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

Tue 10 Jan 2017 | 08:50
Double tackle KO of Geoff Parling leads to a red card and citings

21
Comments

Exeter Chiefs second rower Geoff Parling was knocked unconscious early on in the draw with Saracens, as both Brad Barritt and Richard Barrington made contact with his head in a high tackle. Both players will appear before a disciplinary hearing this evening.

Barrington was shown a red card on the spot, while Barritt was lucky to continue playing.

As we've already covered, in an effort to further protect players, World Rugby has stengthened its directives on contact with the head or neck area.

As with any rule change, confusion can be the result until referees, coaches, and players all have an opportunity to sort through any issues on the field. This can lead to extreme frustration from fans as we're left wondering how the changes will be enforced.

However, some have argued that the laws should not be seen as new, and that players should already know what to expect.

This situation has already played itself out on the field more than once.

Over the weekend we saw more examples of this as Ulster's Sean Reidy was yellow-carded for a high challenge on Scarlets' scrum half Aled Davis. Also, shown in this clip below, the high challenge from both Barritt and Barrington, leading to Parling being carried off the field on a stretcher.

What has been particularly challenging is how to address the laws if the tackled player has lowered their body position before contact. This was the case for Davis and appears to be the case for Parling as well.

Having reviewed the hit multiple times, referee Ian Tempest was content to let Barritt off with a warning, but issued Barrington the red card. Most would argue that Barritt should have also received at least a yellow card.

The Saracens duo have since been cited, and will appear before an RFU Disciplinary panel in London on Tuesday evening. Barrington has been charged with dangerous charging, contrary to law 10.4(g), while Barritt has been charged with dangerous tackling, contrary to law 10.4(e).

As the rugby world seeks to adapt to the new directives, there are sure to be more situations like this in the coming weeks and months.

Credit: Rugby XV

Posted By: davidharper

21 Comments

  • drg
    1:49 PM 13/01/2017

    Vlad basically I was given the key to the town..Uh..City for my efforts.. they pretty much offered me an international contract there and then, but I turned it down due to the fact I'd become too hated on RD...I've seen the stick that McCaw got over the years and I know I'd get more than him because I'm better....

  • drg
    12:54 AM 13/01/2017

    If they stop removing "imposing" techniques then we wouldn't be having it either...

    In the way? Get rucked.... Oh that's banned now.
    Cause trouble? Get a clock... Oh that's banned now - not that I mind so much...
    Run down my channel? Dump tackles... Oh lifting is banned now..


    Jumping is basically banned - if you fail you're off, so why try?
    Higher tackles banned now - again not an awful thing..

    But really what is next to go? Scrums are dangerous, rucks are potentially worse as they're technically less controlled, mauls again are very bad when they collapse... Ban all 3...

  • vladimir
    4:40 PM 12/01/2017

    This one gave me a good laugh! (no irony)
    I hope your coach waited for you with a triple beer under the posts, better than Steve Thompson.

  • jimmy23
    12:52 PM 12/01/2017

    I can confirm that DrG never exaggerates anything.

  • drg
    9:39 PM 11/01/2017

    I've never exaggerated anything in my life... Not even that double length of field try I scored where I basically beat every defender twice....

  • vladimir
    3:06 PM 11/01/2017

    No need to exagerate my comment.

  • krip
    9:47 AM 11/01/2017

    If the defending players would go and target the hip area with their tackles this could've been prevented.

    There is a growing tendency in rugby in recent years that tackles should be performed higher in order to clutch the attackers hands and disallow them the offload. Pro players especially are super fit and confident tackling high and even are coached that way. It's just abusing the laws and playing on the edge.

    Majority of people like to see rugby as a brutal sport with strong collisions and tend to forgive all high tackles such these. They blame World Rugby on becoming soft, ruining the game etc. Truth is, and it's very simple... if players start tackling lower (nevermind if attackers duck!!!) we will stop having this discussion.

  • colombes
    8:12 AM 11/01/2017

    All replays show Barritt arm in Parling face, caused everything
    But only Barrington is red faced
    Facepalm.

  • drg
    8:00 AM 11/01/2017

    You cannot run and duck with your head below your hips!

    You can run with your head low and duck, but your head doesn't need to be on the ground to do it!

  • vladimir
    11:27 PM 10/01/2017

    That's why I say he was running and not ducking. I do not see your point.

  • 45678
    9:11 PM 10/01/2017

    Point is many players carry the ball into contact leading with their heads. If you are standing in front of them it is next to impossible to make a tackle without any contact to the head. How do you defend your own try line with players burrowing head first inches off the ground

    It's also very difficult to dive under and wrap your arms round as it usually ends up being a chop tackle which will also be penalised

  • drg
    7:40 PM 10/01/2017

    Ref*

  • drg
    7:40 PM 10/01/2017

    Couple of points....

    The red probably felt that the latest directives are soft as shit, so was apologising for the fact that two big boys cannot be allowed to play a tough game anymore.

    Secondly, you say Parling did not duck into the tackle as his head remained above his hips...... Mate, find yourself a clear bit of space and a camera, then film yourself trying to run with your head below your hips, it'd probably be one of the funniest things I've ever seen...

  • vladimir
    6:38 PM 10/01/2017

    As a neutral, I was very much dumfounded by the handling of the whole game by the referee.
    First, apoligizing to 'Brad' for carding 'this guy'. Why is he even talking like that in first place? And during the process, it seemed he was looking for every way to soften the punition.
    Then, throughout the game, he tried to compensate for the imbalance by being very harsh on Exeter's play at the ruck, mauls and scrums while the Saracens were allowed to do anything they liked. His decisions were completely inconsistents.

    Barrington started his tackle high, arming his shoulder not his arm. Barritt was even worse, punching Parling in the face and then grabbing his neck.
    I do not see how Parling is to blame. He is not ducking : his head remains above his hips until he gets punched.

  • coostov
    5:33 PM 10/01/2017

    We had our first match last weekend with the new rules, and it was a mess. Referee must have called at least a dozen penalties for high tackles. I think offensive players, especially forwards on the crash ball, will be exploiting these new directives and leading low with their heads. It happens so quickly that most of the time the defense is making accidental contact with the ball carrier's head. Everyone is going to have to adapt quickly to this.

  • weejockmcplop
    5:01 PM 10/01/2017

    Felt the ref was a little harsh on Barrngton. It seems more that Parling falls into Barrington's shoulder and that it is Barrit's swinging arm tackle that precipitates the incident. However given the concern that there are around concussions and the need to protect player's heads at all costs, it is easy to see why Barrington got a red card. What's not so clear is why Barrit did not get penalised other than the ref probably didn't want to ruin the game completely with two reds.

    If the new law gets players to start tackling lower and avoid standing up in the tackle to get the 'big hit' in, then that can only be good for the game and more importantly the health and well-being of the players

  • stu1616
    4:44 PM 10/01/2017

    I agree that the laws don't adequately consider the actions of the ball carrier, and I believe that (similar to discussions about competing for the ball in the air) they should be partly responsible for their own safety.
    That being said, Parling's contact with Barritt doesn't appear to significantly alter his body position, and it looks like Barrington would likely have still made contact with Parling's head. With little use of his arm in the tackle I can't imagine an outcome without him receiving a red card, even before both sets of recent law changes.

  • jimmy23
    4:19 PM 10/01/2017

    I agree with 45678. If a player decides to duck at the last moment after the defender has begun his challenge and gets clocked in the head, then it's their own fault. These are rugby players, they don't have the reflexes of Shaolin Monks and I feel that's not taken into account enough.

    World Rugby seem to be forgetting that this is a fast paced contact sport and no matter how hard you try and avoid it, shit will happen! Punishing players for something that's out of their control or more the fault of the opposing player is utterly pointless. Punish challenges which are reckless or deliberate, although I personally feel that was always done without any problems for the most part.

    That said, I do feel that Barritt was reckless here, even to old standards. As for Barrington. What do we reckon, could he have reacted and pulled away in time?

  • drg
    3:55 PM 10/01/2017

    This was:
    A) Nothing when I first started playing at senior level - maybe a penalty
    B) V shortly after this would have definitely been a penalty - maybe a yellow depended on the referees take.
    C) Few years went by and it became more and more like a yellow...
    D) Today, this SHOULD have been a red card for both...

    I don't know how I feel about the game these days... I mean even when clear directives are given, referees are still ballsing it up...Even the most liberal referee should have given a yellow and a red.... But to completely ignore Brad hit first is farcical.... I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on these days...

    If you're going to fuck up the game completely, at least get your minions to fuck it up in a way that we can all understand....

  • 45678
    2:13 PM 10/01/2017

    Barritt should be cited, for the high swinging arm, but I am worried about the policing of tackles when the ball carrier ducks into contact and leads with their head. The tackler needs the benefit of reaction time to adjust and cannot control the actions of others around them. the ball carrier also needs to be accountable and can't be immune from punishment if they lead with an elbow etc

    The game needs to get rid of high swinging arms, head shots, taking people out in the air and shoulder charge tackles but I think for the most part these are already picked up?

  • im1
    12:11 PM 10/01/2017

    Here are all the examples World Rugby give for penalty only, yellow card, red card.

    http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=10

    Its only taken 7 days for a ref not to apply the guidance correctly because he felt it would ruin the game as a contest by not sending Barritt off as well.

Related Articles