We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Wed 11 Jan 2017 | 10:20
Barrington cleared while Barritt gets banned after no card

23
Comments

Following a dangerous challenge that resulted in a nasty concussion at the weekend, Saracens duo Richard Barrington and Brad Barritt both faced disciplinary hearings in London last night. In an interesting twist, Barrington was cleared and Barritt was suspended.

The two players tackled Exeter Chiefs lock Geoff Parling high, resulting in him needing to be taken off the field as he was knocked out cold.

At the time it was Barrington that saw red, while Barritt got off scot-free despite clearly tackling high. In the discussion when we first posted the video and story, opinions were mixed but the general feeling was that Barritt was very lucky to be overlooked.

Each player was then cited for a different offence, Barrington for dangerous charging, and Barritt for dangerous tackling.

The dangerous charge was dismissed though, and Barrington is free to play with immediate effect.

Barritt, however, pleaded guilty and was given a three-week suspension. He is free to play again on Tuesday 31st January.

The RFU Disciplinary panel said: "Following very careful analysis, the panel found that Mr Barrington had not committed the act of foul play alleged. The incident arose out of the specific dynamic of Mr Parling falling unconscious into what would have otherwise been a legitimate contact by Mr Barrington.

"In line with the new sanctions a mid-range entry of six weeks was imposed on Mr Barritt reduced to three weeks in light of mitigation including his guilty plea."

Posted By: Grant Constable

23 Comments

  • drg
    2:01 PM 15/01/2017

    RD mailing list?

  • danknapp
    8:23 PM 14/01/2017

    I'm check my phone first thing every morning to see if Nigel has sent me a reply about going for a beer, but still nothing.

  • drg
    7:21 PM 13/01/2017

    Dan don't be a knob, you're well aware that we're all professional armchair players and referees.... Until they start allowing us to judge matters by text voting a la x factor etc, then they'll miss out on our expertise....

    I'd suggest the reason no one signed up for lvl 1 ref is because we're already well ahead of lvl 1....

    We don't need to work our way up... I'm waiting for a senior referee commission so I can go in as an officer...

  • danknapp
    9:49 AM 13/01/2017

    I think it's a bloody good thing that they all meet up and discuss how they're going to interpret the rules. At least that way they go some way to trying to avoid too much inconsistency. How many of us really think that we'd do a better job if we were the ones in the middle?

    Ok, we can't become professional refs, but I got an email from my local club (where I coach minis) offering a level 1 ref course, and nobody had taken up any of the places. Doesn't that tell us something?

    I don't think it matters if the referees don't interpret the directives exactly as you or I would, as long as they all try to interpret them the same way. That's the crucial element.

    In this case, it turns out that the referee made the 'wrong' call. But at least he stepped up and made a call. Robshaw made a bad call at the end of our world cup campaign, but at least he made the call. Barrington's hit looked worse on the day, but with hindsight (and plenty of time to watch the replay on the interweb) we can agree Barritt deserved the card and that Barrington didn't actually hit Parling with much force. He hardly exploded into him the way he would have done if he was tackling him. The ref didn't have nearly as much time as we have, he had a lot of people looking at him, he knew he had to make a decision... and he did. I say, applaud the bloke for having the nerve to be a professional referee. I also thought the way he spoke to Barrington was very good.

  • drg
    11:20 PM 12/01/2017

    ..I would assume referees have a referee union, I would also assume that they are held accountable for their actions each time they take to the field.... Interpretation is a scary thing, what is dangerous to me might not be to you, or vice versa... Referee saying "Meh, thought it was weak as shit" other referee screaming murder, doesn't look good.... If you all sit in a room and agree that because you're all accountable and none of you wants to be singled out, then if you all make shit calls, chances are no one will be able to do anything....

    As for QC's and poorer nations....Why are we surprised? It's been happening in coach form/ player form for years, players leaving the Pacific islands to play for other teams *rolls eyes* in the search of more cash, coaches not heading to those nations because the cash isn't as wonderful as in other places.... It's only natural that as the business of rugby progresses that money becomes even more valuable....

  • drg
    11:15 PM 12/01/2017

    Not if they deemed the red card sufficient I guess.... Sounds to me like Barrington's clearing was on a technicality.... "He was cleared of dangerous charging".... That is what he was hauled in front of the judge for..... But if it was for say "dangerous play" or "dangerous tackling" would he still have been cleared?

  • im1
    2:01 PM 12/01/2017

    I'm not so sure his explanation was that great (other than him noting that having a really good QC can help in the hearing) and mainly becasue it is confusing on a slightly different point.

    He said the refs got together at the beginning of the season and agreed that they would send someone off for taking a man out in the air, which is what we understand is currently done. But this is not in line with the WR directive. What right do the refs have to interpret the WR directive in an obviously incorrect way. The directive allows for not even a penalty to be given provided that there was a legitimate challenge for the ball irrespective of how the other player lands.

    He has just added another lay of complexity and confusing to it by suggesting the refs make up their own interpretation of WR's directives on the Laws of the game, which are ultimately policed by a citing commissioner and panel, in which a highly trained and paid lawyer will argue the case to get offender off (and thats the main reason why Pacific nation teams get a hard deal when it comes to international citings because they can't afford expensive lawyers)

  • fitz
    12:58 PM 12/01/2017

    It's on the Rugby Tonight twitter feed, like you say, well worth watching.

  • im1
    12:15 PM 12/01/2017

    but if the red card was seen as correct, he should still have received the ban. Doesn't the ruling completely clear him of the ban.

    Note he was cited under the 'dangerous charging' law, not the 'dangerous tackling' law, so the new directive is irrelevant as that only deals with dangerous tackles.

  • danknapp
    10:58 AM 12/01/2017

    There was a really good breakdown of the ruling by Wayne Barnes on Rugby Tonight. It's not possible to watch the clip outside of the UK, I believe (based on what RD has told us in the past), but for those who can it's worth a watch.

  • jonnyenglish
    10:48 AM 12/01/2017

    Well, apparently so as he got banned.

  • stroudos
    10:09 AM 12/01/2017

    That's how I read it too. I agree with that judgement.

  • oliver
    8:52 AM 12/01/2017

    I am guessing Barrinton was cleared because they felt the red card was sufficient? The ref probably did not dare show 2 cards at the same time, but IMO that would have been warranted here.

  • jimmy23
    10:15 PM 11/01/2017

    Haha this incident has just raised even more questions, I predict some of us will be reliving a certain scene from Scanners at this rate.

  • 9:14 PM 11/01/2017

    I still can't see where in that video Barrington tried to tackle. He was always going to hit with the shoulder/chest and into the high chest area or above on Parling. He chose to make the tackle like that and on the edge of the laws and paid a penalty. I am surprised he got let off.

  • drg
    6:58 PM 11/01/2017

    Remember when it was only the bans than actually used to confuse us and not the laws themselves? Ahhh thems were the days...

  • conman
    5:38 PM 11/01/2017

    Hold on, how can they say Parlings was unconscious before Barrington hit him?? Surely it was his hit that was the more likely cause! Also, I believe that falling into the tackle is no longer an excuse under the new regulations. They seem to have this one all wrong from my (admittedly limited) understanding of the new regulations.

    I thought the ref bottled the Barritt decision, the TMO broke out the replays for him but he chose to ignore it. I'd have given yellow here and red to Barrington. My only real question mark would be if Barritts should also be red.

  • drg
    5:26 PM 11/01/2017

    So accidents are acceptable if they occur in what was originally going to be a legitimate challenge?

    So will world rugby be issuing a pardon for the countless blokes recently banned and carded due to jumping for a high ball?

  • im1
    4:57 PM 11/01/2017

    doesn't the judgement effectively say, accidents happen (barrington) but stop swinging your arm into the tackle (Barritt)? That's what all the examples world rugby give are. Like when Hartley got sent off for the swinging arm on SOB.

    If they just said, we are going to send you off if you clock someone on the nut with a vaguely swinging arm I think that would make more sense and be received more warmly (and understood)

  • cluainoir
    4:28 PM 11/01/2017

    How the ref can send the man off for that and not the 12 is beyond me. It was obvious from the video that it was accidental. These new directives are going to ruin this game.

  • armchairref
    4:06 PM 11/01/2017

    Yep, ref got that one all arse about face! Said as much at the time. From the comfort of the armchair of course.

  • jimmy23
    12:29 PM 11/01/2017

    So they acknowledged that Barrington couldn't have done anything about it and that what happened was accidental and out of his hands...

    Why the hell wasn't that determined on the pitch then?!

  • dancarter
    12:24 PM 11/01/2017

    At this rate they may as well just make disciplinary decisions by writing down every possible outcome and then drawing one of them out of a hat.

Related Articles