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

Sun 11 Aug 2019 | 08:10
DEBATE: Barrett red card splits opinion after All Blacks defeat

9
Comments

Scott Barrett became the fourth All Black in history to receive a red card when he was sent off by referee Jérôme Garcès for a dangerous tackle against Australia on Saturday.

Barrett made a no-arms tackle on Australia’s Michael Hooper just before half time and Garcès said on the pitch that he made “contact with the neck area and the face with force with the shoulder and elbow direct.”

The decision was a huge turning point 30 seconds before the break and the Wallabies went on to win 47-26 in Perth.

During the half time break, Sky Sports pundit Will Greenwood said: “If that’s a red card, then there are so many more incidents like that that go unpunished.

“Every time you have Garcès in charge, you know there is going to be a big call [in which] he hides behind the rule book.

“There’s contact to the head but that sort of stuff happens in the breakdown all the time. It’s different to the Sonny Bill (Williams) incident because he was standing up and dipped the shoulder into the head at pace. No way was this a red card.”

The Sonny Bill Williams incident which Greenwood cites was two years ago playing against the British & Irish Lions when he made this tackle on Anthony Watson:

But some fans didn't agree with Greenwood's comments on Garcès:

And it wasn't just the game on Saturday which the decision may effect.

Every major international game seems to have at least one big talking point around a refereeing decision, but what do you think about this one?

Posted By: Shaywaterworth

9 Comments

  • TonyGillings
    7:30 PM 13/08/2019

    Red Card.  Why? Because not awarding a red card signals that such tackles can be gotten away with, and you can be as sly as you want in trying to make the tackle not look bad. The key point is simple - should to the neck or head IS ILLEGAL. Simples.

  • Donnie
    1:34 PM 11/08/2019

  • katman
    10:20 AM 11/08/2019

    That's red all day long. Only reason there's even a debate is because of the colour of the jersey and not the card. Welcome to the same rules as the rest of us "mortals", New Zealand. You'll get used to them sooner or later. And Greenwood saying that Garces is "hiding behind the rule book" is just daft. The man has one job on the field: To apply the rulebook, to the letter, for both teams. He's not hiding behind anything when he does this. Go and look at World Rugby's decision framework for penalties and cards - there is absolutely no doubt that a no-arms charge, with force, to the head must get a red card. If there were any mitigating factors, they would have been raised. But there were none.

    • pickay
      10:46 AM 13/08/2019

      Conspiracy of World Rugby and aaaall the referees in favour of NZ and against aaall the rest? Seriously? Come on, this stuff is really getting old.Also, if referees would strictly apply the rule book to the letter, there would be no proper game of rugby at all. Good refs let minor stuff go all the time in favour of the flow of the game, making a judgement of the individual situations. Not arguing about the red card, but demanding letter of the law at all times leaves out common sense.

      • dsteyn.dw@gmail.com
        6:53 AM 14/08/2019

        It's getting old because it's not new. Back in 2012 Adam Thomson punched and then stamped Alasdair Strokosch and only got a yellow card and a one week ban. It's been a contentious issue for a while now on how NZ gets preferential treatment. It's nice that there's finally some consistency. 

    • benny
      9:13 AM 12/08/2019

      "Only reason there's even a debate is because of the colour of the jersey"I'm pretty sure there's always debate whenever there's a red card no matter who is playing. For what it's worth though, most NZers I've spoken to agree that it's red but there will always be some who want to bring back the biff or watch rugby with eye patches. Of the people quoted above,  don't see any NZers.

    • dsteyn.dw@gmail.com
      6:49 AM 12/08/2019

      Garces is "hiding behind the rule book"Dumbest comment ever, what else is Garces supposed to do? Not apply the rules, especially the new ones concerning player safety? 

    • Donnie
      1:35 PM 11/08/2019

      The same rules as the rest of us? Total cheek there my lad, when
      our Lions went down to SA last time there was all kinds of total
      thuggery from your players, back alley violence even, and I don't recall
      anything happening to any Springboks. Not even a penalty. Penalties and
      red cards don't apply to South Africans at all, particularly in South
      Africa.

      • katman
        1:56 PM 11/08/2019

        Are you kidding? Schalk Burger got an 8 week suspension after the second test of that Lions tour, and Bakkies Botha got a two week suspension, also after the second test. And if you look at the clean-out that Botha got suspended for (on Adam Jones), there was nothing wrong with it at all. Wasn't a shoulder charge, wasn't to the head, wasn't after the whistle. Only reason he got suspended is because Jones got hurt. Very similar to the Snyman clean-out on Retallick the other day. Thank god common sense prevailed there, as it was also 100% legit. The Scott Barrett clean-out, however, is a textbook red card.

Related Articles