A SANZAAR foul play committee has handed a three-week ban to All Blacks lock Scott Barrett for his dangerous tackle in the Bledisloe Cup Test loss to Australia.
All Blacks lock Scott Barrett will miss this week’s Bledisloe Cup decider but will be clear for the World Cup after copping a three-week ban from the SANZAAR judiciary.
Barrett pleaded guilty to a dangerous tackle on Wallabies captain Michael Hooper which earned him a red card just before halftime of Saturday’s Test in Perth, won 47-26 by the hosts.
The foul play review committee said “a player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp the player” and suspended Barrett until September 1.
Chairman Adam Casselden said after reviewing all evidence of Barrett’s shoulder to the face of Hooper, a “mid-range” six week ban was appropriate.
That length was halved once Barrett’s exemplary record, his remorse and guilty plea were factored in.
Barrett, a near certainty for New Zealand’s squad to defend the World Cup in Japan, will miss a couple of potential provincial fixtures but will return in time for a pre-tournament Test against Tonga in Hamilton on September 7.
The absence of 25-year-old Barrett and the injured Brodie Retallick means New Zealand will field a fourth-choice lock in Saturday’s Bledisloe Cup Test.
Patrick Tuipolutu is favoured to be promoted to pack down alongside Sam Whitelock at Eden Park, where New Zealand need to win to retain the silverware.
The merits of Barrett’s sending off has been hotly debated, with England coach Eddie Jones vocal in his belief the player and New Zealand were hard done by.
Former Wallabies mentor Jones said he feared a referee brandishing an unwarranted red card could ruin a big game at the World Cup.
Veteran Brumbies forwards coach Laurie Fisher urged World Rugby to consider ways of preserving the contest when a player is sent off, proposing a law change whereby the offender can be replaced after 10 minutes.
“Just a thought. He gets sanctioned but the contest survives,” Fisher tweeted.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
We are talking about simplifying the game or the law book?
Kane
Roar Guru
Fair call I know a few fringe players in Mitre 10 Cup. They all have their food and rent paid paid for. In reality they have very little living costs.
soapit
Roar Guru
Yeah im not spending time doubting he would have played. Just don't like suspensions being filled in what is essentially a training run for them
soapit
Roar Guru
Well to me fully pro means you don't have to work another job to live. Minimum salary of $18k in mitre 10 cup didn't show that so to me that's semi pro. Anyway that kind of detail could easily be worked out if they went down that road.
Kane
Roar Guru
Mitre 10 Cup isn't semi pro, it's fully pro, they all get paid.
Kane
Roar Guru
So as you said SBW was desperately short of game time, he started the Springbok test, but Barrett who has one game since June isn't desperately short of game time?
Kane
Roar Guru
He would have played at Eden Park, that is a match that he is missing, after that it's not a stretch to think he may have gone to Mitre 10 Cup for some match fitness, he's played 1 game since June
Kane
Roar Guru
Not having to match numbers in the line outs.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Fair enough.
soapit
Roar Guru
That would not be the best approach imo.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
If you really believe that then as I said put it on paper, polish it up, and send it off to WR . Good luck to you.
soapit
Roar Guru
Well sightly more. Once the teething is finished and precedents get established it would be a pretty straightforward process Much much better outcome overall
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
So more decisions to be made, more committees, more expense, more administration, more, more.
soapit
Roar Guru
Yeah sorry spotted that. Already edited. Have another look
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Its not his last pro match. He'll be back in SuperRugby next year.
soapit
Roar Guru
Well he can simply make application for an exemption to use his amateur games. You would have to make it much more rigorous and clearly show serving a pro level ban was not possible and that the resultant punishment was harsher than was intended. That would be an unusual situation. Id rather a bit more paper work in the unusual fairly rare cases to get a better system for all the others
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Well I think if you've tested it and your confident in it I suggest you document it and send it off to WR. If you feel that strongly about the present system being flawed - why not - you have nothing to lose. Case for discussion. Bob plays in the SuperRugby final. He has never been selected for his international side and unlikely to ever be selected. Bob is cited and suspended for 2 matches. Every year after super rugby he goes back to play club rugby and then his province in the NPC. When does he serve his suspension?
soapit
Roar Guru
I have posted a very simple solution earlier on here. You foul in a pro match only pro matches count but you can’t play amateur out semi pro either until you’ve served your ban. I don’t care about Barrett himself, its the current example of a regular issue. I made the same points when hooper did it. I care about the issue because the system does not result in fairness and the disincentives it’s based on vary player to player week to week. If you have a system based on disincentives then whether they care or not is relevant surely? It’s like being sentenced to prison for a year but if you can show you already have a terrible job you hate you can come out for the week to do it instead. The disincentive weighting changes person to person and is not a fair result And that’s before we talk about how it makes it easier to rort
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Ohhh yes of course. It's the ghastly old ABs at it again. Like no other player on the planet has ever served out their suspensions at lower level matches than the level of the match they incurred said suspension. Geeezzz. However it only matters what the Judicial Committee thinks because they are the ones with the evidence. "Extensive evidence" they have said. Did you know there was a former AB on the panel....that'll be how they got it through. Blooming ABs at it againnnn. :)
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
The suspension is for 3 weeks so it has to be 3 games. Treating all games equally is nonsense you say. Yes well this debate comes up every time there is a high profile suspension. Personally I don't have a problem with it. If anyone has a clear, concise, workable alternative, lets hear about it. I don't see why you care about what Barrett cares about. Hes incurred a suspension and has to see it out whatever the matches are. Whats the Judiciary to do....Mr Barrett what matches on your playing schedule do you care most about missing?