Jordie Barrett's red card against the Wallabies has divided the rugby world with social media erupting over the decision. Video / Sky Sport
OPINION:
Rugby just can't get it right when it comes to red cards, probably because in the last few years there has been an obvious determination within the halls of power to see more brandished.
It used to be, only 10 years ago, that a red card was reserved forthe truly heinous: a way to punish those with psychotic tendencies or those who had suffered a moment of madness.
There were few blurred lines back then. A kick in the head, a punch in the face, a poke in the eye and it was off for an early bath.
Everyone knew the score and the risks of being a violent idiot and red cards were hardly ever disputed.
But that simple world is long gone and what has come in its place is an administrative push to not just clean things up, but to also be seen to be cleaning things up.
The distinction is important because World Rugby has been proactive and innovative in its quest to take concussion seriously.
Jordie Barrett strikes Marika Koroibete in the face after taking a high ball in Perth on Sunday. Photo / Photosport
No one can accuse the governing body of paying lip service to the seriousness of brain injuries or of trying to pretend that concussion isn't such a big deal for a collision sport.
There are those who say the game's administrators are still not doing enough to protect the players from serious head trauma, but rugby can be proud of how much change has been instigated in the last decade.
Whether it's far enough or not, rugby has at least journeyed an incredible distance from the bad old days of everyone having a right old snigger when players went all Bambi after a major head collision.
No one plays on these days without a head injury at least being assessed and mostly coaching staff take an even more precautious approach when returning players to action than the protocols demand.
The modern professional, certainly those in New Zealand, say they feel safe on the field and trust their coaching staff to protect their welfare.
But where World Rugby has been too rigid in its thinking, muddled even, is in the amendment of the application of the law as it applies to any and all contact to the head during a game.
World Rugby has essentially ditched the age-old idea of being innocent until proven guilty and gone with the French system, where anyone who strikes another player's head during a game is deemed guilty subject to the referee being able to apply mitigating factors.
The volume of red cards shown in tests has risen exponentially in the last few years – with the All Blacks taking 50 years to pick up three and then just three years to be shown their next three.
World Rugby likes to think that there is a correlation between increased red cards and safety. They like to think that the rising tide of cards is further illustration of their commitment to protect, but all that has really happened is the definition of foul play has been broadened.
As Jordie Barrett discovered in Perth, players can now be accused of foul play while going about their execution of core skills.
The debate in the 24 hours since Barrett was sent off has focused mostly on whether referee Damon Murphy correctly applied the law.
But that's not the discussion the game needs to be having. The argument that Murphy got it right is not necessarily any stronger than the one that says he got it wrong, which illustrates that the real problem is the law itself.
Foul play never used to be contentious or particularly debatable and now it is. That Barrett's raised studs made contact with Marika Koroibete's face is not disputed.
But was it really an act of foul play as we all used to understand acts of foul play?
He jumped to take a high ball as he's been trained to do and then thrust his right leg out, collecting the chasing Koroibete's head as he did so.
All Blacks fullback Jordie Barrett heads for the tunnel after seeing red against the Wallabies. Photo / Photosport
On the available evidence, the most reasonable assessment of Barrett's actions is that he was trying to correct his balance having twisted mid-air. His eyes never leave the ball and he may not even have been aware Koroibete was where he was.
It's a harder, but not implausible, argument to make that Barrett was reckless and almost impossible to make a serious claim that he was malicious and hence the question rugby bosses have to ask, is do they really want to see this sort of incident classified as foul play and deemed a red-card offence?
Rugby is doing a good enough job at protecting its players from concussion without feeling that it needs to be on a red-card crusade to prove it.
