On the day that Tom Curry of England was banned for two matches for his head-to-head contact with Argentina’s Juan Cruz Mallia, no action was taken against Jesse Kriel of South Africa for a challenge that was just as dangerous on Scotland’s Jack Dempsey.
So tell me, where is the consistency here?
I asked for guidance from senior figures in World Rugby yesterday and they insisted there was insufficient evidence to cite the Springboks centre.
They even suggested to me that it was dangerous to make judgments on a tackle from one camera angle.
How many do they need? If it looks high and dangerous from one angle — which it did — is that not enough? Where exactly is the justification for taking no action?
Tom Curry was banned for two matches for his head-to-head contact with Juan Cruz Mallia
After review, the England star was dismissed and has since been handed a two-match ban
No action was taken against Jesse Kriel for a challenge that was just as dangerous
They insist the citing officer would have looked at all the angles in real time and slow motion and determined there was no clear and obvious foul play, meaning no head contact could be determined.
In my opinion and, according to the likes of Mail Sport columnist Ryan Wilson and Sir Ian McGeechan, Kriel’s head-high tackle on Dempsey was 100-per- cent a red card and exactly the type of reckless, upright collision that is supposed to be outlawed and removed from the game.
However, with the 36-hour citing window slamming shut at breakfast time yesterday, that is officially the end of the matter.
It was shocking that the TMO Ben Whitehouse and the other three officials — referee Angus Gardner and his two assistants on the field of play — didn’t think the incident merited any further action.
That it happened only 57 seconds into the match, when the officials should have been at their sharpest, added insult to injury.
Dempsey mentioned to the ref at the time he had been hit in the face, while his skipper Jamie Ritchie’s request that the incident be looked at by the official fell on deaf ears. It’s a travesty of justice. Kriel’s tackle was just as bad as Curry’s the evening before in Marseille.
For those watching at home, the Kriel-Dempsey incident wasn’t shown live by ITV at the time.
The Kriel-Dempsey incident wasn’t shown live by ITV at the time
It seems they take the television pictures from the ‘world feed’ broadcaster and have no control of the live coverage or what incidents are replayed.
Back in London, their team saw the incident immediately and showed the footage at half-time.
Pundits John Barclay and McGeechan both said it was a definite red card. Without the TV replays, the incident may have been forgotten.
Not that it matters now it appears to have been swept under the carpet.
What sticks in the craw in the Scottish camp is the inconsistency over the way the Curry and the Kriel incidents were handled. I have spoken to a few of the Scotland players privately and they can’t believe the incident was missed.
Prop Jamie Bhatti went public on it right after the match and claimed he had never seen a more blatant red card.
He was sitting on the touchline among the Scotland replacements and had a clear view of what happened.
South Africa’s director of rugby Rassie Erasmus stuck his oar in, insisting there was no case to answer for Kriel.
That’s what you might expect to hear from a coach defending his player, but the court of public opinion has ruled that the centre was lucky to escape without a citing.
Who knows how the match would have ended if he’d been sent packing?
Read More: World News | Entertainment News | Celeb News
Mail Online
