I’m not with you on this one, Joe

IT IS never less than vital to know what Joe Marler thinks about latest developments in the sport at which he excels, so we must be grateful for his Donald Trump-like fixation with social media as a means of communication.

The latest from the Harlequins prop concerns the punishment dished out to Andre Esterhuizen after the Springbok centre's “tackle” on Jose Lima, which vaporised the poor Portuguese midfielder so comprehensively, it prompted his coach, Simon Mannix, to say that his “thoughts and prayers” were with him. Marler was super-quick in expressing his support for the victim. Problem? In his eyes, the victim deserving of his sympathy turned out to be Esterhuizen, not Lima. According to old Mohican Bonce, the red card was wrong and the ensuing four-match ban an affront to justice. Up you could not make it.

Of course, this may have been nothing more than a common or garden case of Harlequins sticking together, Esterhuizen having just ended a four-year tour of duty at The Stoop. But even if he and Marler were blood brothers, defending the indefensible is… well…indefensible.

As so often in recent high-profile cases – or rather, head-high-profile cases – the tackler had options. Esterhuizen could easily have hit Lima lower and removed much of the risk. The fact that he chose otherwise is his fault, not the fault of the referee or the officials in the bunker or the members of the disciplinary panel.

Rugby's direction of travel in this regard is abundantly clear – southerly, not northerly – and it is equally well-established that the burden of responsibility rests with the tackler. If some areas of union law are insanely complicated, this really isn't one of them. Can we all wake up and smell the embrocation? Please?