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.