For a red card to be issued (or any sanction - YC, PK) the referee has to be sure that foul play has occurred.
For any head contact, the second question to ask yourself - as a ref - is, was there foul play? (The first is, was there contact directly to the head).
Yes, I'm well aware of the framework. I have seen it at every GMG session I've attended since I qualified as a ref.
As for whether it is a red - the team made that decision given the information at the time. Facts are important here:
So the ref has deemed that the poorly timed tackle - by the Knox player - was in fact intentional...
The high tackle framework says nothing about
intent, nor does Law 9.13 :
A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.
Law 9 Foul Play uses "intentionally" or "dangerously" at various points for different clauses, but they are not interchangeable, nor are they implied as such.
Whether the head clash was intentional or not, high tackle has still occurred. So the questions are:
Has Head Contact Occured? If Yes:
Was there any Foul Play? If Yes - player was at fault:
What was the degree of danger? If High - Red Card.
We've seen this sort of tackle given red card at the top level (Ta'avao in Ireland v ABs). The professionals get multiple reviews to make a decision, and a TMO to support that. The team last night got a split second.
It is easy for anyone to criticise with the luxury of watching back a video. More helpful is coaching people in the moment.