Banned for 3 weeks, Barrington cleared to play. Barritt got away with this at weekend, should have been 2 straight red cards in my opinion. Sir bottled this one and I feel got this wrong.
No way Sarries wold have got a draw with 13 men. Barritt didnt even get a yellow at the time. Inconsistant and not good enough
If he had a Black Green and Gold top on, would havbe probably have been red and banned for the season
As Brian Moore says in the Telegraph, high tackles have never been allowed. If you're smacking someone in the chin with your arm i would suggest that's a tad high. Red these days because the players dont seem to be getting it yet.
Correct decision in the end, Ref and TMO never reviewed at full speed and never looked at Parling's position when he made contact with Barrington. Don't even believe Barritt thought he would remain on the pitch.
Sorry but they didn't get the wrong man, they got one right man and chose to ignore the other wrongly
Barritt - red
Barrington - red
Whether its unfortunate, someones 100th appearance, someones birthday - red
KB cleared a ruck with his shoulder - 100% in the laws - BT ripped him a new one and he got a straight red because his shoulder made contact with the head
Thats the rule - so its red - cost us the game vs Newcastle - we would be 5th and a point from 4th
Yes the situation was a nightmare for the ref - double red needed early in only the 2nd televised game, and it was Sarries.. oh and sending off Sarries captain (you can - as they did) muck along with 14men, especially how Sarries (and we) play.. but 13.. game over
If that was Dylan or Callum just imagine - infact look at the Irish reaction to what Dylan did.. they would somehow have pre-planned it in the eyes of many
I'm just gutted we aren't playing Sarries in Feb / March
I agree - letter of current law two reds. I cannot see much difference between the Barrington/Brooke's offences or the effect of them. One glaring difference is that Brooke's suffered on field retribution that went unpunished. The refs do the best they can in the heat of the action - what winds me up is the blatant inconsistency of those making these subsequent deliberations from the comfort of their armchairs
Thrupp artist I agree - letter of current law two reds. I cannot see much difference between the Barrington/Brooke's offences or the effect of them. One glaring difference is that Brooke's suffered on field retribution that went unpunished. The refs do the best they can in the heat of the action - what winds me up is the blatant inconsistency of those making these subsequent deliberations from the comfort of their armchairs
Can't agree - Barritt with his high tackle set off a chain of events. Parling's legs had crumbled when he fell into contact with Barrington - his head was a good 12 - 18" lower than what it would have been without the initial high tackle. The right decision made, anything else would have set a dangerous precedent with unintended consequences. The key difference between this and the Brookes situation was the degree of forward movement involved by the respective players, Brookes made a concious decision to get involved whereas to a large extent Barrington was a victim of circumstance.
Agree that Brookes was a different scenario. Perhaps more apposite to compare Barrington's punishment with Hartley's 6 weeks on the naughty step. Had Wood not tackled the Leinster player (was it O'Brien?) then Hartley wouldn't have connected with his head. (NB other than to Barritt's own sanction here I don't think it matters whether his own tackle was high or not.)
ACTUAL BEHIND-THE-SCENES TRAINING
FOOTAGE FROM SARACENS:
Saintalex Barrington was a clear shoulder, no arms, similar to Brookes, Barritt should have been red and as well as Barrington
Whilst There was contact with the shoulder and there was no wrap Parling was collapsing into Barrington - yellow at most for me. There are lots of moving parts and purely looking at outcomes will create more questionable decisions. The thought process by the ref/tmo was not logical.
The extent of dis-agreement between us lot rather demonstrates how hard it is for officials on the pitch. One thing I would say is that TMO's rarely question the referee's decisions but there again they are both watching the same replay at the same time; perhaps the on-field ref feels he must show who's boss
Reckless swinging arm contacting the head, without the mitigation Hartley had of the player being tackled into it.
As for Barrington I don't think the situation is quite the same as Hartley as he wasn't swinging an arm. He was actively going for a hit that lead to the outcome of contact to the head... theres no way that shoulder would have made contact with the head without the actions of Barritt so I think yellow would have been justified rather than a red - since the panel decided no ban, that would presumably have been a better decision than the one the ref made.
Those were my views watching the game and the TMO replays and they haven't changed.
Ultimately if the ref felt Barrington was a red, seperate that from what Barritt did, you have to ask yourself how that was treated as a penalty offense only when there was a clear swinging arm contact?
The only answer I've got is that the ref just bottled it. I hope the fact it was Saracens rather than Saints (for example) didn't influence that but I bet if it was Hartley & Clarke and Wayne Barnes with the whistle we would have been playing the game with 13.
In my view, the ref has a responsibility to ensure a contest and allow the game to flow - but that responsibility is irrelevant if there hs been foul play and a player is out cold on the floor. If the ref felt Barrington had to go, he was still wrong and way out of line to favour "a contest" and leave Barritt on the field for a straight red card offense that I have no doubt would have been minimum yellow to any rwf without Barringtons role.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2017 12:07 by MarchingIn.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing