The agenda behind Eddie Jones’s comments about Johnny Sexton’s parents being worried for their son’s welfare was painfully obvious. Subtlety is clearly not a priority if this is the height of rugby ‘mind games.’ But they had a resonance. Digs only really work if they do.

Sexton accused Jones of jumping on the bandwagon in regard to head injuries which has been a hot topic in not just rugby for some time now. Sexton’s agenda is obvious too. He would rather not be the public face of concussion, especially, as he pointed out, since when he’s been forced out of action it has been mostly due to other stuff.

It’s the accumulation of various injuries in recent years that has rugby fans wincing on the Irish out-half’s behalf whenever he doesn’t immediately bounce back to his feet after a ‘hit.’ The concern is both an expression of his value to the Irish team as well as admiration at his courage. And it’s not just Sexton.

An undertow of players needing to be saved from themselves has coursed through this debate which has professional rugby players embraced by the ‘something must be done’ brigade who as per usual are as vague about the precise ‘something’ as they are vehement it has to be done. And it’s rubbish.

What’s legitimate is rugby putting in place, and being seen to put in place, all the necessary protocols and medical checks to cope with head injuries once they occur, because they will happen. Sexton has ticked every required box and is free to do whatever he wants. And what he wants is to continue playing professional rugby.

Clive James once pointed out how "the injuries acquired from pursuing free activities are small cause for pity." It perfectly sums up how when so many unfortunates suffer injuries from activities they have no choice over at all that the consequences of grown-up sportspeople choosing to put their bodies on the line needs to be put in proper context.

Sexton is big enough and old enough to decide for himself what he wants to do within the rules. Yes, there’s a competitive culture which says no player wants to come off the pitch - or field of battle depending on your fondness for bellicose imagery - although it’s possible sometimes to wonder if at least some of that is machismo. But ultimately it is players’ choice.

This idea of saving professional rugby players from themselves is facile.

That isn’t indulging in posturing foolery about society being ‘namby-pambyed,’ or health-and-safety gelding us of our competitive instincts. It is a reminder of how ultimately nobody is being forced at gunpoint to play rugby or anything else which carries a risk of serious injury.

So Jones drilling for the nerve actually wasn’t half as interesting as the vehement response, which basically boiled down to it being dirty pool to bring someone’s family into it.

There’s a weird subconscious schoolyard feel to that, all ‘don’t talk about me Ma,’ an assumption that family considerations are somehow irrelevant to this big-boy game, when in fact for rugby as a whole they are likely to increasingly prove very relevant indeed.

Since Jones was plainly just looking to unsettle one of Ireland’s best players, and Sexton pointed out how it is on his family that the impact of inaccurate commentary and speculation is most felt, the Irishman is entitled to feel sore in his own specific small-picture case.

But I think the Australian’s comments unwittingly, and maybe even subliminally, touched on what’s going to become a major big-picture issue for rugby as a whole. Because compared to most sports, rugby in particular isn’t immune to what Ma thinks.

Sexton is 30 years of age, a parent himself, brought up in the rugby culture, and well able to make his own mind up. But every parent knows worry automatically comes with the job and rugby’s long-term challenge could increasingly be in convincing parents the game isn’t one worry too far when it comes to their kids.

Many parents who, theoretically at least, still control the extent of a youngster’s choice, and are not immersed in the rugby culture, must look at the modern game and shudder at the potential physical cost to their nearest and most expensive should they choose to play it.

Yes the weekend action in Twickenham was thrilling but it was brutal too. Admiration at the commitment mixed uneasily with wincing at massed ranks of gymmed-up behemoths repeatedly smacking into each other. Incident wise, it may have been more attractive than the muscle-bound skittling which normally characterises the Six Nations but the physical toll was still colossal.

That Conor Murray’s kick to the head was this time the most notable incident in terms of player welfare, and meant the game was commonly regarded as being thankfully free of serious injury, says plenty about what kind of walking wounded benchmark there is in professional rugby.

So one match without a player having to be helped from the pitch won’t alter how the game continues to revolve around fearsomely powerful teams colliding off each other with no handy ‘something’ on the horizon that’s going to change that.

It’s not like any counter-intuitive physical regression is on the cards: rugby is nothing without its famous physicality so inevitably it’s going to get even more physical. That’s why I reckon Jones’s comments resonated, just not in the way he intended.

The England coach was getting in a dig for a specific reason to unsettle a specific player. In the wider context though it will resonate because how many parents look at the modern professional game and wonder if it’s something for a talented kid to aspire to?