“Referee Rumbles and Six Nations Whirlwinds: Unpacking Leinster’s Controversies with a Dash of Excitement!”

This week we will primarily be focusing on the ‘Leinster bias’ situation and the internal conflicts between Wales and England…

The essence of favorable team bias

Let’s be honest, continuously discussing persistently triumphant teams receiving all the borderline calls is hardly a novel addition to the sport. Or any sport, for that matter. Nonetheless, emotions can run particularly strong in rugby, where a considerable fraction of the decisions are marginal/interpreted.

However, for rugby players, particularly at the international level, to approach reporters in a Kevin Keegan manner regarding this is quite a twist for two reasons: firstly because the main incident in question is one that merits examination within a broader game context and secondly as it reinforces the notion that despite the achievements – before November at least – of the national team, discord exists among the regions.

The incident. A brief note of legal terminology concerning technicalities at clean-outs related to this incident.

Law 15.3: Participants in all phases of the ruck must keep their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.

Law 15.4: Each team possesses an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the rearmost point of any ruck participant. If that point resides on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

Law 15.5: An arriving player must be upright and join from behind their offside line.

Law 15.6: A player may join alongside but must not be in front of the rearmost player.

Law 15.7: A player must bind onto a teammate or an opposing player. The bind must occur before or simultaneously with contact with any other body part.

Regarding Law 15.3, Jordie Barrett is compliant. Head evident above hips. Bundee Aki is not depicted here, but he did have the right to pursue the ball, thus his head-to-hip positioning is irrelevant.

Concerning Laws 15.4, 5, and 6, Barrett occupies a dubious area. He is standing. His starting position is behind the offside line. Although he crosses the offside line prior to making contact with Aki, he does indeed join alongside the rearmost player. Regrettably, he does not move through what was formerly referred to as ‘the gate’, but the current ruck laws do not clarify this as explicitly as they used to. Nonetheless, the video clearly displays his outside foot well beyond the offside line before making contact, indicating he is indisputably offside.

Finally, regarding Law 15.7. Barrett does bind with the arm positioned outside the ruck. However, his arm on the inside, the one below the shoulder making contact with Aki’s head, is tucked in a shoulder charge position. Essentially, he commits an infringement with one arm while adhering to technicalities with the other – and the bind coincides with the contact with Aki’s head.

‘It does occur’ – Ireland legend comments on Leinster bias allegations

So, to what extent is it an infringement? If the arm binds correctly, if he joins a ruck in a legal head-above-hip posture (set aside the offside issue for a moment) and if Aki’s head is lowered, how is Barrett expected to evade the contact?

This issue was very sensibly addressed by Ben O’Keeffe in last year’s Six Nations match between Wales and Scotland, where a clear head contact was not penalized as it was deemed a rugby incident. And again, while Barrett is offside, this does not pertain to his clean-out technique and does not influence whether this is a rugby incident or not.

The counter to that is the arm that fails to bind. It distinctly tucks. It clearly charges. It evidently comes into contact with Aki’s head. Furthermore, tucking your arm during contact is not recognized as a rugby action in any way. While it may be simultaneous with the bind, it is illegal and should have been assessed.

Therein lies, in far more than a nutshell, the dilemma for rivals and officials that many proficient teams generate. They execute sufficient technicalities correctly that simultaneous violations become obscured during review.

Ireland’s national team has mastered this for years, although curiously during the recent November, technical standards declined; almost instantly, the infringements began to amass. The same has transpired for Leinster in some notable significant matches over the years. South Africa and particularly New Zealand have also excelled at this for ages.

But back to the ‘broader game’ perspective: these particular cleanouts, wherein players arrive alongside the last individual, clearly outside the width of the grounded player and ultimately clearing across the ruck rather than through it, are troublesome and undermine the integrity of what we wish to witness at ruck time. It would be beneficial if the principles pertaining to entering through the gate and clearing directly were enforced with greater rigor than they currently are.

Harmony on earth and goodwill to a-oh

The year concludes for England and Wales with both in a state of disastrous boardroom upheaval. Nigel Walker was only ever going to be as effective as the feuding factions surrounding him permitted him to be, yet the management of the transition at the WRU, so desperately needing stability and strategic guidance, continues to resemble more of Eddie Jones than anything else.

Perhaps Wales’ sole consolation is that the disintegration of the RFU over the past few days renders the Welsh disputes seem like seagulls squabbling over a chip.

Both under-pressure coaches remain in their respective positions, and despite the challenges on the pitch, they appear to be the most reasonable and steady individuals within their respective administrations, yet both may ultimately find themselves as the first victims of incoming overlords. An entertaining Six Nations is on the horizon.

READ MORE: Joe Marler takes aim at RFU ‘dinosaurs’ following pay scandal