Okay, so what really happened?
In the 13th minute, New Zealand captain Scott Barrett flared up against Ireland’s Joe McCarthy. Barret’s post-match press conference has been very well covered in these pages by Denis Walsh.
But briefly, here’s what Barrett said. He claimed it looked to him like McCarthy had “cleaned up” his outhalf, Damien McKenzie, while the latter was lying on the ground. He said that, from where he saw it, “it looked like it was around his head” but that he was not sure. I can’t recall any other occasion when a captain has directly named an opposing player in a matter of foul play. It was a very serious statement, even though he felt McKenzie had been targeted.
If Barrett was wrong in his assertion, then he needs to say so and set the record straight. Also, Ireland should reject his claim if McCarthy has no case to answer. On the other hand, if the player was guilty of something unacceptable, then equally, Andy Farrell must say so.
It would not sit well with what I believe is the team’s ethos if this is allowed to be swept under the carpet. It leaves far too many question marks around the incident.
Why Ireland won’t push the panic button after All Blacks defeat
Spare a thought for referee, Nic Berry. Matches of this ilk, strewn with player error, are not easy to handle. If Berry had made even half as many mistakes as Ireland did, then the rest of his sporting life would be spent surfing on Bondi beach. So I have no intention of being critical. He did well in the circumstances and, happily, was a lot less loquacious than his fellow countryman Angus Gardner was last week.
Nevertheless, there are issues to discuss. The protection of the ball by the team in possession at the breakdown was a feature, not just in this match, but across the series so far. World Rugby must give us clarification as to exactly what is allowed, and what is sealing off the ball, preventing any contest.
The scrums were better than anticipated, but the New Zealand loose-head side of the scrum still had their say in things. Particularly when Finlay Bealham was pinged having just returned for the luckless Tom O’Toole. The call seemed to have come from assistant Andrea Piardi, and for me it was incorrect, Ofa Tu’ungafasi being the culprit. It was a handy three points for New Zealand.
Now, D-Day is fast approaching and we will soon learn the decisions of the World Rugby Council as to which of the current law trials will proceed to global experiments. There was plenty of food for thought over the weekend on the two big ones – the 20-minute red card, and the issues of replacements, aka bomb squads. Let’s look at a few.
In Cardiff, Wales v Fiji saw cards being tossed around like confetti in the first half. It’s not the point that Wales’s Tommy Reffell’s and Fiji’s Semi Radradra offences didn’t seem much different, with only the latter’s being upgraded to a 20-minute red card. Neither does it matter that, in Scotland v South Africa, Christophe Ridley may have sent the wrong player to the bunker for another upgrade. What does matter is the mindset of players, and how they go about their business in the absence of the very meaningful deterrent that is the straight red card.
I can’t claim to have a Master’s in Psychology, but don’t think I need one to work out that players will approach things very differently if foul-play punishment is reduced to just an extra 10 minutes in the bin; that is the extent of this proposal. Neither do I have to be a cynic to imagine that key players are likely to be targeted.
When South Africa lined up their seven new forwards to come on to to the Murrayfield pitch just five minutes into the second half, we saw how farcical the whole thing has become. It was never the intention of the law to allow this to happen, it’s the manipulation of a loophole. Well done to South Africa for having two packs of forwards who are equal in both ferocity and ability; but, sorry, you should not be allowed to play them both in the same match.
There is another proposal flying under the radar. Over the last few weeks we’ve seen several, but not many, crooked lineout throws, quite rightly whistled up for a scrum. This idea will see those crooked throws not called, if the opponents do not contest possession. It’s the most natural thing in the world not to jump if there’s no chance of getting the ball. So, if this goes through, teams will have to ensure that they get someone to make a token leap into the air – but can that really qualify as “contesting”? It is completely unnecessary, and does away with even more scrums, but maybe that’s part of the idea.
The World Rugby Council gather on Thursday, and we can expect the conclusions pretty smartly after that. As far as I am aware, the outgoing chair, Bill Beaumont, will preside over the law issues, and this will be followed by the election of the new chair. Australian Brett Robinson is probably the favourite, with Italy’s Andrea Rinaldo and France’s Abdel Benazzi running against him. A simple majority will do the trick, but those two might split a vote to keep the chair in the northern hemisphere, unless there’s a late withdrawal.
But, who knows? As when the conclave in Rome vote in secret, we will just have to wait for white smoke.
♦ Survey on Tackle Height Law in Irish Rugby: The IRFU is gathering feedback from adult amateur players, coaches, referees, and support staff on the new tackle height law’s impact on gameplay and safety. Insights from those directly involved may help shape future policy in rugby in Ireland.
Click the link to fill out the survey: https://unioflimerick.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5j1WPP1BXYtkBEO
