Rugby World Cup 2023
- Thread starter Braveheart81
- Start date
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
John Langford and David Croft played with distinction at Super level. I can't believe those guys came to this conclusion.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I don't generally advocate violence, least of all on the sports field, but someone needs to give Farrell a dose of his own medicine & when cited produce this bullshit decision as Defence Exhibit A. Can WR (World Rugby) appeal their own judiciary's finding? If so they absolutely should.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
It's a dodgy decision ... disgraceful.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Eggchaser's take:
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Well I a bit gobsmacked by decision, but haven't seen all the arguments and angles etc, but do I find it stranger than Irish player breaking Brodie Rettalick's jaw in a contact to head that was called an absorbing tackle? No I don't, but there was no outrage over that, so it seems we pick our moments huh?
I certainly thought he would get 6 weeks, but consistency etc will never happen (as in court of law) when there are legal arguments etc and different boards at each hearing.
I certainly thought he would get 6 weeks, but consistency etc will never happen (as in court of law) when there are legal arguments etc and different boards at each hearing.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Make it clear, I don't agree with decision, but I have read some things online that are getting overboard, how WR (World Rugby) is racist because Moala got 10 weeks and he is Tongan etc. I not sure who people are accusing of being racist or even crooked, this Judiciary panel, or the other ones that have given out bans?? Just think at times we need to take a breath, and before we lynch Croft, Welbron and Casselden and make accusations of bias etc by these 3.
LeCheese
Peter Johnson (47)
Watching it again, George does push Basham significantly off his line, and also causes him to stumble and drop his height just before contact.
I still think the wrong call has been made, but I can at least partially understand the decision. Good angle of it below:
Highlander35
Andrew Slack (58)
It's bullshit.
Whatever the arguments for or against mitigation, the fact is that Farrell tucks his leading arm, leads with the shoulder and drives up. Farrel's not quite as textbook egregious in the body motions as SBW here, but the principles behind the dangerous behaviour are the same.
There was far FAR more mitigation to be offered by the "assisting tackler" here, but that was still a 4 week suspension 6 YEARS AGO.
It's not difficult to get this right.
Whatever the arguments for or against mitigation, the fact is that Farrell tucks his leading arm, leads with the shoulder and drives up. Farrel's not quite as textbook egregious in the body motions as SBW here, but the principles behind the dangerous behaviour are the same.
There was far FAR more mitigation to be offered by the "assisting tackler" here, but that was still a 4 week suspension 6 YEARS AGO.
It's not difficult to get this right.
I'd love to say it's an interesting precedent to set just before the RWC, but this is WR (World Rugby), and I'm sure they can fuck the process even more wildly in no time at all. There will (and should) be players sat out for 4-6 weeks in the RWC for these type of tackles. Just mind-boggling. How many times does this guy get his slate cleaned?
LeCheese
Peter Johnson (47)
Thought this was a bit concerning in the Roar article - not the no criticism part, that's great and how it should be, but the justification around why the 'incorrect' decision was made.
8 minutes is a substantial amount of time to look at the available angles, and refer to the framework as required. If not, then something needs to change in the decision making tools that are available.
I think they prefer "Refs" and "Assistant Refs".
Dismal Pillock
David Codey (61)
Full statement on Owen Farrell disciplinary:
"My client from England, Mr Owen Farrell appeared before an independent judicial committee via video link having received a red card for an act of foul playcontrary to 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.) in the Summer Nations Series match between England and Wales on Saturday 12th August 2023.
The independent Judicial Committee consisting of Adam Casselden SC – Chair, John Langford and David Croft (all from Australia) heard the case, considering all the available evidence and submissions from the player and his representative.
The player acknowledged that whilst he had committed an act of foul play, he denied that the act was worthy of a red card. After reviewing all the evidence, questioning the player in detail and hearing submissions from the player’s representative, the Committee concluded that the Foul Play Review Officer was wrong, on the balance of probabilities, to upgrade the yellow card issued to the player to a red card. The Committee determined, when applying World Rugby’s Head Contact Process, that mitigation should be applied to the high degree of danger found by the Foul Play Review Officer. The Committee found that a late change in dynamics due to England #2’s interaction in the contact area brought about a sudden and significant change in direction from the ball carrier. In the Committee’s opinion, this mitigation was sufficient to bring the player’s act of foul play below the red car threshold.
The Committee believe it is important to record, that no criticism is made of the Foul Play Review Officer nor, would any be warranted. Unlike the Foul Play Review Officer the Committee had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the Head Contact Process. The Committee believe this is in contrast to the Foul Play Review Officer, who was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes without the benefit of all the additional material including hearing from the player and his legal representative.
"I have spoken directly to the 3 individuals on the Judicial Committee and on that basis, the Committee did not uphold the red card and the player is free to play again immediately."
"My client from England, Mr Owen Farrell appeared before an independent judicial committee via video link having received a red card for an act of foul play
The independent Judicial Committee consisting of Adam Casselden SC – Chair, John Langford and David Croft (all from Australia) heard the case, considering all the available evidence and submissions from the player and his representative.
The player acknowledged that whilst he had committed an act of foul play, he denied that the act was worthy of a red card. After reviewing all the evidence, questioning the player in detail and hearing submissions from the player’s representative, the Committee concluded that the Foul Play Review Officer was wrong, on the balance of probabilities, to upgrade the yellow card issued to the player to a red card. The Committee determined, when applying World Rugby’s Head Contact Process, that mitigation should be applied to the high degree of danger found by the Foul Play Review Officer. The Committee found that a late change in dynamics due to England #2’s interaction in the contact area brought about a sudden and significant change in direction from the ball carrier. In the Committee’s opinion, this mitigation was sufficient to bring the player’s act of foul play below the red car threshold.
The Committee believe it is important to record, that no criticism is made of the Foul Play Review Officer nor, would any be warranted. Unlike the Foul Play Review Officer the Committee had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the Head Contact Process. The Committee believe this is in contrast to the Foul Play Review Officer, who was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes without the benefit of all the additional material including hearing from the player and his legal representative.
"I have spoken directly to the 3 individuals on the Judicial Committee and on that basis, the Committee did not uphold the red card and the player is free to play again immediately."
Wallaby Man
Trevor Allan (34)
I don’t think the contact is as shocking as many are making it out to be, social media outrage is remarkable and is having a huge impact on rugby perception but that’s a different discussion. Those saying he drove up are having a laugh it’s essentially a mistimed hit that’s got it fractionally wrong. I’ll lay my cards on the table here and think it’s a yellow in what I believe these kind of hits should be.
However what I do disagree with is that these kind of hits have been perceived as a red card for a number of years now, therefore it should remain at that threshold. How does he get off when players have missed weeks over the last World Cup cycle for exactly the same hit. Rugby as a whole has really botched the high tackle framework. As mentioned earlier im happy to see this as a yellow, however it hasn’t been a yellow for a number of years. Clearly some preferential treatment given here. The frustration is that someone will do the same thing during the World Cup and then get a ban.
However what I do disagree with is that these kind of hits have been perceived as a red card for a number of years now, therefore it should remain at that threshold. How does he get off when players have missed weeks over the last World Cup cycle for exactly the same hit. Rugby as a whole has really botched the high tackle framework. As mentioned earlier im happy to see this as a yellow, however it hasn’t been a yellow for a number of years. Clearly some preferential treatment given here. The frustration is that someone will do the same thing during the World Cup and then get a ban.
Hit the player high (and in fact rises into the tackle, rather than lowering), it's a shoulder, little or no attempt to wrap.
I agree it is fractionally wrong, if that fraction is about 9/10.
Wallaby Man
Trevor Allan (34)
He doesn’t drive up. And nobody ever drives down in a tackle. He basically hits and then stands in the tackle once the player bounced. He hasn’t gone swinging into the head.
This is part of the hoopla reaction that rugby suffers from these days.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
So who are we anti WR (World Rugby), or Croft ,Welborne and Casselden who let Farrel off or WR (World Rugby)?? And why would these 3 make it better for England as some seem to be saying?
Actually when talking about it on tv last night (before the decision was reached) James Parson said that when you talk about education etc when getting a sentnce reduced, he thought as a serial offender Farrel would have to agree to continual training, as when you under pressure you go to what's automatic.
And if you want to see how over the top some reactions are, I saw a couple of posts suggesting you shouldn't have 3 Aussies on Judiciary! It's getting over the top!
Actually when talking about it on tv last night (before the decision was reached) James Parson said that when you talk about education etc when getting a sentnce reduced, he thought as a serial offender Farrel would have to agree to continual training, as when you under pressure you go to what's automatic.
And if you want to see how over the top some reactions are, I saw a couple of posts suggesting you shouldn't have 3 Aussies on Judiciary! It's getting over the top!
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
It really doesn't seem to me like there is any substantial change in the ball carrier's trajectory. He's coming towards Farrell the whole time and Farrell is getting ready to "tackle" him.
The drop in height doesn't seem more than you have to expect from a ball carrier.
There's nowhere near enough lateral shift in the ball carrier's path due to George's involvement to suggest that Farrell wouldn't have contacted him high if not for George.
Seems a very hard decision to defend in my view.
The drop in height doesn't seem more than you have to expect from a ball carrier.
There's nowhere near enough lateral shift in the ball carrier's path due to George's involvement to suggest that Farrell wouldn't have contacted him high if not for George.
Seems a very hard decision to defend in my view.