The Tempest: Skilful Manipulation and Illusion?

Well, that didn’t go as planned.

The RFUs introduction of the new rule that ( The rule ) any contact with the head in “reckless tackles” will be penalised with at least a yellow card hasn’t actually gone according to plan in a smooth and seamless transition.

Probably the biggest talking point has to be the Sarries v Chiefs game where Barritt and Barrington both collided with Parling early in the game. Ian Tempest, the ref, felt that Barrington was culpable (red card) but Barritt was sweet innocence, not even a sin bin?

Taking into account that Barritt had a swinging arm it’s difficult to see how he adjudged that. For me, if there were to be any leeway it would have been in favour of Barrington but, let’s be honest, the harsh rules are clear and both should have gone….at least to the bin, probably Red.

Bizarrely the RFU Disciplinary Panel reversed Tempest’s decision and Barritt was banned while Barrington has been allowed to play on. Given that Barritt was instrumental in Sarries performance and without him it is extremely likely that Sarries would have lost I have to ask myself how did Tempest come to the conclusion he did?

For me, given the new regs, both Barritt AND Barrington were Reds. And Chiefs victory was a foregone conclusion.

DID THAT AFFECT TEMPEST’S DECISION?

It’s early in the game and we have an incident that would most definitely affect the outcome. No-one I have spoken to believes that the Barrington hit was anything other than  a Red Card in the new regs. No-one I have spoken to believes the Barritt hit was anything other than a Red Card in the new regs.

But BOTH, if Reds, will have affected the outcome of a league deciding game.

No pressure then?

And no pressure on the RFU who have decided that not only did Tempest get it wrong when he failed to Red Card Barritt he also got it wrong when he did Red Card Barrington. I have no doubts that Ian feels loved and supported.

For me there can be no doubt about Barritt. It’s a swinging arm every day of the week. And in the above capture Barrington’s shoulder is only going one way. In this pic Sarries lost the game in the new regs…..but they pulled a draw from certain defeat.

I would love to chat with Tempest and see where he felt Barrington was a red but not Barritt in such a crucial game. And then the RFU when they completely reversed that decision.

For me? Two reds and a Chiefs victory. but the record doesn’t show that.

Imperfect needs perfecting

It seems impossible to find anyone who stands against the new regulations concerning high tackles.

The specific provisions of Law 10.4(e) in relation to High Tackles are as follows:

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play. A stiff-arm tackle is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.

Incidents are mounting in regard to the new regulations concerning high tackles and Refs are not permitted any leeway…..the number of times I have heard a Ref apologise seems to be increasing exponentially.

Let’s take two more recent incidents.

The open handed slap from Phil Burleigh of Edinburgh on Pascal Pape of Stade Francais. Even by his own standards Maxwell-Keys seemed embarrassed about issuing a red card to Burleigh, seeming to apologise.

I have yet to find anyone that believed the red card was justified but have found many that felt Pape should have at least had a yellow. One has to ask if Nigel Owens would have handled it differently.

And on Saturday Sarries must consider themselves lucky that their captain (and game saver) Brad Barritt wasn’t red carded for a high tackle on Geoff Parling. Richard Barrington was sent off for a secondary collision so why didn’t Barritt go as well?

Did Ian Tempest err massively in that decision?

It seems that Refs are now being relied upon less and less and that the TMO is being called upon far too much.

The Glos V Saints game is particularly relevant. As it was not a televised game there was a reduced number of cameras available to the TMO. When it came to the Ben Morgan try the decision went against the home side. On reflection it seemed like a good try….when the RIGHT image was studied.

In that particular case the ref was required to ask a question…the wording could have been “Try yes or no?” or “Is there any reason I cannot award a try?”. Ultimately, how that question was put decided whether or not Gloucester won the game. Gloucester lost.

The TMO, I believe, is a force for good. God alone knows I hear many complaints from friends who support the other game and decry the lack of a TMO. But there has to be a line drawn. If there are limitations due to a reduced camera  facility caused by a game not being televised the Refs need to ensure they are able to make decisions based on a more limited information stream.

And arseholes like Pape need to know  yellow, or even  Red Cards, are possible if they try it on.