Another week, another card controversy, with disciplinary decisions yet again the main talking point in the game.
The opening round of the new Guinness PRO14 season had seen Cardiff Blues and Munster forwards Josh Turnbull and Peter O’Mahony sent off, incidents which had provoked much debate, particularly after their differing punishments, with Turnbull suspended for three weeks and O’Mahony escaping without a ban.
This past weekend saw two more red cards issued in the competition, with Ulster and Scarlets second rows Iain Henderson and Sam Lousi getting their marching orders.
Neither could have any complaint, with both men dismissed for clear shoulder contact to the head.
But there was one other case over the weekend which was not so clear cut and which has deeply divided opinion.
That was the incident involving Exeter’s Jonny Hill and Bath’s Welsh international Taulupe Faletau during Saturday’s Gallagher Premiership semi-final at Sandy Park.
So what happened exactly?
It came in the 34th minute of the match, with the Chiefs leading 14-6 at the time.
Exeter flanker Jacques Vermeulen had been brought to ground in a tackle and Faletau was jackled over him, in the process of stretching out to get his hands on the ball.
As he did so, second row Hill came in to clear him out.
Referee Luke Pearce blew up immediately, penalising Hill, saying: “Just a shoulder, make sure there’s a wrap in it.”
That was the end of it as far as Pearce was concerned at the time.
But as Faletau received treatment, the call came in from the TMO, none other than Wayne Barnes, that the incident needed to be checked.
The debate begins.
Pearce walks over to watch the replay on the big screen, confirming as he does so that it was a no-arms clearout and that he needs to check the contact point on Faletau.
As the incident is shown again, BT Sport pundit Ben Kay gives his own view, saying: “It’s on the back of the neck, isn’t it, really?”
That would spell big trouble for Hill if the officials see it the same way.
But, on checking the footage, Pearce’s view is the contact point is on Faletau’s back, not on his head or neck.
As such, his thoughts are yellow card.
TMO Barnes chips in to say they have to be 100 per cent sure on the contact point by looking at a few more angles, but that they are in agreement so far.
After surveying the replays, he declares: “Luke, there’s no clear footage of contact to the head/neck.
“It’s pretty close, but we’ve got to be certain before we do any more.”
Pearce replies: “Totally agree. What I am seeing on the screen, it is close, but there’s nothing definitive to make this a red rather than a yellow, so I am sticking with a yellow card. Is everyone ok with that?”
To which Barnes responds, “Yeah, good work mate.”
As Hill heads to the sin-bin, former England second row Kay adds his thoughts, declaring: “That’s brilliant officiating. It would have been a particularly harsh red.”
Main commentator Alastair Eyken gives his own take, saying: “That could easily have been red had Faletau’s head just been a little bit further up.”
So was that the end of the matter?
Not quite!
Whoever was operating the official Bath Twitter account made their feelings known straight away, referring to a “Horrific ‘clear-out’ at the ruck”.
To rub salt in the wounds for them, Hill went on to score a second try, adding to his first-half effort, as Exeter ran out winners 35-6.
And, as the afternoon went on, so the reaction grew.
A clip of the incident from one particular angle appeared on social media and that drew a big response, with many arguing it should have been a red card.
Welsh rugby reporter Steffan Thomas made his thoughts clear, saying: “As blatant a red card offence as you’ll see on a rugby pitch.”
Fellow rugby journalist Hugh Godwin added: “It is a tough job being a referee/TMO, making big decisions with time at a premium. On this one, I am mainly saying what they said happened was not quite right.”
Dragons chairman David Buttress chimed into the debate, saying: “I was shocked by the officials’ interpretation of the video. Very odd to say it was inconclusive. It was pretty clearly head first, then into the neck and upper back. Had to be red.”
My own view, which I made public at the time, was that the initial point of contact was a glancing blow to the back of Faletau’s head and that it should have been a red card.
But plenty of people disagreed.
Former England and Lions outside-half Stuart Barnes was one of them.
“Technically terrible, no attempt to bind, but no intent to hurt either,” said the TV and print pundit.
“Some sense was shown by Luke Pearce. Yellow to set example about right.
“Has to be a penalty because of laws re binding (or not in this case).
“Red? Fear we are somewhere between serious concern for safety and a lynch mob who scream their concerns loudest.”
Responding to a member of the public who took issue with him, Barnes said: “It is not a red, Barnes and Pearce are right, stop trying to find violence where technical infringements occur.”
Stephen Jones, of the Sunday Times, commented: “I have sympathy with those who say red, but also with those who say not even a penalty.”
He then added a comment to Barnes saying: “Stuart. How dare you stand in the way of the red hyenas?”
And so the debate has continued, with opinion diametrically opposed on either side of the fence.
Some are adamant there was contact to the back of Faletau’s head, causing it to rock down.
Others maintain Hill’s shoulder went over Faletau’s head as the Welshman ducked and that the contact was to shoulder or back.
Make your own mind up from the footage.
What do the laws actually state?
This is where it gets really interesting.
The first point to look at it is whether Hill’s actions were legal.
That’s the easy part.
The laws state that when you attempt to clear out at a ruck, you must bind onto the opposition player and that bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
It’s a case of bind and move.
It’s pretty clear Hill didn’t fulfil his part of that bargain. There were no arms and no wrap involved in his clear-out. He leads with his left shoulder with his left arm down by his side.
Pearce’s immediate reaction was it was illegal, hence the awarding of a penalty, and that was confirmed for him and his fellow official by the replays.
They were all in agreement it was foul play.
The next question was what the sanction should be.
That’s where the much talked about high tackle framework came into play.
That was introduced by World Rugby a couple of years ago to clarify the decision-making process, amid efforts to clamp down on contact to the head.
It’s essentially a step-by-step formula which officials have to apply when deciding what action to take.
That’s what Pearce and Barnes implemented on the weekend.
In this case, the key issue, under the framework, was the point of contact.
If they agreed it was to the head/neck of Faletau, the inevitable outcome would have been a red card given the force involved.
But their view is there was no clear evidence of contact to the head or neck.
As such, the framework took them down the pathway of a yellow card.
So, there you have it, they applied the laws based on what they saw and came to their decision.
That didn't have to be the end of the story, of course. The citing commissioner could have taken a different view.
With the footage from every available angle to hand and the benefit of hours to pour over it, he could have ruled there was contact to the head/neck and cited Hill on the basis of it being a red card offence.
Alternatively, he could have looked outside of the framework to justify a citing.
If Hill’s actions were deemed to be reckless and dangerous, then - under the general laws of foul play - they could merit a red even if there was no head contact.
There did seem a strong case for that, given the way he came in shoulder first towards the area where Faletau’s head was, going off his feet with little control.
But the citing commissioner has decided to take no action, so that's the end of that.
Perhaps the biggest thing to take out of it all is relief that Faletau’s head wasn’t an inch or so higher because, if it had been, there could have been really nasty consequences.
Should it have been a red? Have your say in the comments below.
