Whatever about the results and match-winning moments from the weekend's Tests, the law book continues to divide opinion. However, this time most would agree that the referees got things right.
Two tackles, two completely different contexts, two different outcomes. These two moments provide a useful comparison to understand the head contact framework.
The first was Jacob Stockdale's yellow card in Ireland's 41-10 win against Japan. These incidents are rarely seen first in real time by the referee anymore.
Instead they are being prompted by a refereeing team both on and off the pitch. There is an on-field referee, two assistant referees and the TMO feeding in constant information.
The game is so fast nowadays, with more complex laws and intense atmospheres. It is impossible to capture everything with only one set of eyes.
Stockdale was chasing hard towards the touchline to stop the elusive Japanese winger, Kippei Ishida. Ishida stepped hard off his right foot to turn back inside and the late change of direction meant that Stockdale had little time to change his effort at a tackle.
There was head contact which caused a review for the officials. Under the high tackle passport and the head contact framework, Stockdale’s attempt at a tackle would start as foul play because the player was at fault for causing the head contact. There is then a question surrounding the degree of danger, which usually takes into consideration the degree of recklessness, force or speed of the tackling player.
Due to the late change of direction of the attacker, Stockdale’s potential red card was mitigated down to a yellow card, and in my opinion the right call was reached.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Stockdale. A scrambling cover tackle is the most frequent high tackle that I see from a coaching perspective, where the player can do very little about the change of direction.
They have to race towards a touchline in case a fast winger takes them on the outside. However, it is very difficult then to change your height if the attacker changes direction.
Stockdale could have entered the tackle area a bit slower, given up a few metres on the outside and shown the attacker only one side of his body. He would have made a safer tackle and wouldn’t have sat out for 10 minutes.
In saying that, the mitigation was very obvious on the screen for referee Gianluca Gnecchi and I wished that he would make a brave call by sticking to the facts.
I understand the reason for the bunker review process and the delayed confirmation of the card colour giving time to take emotions out of the decision. Yet, sport is an emotional event, and getting the call right at the right moment adds to the supporter experience.
The second and more controversial call at the weekend with regards to head contact was the Lood de Jager red card in South Africa's impressive win over France.
De Jager made contact with Thomas Ramos’ head, despite his low height and being a secondary tackler on the French full-back.
However, De Jager was never in a legal position to make a tackle because he never attempted to wrap his tackling arm. The mitigation process is very clear.
The framework clearly states that "mitigation will not apply for intentional or always illegal acts of foul play". For the record, not many would believe that De Jager intentionally hit Ramos high. Ramos was only a few feet off the ground and De Jager is a very tall man.
He did his utmost to keep his tackle height low, but he never started the tackle legally because his arm was always tucked in a shoulder charge position.
Referee Angus Gardner was trying to mitigate the decision with the low tackle height. His assistant referees correctly pointed him in the right direction, the tackle action was never legal and therefore mitigation couldn’t be applied, and a red card was given.
The best part of the decision was that Gardner didn’t back out and rely on the bunker review process. The decision and the framework around the tackle were clear. It was never legal, and despite being unfortunate, De Jager had to be shown a red card, by the letter of the law.
This doesn’t mean that anyone wants a player to be given a red card. Likewise, we don’t want players leaving the field with brain injuries. Luckily, in this instance, Ramos was OK to carry on. The laws are there to protect the player against the action, and not to referee the outcome.
If we start refereeing the outcome, then it would incentivise players to exaggerate their injury. It also means that by outlawing the action, the actions need to change and we would be left with fewer incidents, which will likely reduce the risk of the game of rugby.
You’d never like to see a game decided by an act of foul play. For the credibility of the decision, and the game itself, the right result was reached and the decision will be spoken about less than if France were triumphant.
The decision can stand independently of the result of the game. Anybody that thinks red cards ruin games hasn’t looked at the evidence of games won by the team with 14 players. It won’t always be possible, but human behaviour can change drastically when emotions are involved.
In my opinion, both tackles were attempted with no intention to hurt the opposition player, or to hit them high.
The difference between the two tackles, and the reason for differing outcomes, is that Stockdale was always attempting to make a legal tackle when he made a misjudgement. De Jager’s tucked arm would suggest that his was never fully legal.
In both instances, the referee came to the right conclusion and thankfully the games were decided by rugby actions and not foul play or refereeing decisions.
Watch Ireland v Australia in the Quilter Nations Series on Saturday from 7pm on RTÉ2 and the RTÉ Player. Follow a live blog on the RTÉ News App and on rte.ie/sport. Listen to live commentary on RTÉ Radio 1
