 2021

Jordie Barrett’s Red Card

Jordie Barrett’s red card in New Zealand’s final Bledisloe Cup (2021) match against Australia has been met with no shortage of controversy. In the 28^th minute, Barrett’s boot struck the face of Australia’s Marika Koroibete, as the All Black attempted to catch a high ball (video here). Barrett was shown a red card by the referee, but this was subsequently overturned following a hearing before the SANZAAR Judicial Committee (the “Judicial Committee”). Current and former players have been united in their support of Barrett, but many others feel that the Judicial Committee’s decision was wrong.

This article will offer a brief analysis of the case and will argue that the incident did not merit a red card. The Judicial Committee was right.

1. The Disciplinary Proceedings

Following his red card, Barrett was charged with committing an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.11 (players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others) and was required to attend a disciplinary hearing before the Judicial Committee.

The player argued that the referee had been wrong to issue a red card, and that there was no foul play. Whilst the full judgment has not been published, it is clear that Barrett would have argued that his contact with Koroibete was accidental – not reckless – and thus there was no breach of Law 9.11.

Expert biomechanical evidence was adduced on Barrett’s behalf which explained that Barrett used a standard technique of lifting his knee to gain jump height but, as he had slightly overrun the ball and had to lean back to collect it, he then raised his knee further, by flexing his hip. The experts explained that this hip flexion was necessary to prevent the backwards rotation of his body and thus to avoid the risk of landing on his head. They added that, due to the laws of motion, Barrett’s landing position was predetermined when he left the ground, and he could not have changed it deliberately.[1]

It thus appears that Barrett’s movement was a reflex action to prevent himself from over-rotating. Importantly, it was also pointed out that Barrett did not ‘kick’ his leg out – the angle of his knee remained close to 90 degrees throughout.

The Judicial Committee concluded that:

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.

2. Analysis

In this author’s view, the Judicial Committee’s decision is perfectly correct.

As rugby disciplinary panels have made clear in the past, “accidental head contact is not foul play”.[2] Once Barrett was in the air, there was nothing he could have done to avoid his foot making contact with Koroibete, without risking himself injury. A reflex action such as this was effectively out of Barrett’s control. Thus, no fault could be attributed to him and, as such, no act of foul play was committed. An act must be “reckless” or intentional to amount to foul play. This was purely accidental.

However, some have suggested that Barrett was nonetheless reckless in jumping to catch a ball which he had overrun (and thus somewhat off-balance) and that he should therefore be held responsible for the resulting contact with Koroibete. This author respectfully disagrees.

Under World Rugby’s regulations, recklessness is defined as being where the player “knew (or should have known) there was a risk of committing an act(s) of Foul Play”.[3] By implication, therefore, a player will commit an act of foul play where they should have known that their actions carried a risk committing that act of foul play but nonetheless performed those actions.

Thus, to test this suggestion, one must ask: should Barrett have known that by jumping to catch a ball (which he had slightly overrun) there was a risk that his boot would strike Koroibete in the face and, as a necessary corollary, should he therefore not have jumped for the ball in such circumstances?

In this author’s view, that is simply not reasonable. In a fast-moving and dynamic situation (which is a fundamental part of the game) it is difficult to say that Barrett should have known that he had misjudged the flight of the ball such that he would become off-balance when he jumped and that, as a result, his foot would be raised and that it would then strike an opponent in the face. There are simply far too many variables in that chain of reasoning.

Whilst it was perhaps a foreseeable outcome, it was by no means a likely outcome and, in this author’s view, it is not reasonable to expect a player to recognise such a risk in the moment and, less still, to refrain from attempting to catch the ball.

Some might suggest that this sits at odds with the game’s approach to high tackles and head contact more generally. However, there is a distinction to be drawn. In tackle situations, the tackler is an aggressor, seeking to physically impose themselves on a ball-carrier. The ball-carrier is vulnerable and (largely) unable to defend themselves from the tackle. Further, the risks of head contact are far greater than in the ‘high ball’ situation. It is thus reasonable to impose a greater standard of care on the tackler – it is fair to expect them to do more to avoid committing an act of foul play.

Yet in Barrett’s case, it was arguably he who was in the more vulnerable position, with Koroibete preparing to impose himself physically. Koroibete himself had time to assess the situation and its risks. Whilst Barrett undoubtedly still owed Koroibete a duty of care, he did not, in this author’s view, breach that duty. There was nothing unreasonable about his conduct, in the circumstances. The contact was simply an unfortunate rugby accident. The game of rugby is awash with risks, and players should not necessarily be sanctioned every time one of those risks materialises.

In the past, similar incidents have resulted in red cards and lengthy bans.[4] However, each case turns on its own precise facts and cannot easily be equated. In situations where a catcher has seen an opponent coming and deliberately stuck out a leg, or where they have deliberately kicked out to ward off potential tacklers, there is no difficulty in finding that they have been reckless. Nonetheless, this author is concerned that, in the past, disciplinary panels have been willing to find make such a finding somewhat too readily,[5] and it is hoped that the Barrett decision will encourage panels to examine such incidents more closely in future.

Article by Ben Cisneros. Ben is a Trainee Solicitor at Morgan Sports Law. Please email ben.cisneros@morgansl.com for any legal or media enquiries.