How long a ban?

[Which Tyler]

[fivepointer]

Another twitter contribution. A very good, comprehensive one from a guy who has commented on these matters before with some authority.

[francoisfou]

The England management should do the right thing here and give him a lengthy in-house ban anyway. (yeah - sure!). Wonder if he'll be picked v. Ireland at the weekend? There is a very good case for leaving him out, based solely on his playing limitations, never mind ban.

Do us all a favour and pick him in the hope that he'll have another brainfart or will be flattened by Bundee Aki or some other considerate Irishman.

[francoisfou]

The England management should do the right thing here and give him a lengthy in-house ban anyway. (yeah - sure!). Wonder if he'll be picked v. Ireland at the weekend? There is a very good case for leaving him out, based solely on his playing limitations, never mind ban.

Do us all a favour and pick him in the hope that he'll have another brainfart or will be flattened by Bundee Aki or some other considerate Irishman.

[Puja]

Puja

[16th man]

Just WTAF.

[Which Tyler]

Another twitter contribution. A very good, comprehensive one from a guy who has commented on these matters before with some authority.

Is anyone criticising the Foul Play Review Officer? That seems to be the guy who got it right. It's the committee that's receiving all the flack - and rightly so.

[morepork]

Any rugby-loving neurologists out there....you know what to do....speak up.

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://x.com/andnickmullins/status/169 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

The more often I read that the more often I just think 'corrupt'!

The panel mention that the bunker ref didn't have the benefit of the player's legal representative. Perhaps the teams should have their lawyers in the bunker too, that would help .

[Sandydragon]

The England management should do the right thing here and give him a lengthy in-house ban anyway. (yeah - sure!). Wonder if he'll be picked v. Ireland at the weekend? There is a very good case for leaving him out, based solely on his playing limitations, never mind ban.

Excellent point. Could do with a moral stance here.

Apparently the English management are delighted with the outcome. Based on this board, they must be the only buggers who are.

[Spiffy]

https://twitter.com/nickheathsport/stat ... 0805422080

George Ford almost saying what everyone is thinking..

Edit* - here's the audio https://twitter.com/ek_rugby/status/1691455645072183296

Freudian slip or is canny George just being Machiavellian here

[Mellsblue]

I think he has this wrong, this was very minor change in height and line that a player should allow for and Farrell was clearly going for one of his temper tantrum shoulder hits, but:

https://x.com/rugbyandthelaw/status/169 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

[Mellsblue]

Shaun Edwards in the Daily Mail:

‘Justice has been served for Owen Farrell. I was one of the few people who thought his red card was wrong. It’s right that he’s been cleared to play.‘

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... sport.html

[Insouciant]

I think he has this wrong, this was very minor change in height and line that a player should allow for and Farrell was clearly going for one of his temper tantrum shoulder hits, but:

https://x.com/rugbyandthelaw/status/169 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

Indeed.. I'm not sure I buy that thread's explanation. Farrell is driving upwards with the shoulder and making no attempt to wrap whether the tackle height has shifted or not. If the guy is 4 inches higher he just hits him lower in face/chin area. Pretty sure that qualifies as dangerous anyway.

If the same thing happens with him on the receiving end this weekend, I do wonder what the English coaches will say about it. The precedent set is very dangerous. Tongans and Samoans must be licking their lips for the world cup already..

[Spiffy]

I think he has this wrong, this was very minor change in height and line that a player should allow for and Farrell was clearly going for one of his temper tantrum shoulder hits, but:

https://x.com/rugbyandthelaw/status/169 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

Indeed.. I'm not sure I buy that thread's explanation. Farrell is driving upwards with the shoulder and making no attempt to wrap whether the tackle height has shifted or not. If the guy is 4 inches higher he just hits him lower in face/chin area. Pretty sure that qualifies as dangerous anyway.

If the same thing happens with him on the receiving end this weekend, I do wonder what the English coaches will say about it. The precedent set is very dangerous. Tongans and Samoans must be licking their lips for the world cup already..

Not sure this is a precedent. Precious Owen can get away with anything but woe betide anyone who clobbers him.

[morepork]

It was a flat out shoulder charge. Fucker thought he was playing for Wigan in the 1980s.


and btw....the Tongan Samoan head hunter cliche is so 2000, you know? At least they have sovereign countries now instead of all being "South Sea Islanders".

[Sandydragon]

Another twitter contribution. A very good, comprehensive one from a guy who has commented on these matters before with some authority.

Is anyone criticising the Foul Play Review Officer? That seems to be the guy who got it right. It's the committee that's receiving all the flack - and rightly so.

The reviewing official gets 7-8 minutes to review the camera footage. Unless there are angles not available, how much time do you need to watch a few seconds of actual footage?

Was the tackle technique legal, no. There was no wrap. As others have stated, even if Basham did drop in height slightly, it was still a dangerous tackle and Basham would have needed to drop a very long way for that excuse to be valid.

This really stinks.

[Danno]

The England management should do the right thing here and give him a lengthy in-house ban anyway. (yeah - sure!). Wonder if he'll be picked v. Ireland at the weekend? There is a very good case for leaving him out, based solely on his playing limitations, never mind ban.

Excellent point. Could do with a moral stance here.

Apparently the English management are delighted with the outcome. Based on this board, they must be the only buggers who are.

Rugby twitter is in line with our (apparent) BS for once. There's the odd guy being weird about it but a LOT of folks seem to be finally realising he's both average and a dirty c*** when things aren't going his way.

Buuuuut it's rugby twitter.

[Got some sleep]

Unfortunately, I think the laws are interpreted differently in a world-cup year. I hope this isn't the worst decision.

[Tesh]

I know Sinfield gets a lot of good press for his charity work, and rightly so, but this quote is awful.

“I understand some of the noise. Some of it I don’t get either. You guys have tried to hang him when it is one poorly-timed tackle.”

I remember him doing an interview with Chris Jones before the 6 nations Ireland game and he was closed off then, slightly intimidating and certainly not remotely affable, like talking to a mobster. This incredulity from him and Borthwick that journalists would ask anything remotely negative
(Ie “what went wrong”) when we lose and play both terribly and with no style can get gone; like watching two people without a shred of charisma do a “three cheers for Sireli Bobo” impression

[wanderingjock]

Hmm well done for the slick kc that got him off that the rfu employed. Based on the rugby. Bad times.

[wanderingjock]

Should we have a kc going up against a bundle of muppets?

[Puja]

Unfortunately, I think the laws are interpreted differently in a world-cup year. I hope this isn't the worst decision.

I think you're right. So much of the IRB's budget depends on the RWC that they're reluctant to let anything risk it. Despite the fact that England would probably be better without him (and the sport would be better for the decisive example on head contacts), he is a recognisable star in England (for certain values of "star", but if you asked casuals to name a current English rugby player, he's likely the name they'd come up with) and I think any vaguely plausible defence was always going to be leapt on to keep him in the eyes of the sponsors.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think he has this wrong, this was very minor change in height and line that a player should allow for and Farrell was clearly going for one of his temper tantrum shoulder hits, but:

https://x.com/rugbyandthelaw/status/169 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

Indeed.. I'm not sure I buy that thread's explanation. Farrell is driving upwards with the shoulder and making no attempt to wrap whether the tackle height has shifted or not. If the guy is 4 inches higher he just hits him lower in face/chin area. Pretty sure that qualifies as dangerous anyway.

If the same thing happens with him on the receiving end this weekend, I do wonder what the English coaches will say about it. The precedent set is very dangerous. Tongans and Samoans must be licking their lips for the world cup already..

Not sure this is a precedent. Precious Owen can get away with anything but woe betide anyone who clobbers him.

Exactly. The Tongans and Samoans aren't Owen Farrell so they aren't going to get away with it.

[Lizard]

I’ve discussed this with a friend who is a lawyer that defends these sorts of things up to test and RWC level. He thinks it’s wrong. There are examples of similar direction changes by the victim that have been deemed insufficient to mitigate or downgrade. My mate says he will definitely be relying on Farrell’s case as a precedent if he has to defend anything similar.

I think WR need to appeal this to prevent the bar being lowered so much.