How long a ban?

[Mikey Brown]

Sure, but it’s not 10 weeks worse than a shoulder straight to the face. Not even close. I think that’s more the point.

Cipriani’s red from a season or two back might be a good comparison but I can’t find the clip, oddly. Maybe I’m just biased but the way I remember it the guy basically just fell in to his shoulder and the response “well tough, don’t have your shoulder there.”

[Puja]

Sure, but it’s not 10 weeks worse than a shoulder straight to the face. Not even close. I think that’s more the point.

Cipriani’s red from a season or two back might be a good comparison but I can’t find the clip, oddly. Maybe I’m just biased but the way I remember it the guy basically just fell in to his shoulder and the response “well tough, don’t have your shoulder there.”

The perfect comparison is actually Owen Farrell on Jack Clement earlier this year. Very, very similar situation - ball carrier moving in contact, tucked arm, shoulder to the chin - came back as 6 week ban, reduced to 4 on mitigation, with a week off for tackle school. That's what should've happened, with the only question being whether to enter at 6 weeks (down to 4 for good biscuit eating) or enter at 8 weeks due to repeat offences (down to 6 weeks for quality Rich Tea work).

Puja

[p/d]

I’m thinking Shields red v Munster

[switchskier]

Sure, but it’s not 10 weeks worse than a shoulder straight to the face. Not even close. I think that’s more the point.

Cipriani’s red from a season or two back might be a good comparison but I can’t find the clip, oddly. Maybe I’m just biased but the way I remember it the guy basically just fell in to his shoulder and the response “well tough, don’t have your shoulder there.”

This one? Pretty good comparison with the carrier falling into the shoulder, resulting in red. Arguably not as bad as Ciprianinwas retreating rather than putting the shoulder in.

[Puja]

Sure, but it’s not 10 weeks worse than a shoulder straight to the face. Not even close. I think that’s more the point.

Cipriani’s red from a season or two back might be a good comparison but I can’t find the clip, oddly. Maybe I’m just biased but the way I remember it the guy basically just fell in to his shoulder and the response “well tough, don’t have your shoulder there.”

This one? Pretty good comparison with the carrier falling into the shoulder, resulting in red. Arguably not as bad as Ciprianinwas retreating rather than putting the shoulder in.

I'd say that was far less dangerous, as Cipriani is at least trying to get his arm up there, as opposed to Farrell actively tucking his arm and rounding his shoulder.

Puja

[fivepointer]

Hold on, this may be taking a turn....

[morepork]

Both tackles are pretty bad/dangerous, but Tonga gets 10 weeks and England none?

[Puja]

Hold on, this may be taking a turn....

This is risible. Justice would absolutely be him getting banned, but there should not be this backing-and-forthing happening. Farrell could quite reasonably (if he wasn't so obviously guilty) be quite annoyed that he's had his hearing, argued his case, and now is getting sent back in for a second trial because of public opinion. And what does it mean for the mitigation - does Farrell's original not-guilty plea count against him if the IRB appeal and find him guilty? Will they do some kind of hodge-podge where they ban him because they need to be seen to be doing something, but not by very much so that he doesn't get his expensive lawyer and sue them? I would like him to be banned, for both on and off-field reasons, but it sets a bad precedent that the opinions of the disciplinary boards are final unless enough people disagree with them.

This is especially weird because the average person has no clue about the byzantine organisation of the various disciplinary panels and so it looks like World Rugby are arguing with themselves. Absolute amateur hour.

Puja

[Banquo]

Hold on, this may be taking a turn....

This is risible. Justice would absolutely be him getting banned, but there should not be this backing-and-forthing happening. Farrell could quite reasonably (if he wasn't so obviously guilty) be quite annoyed that he's had his hearing, argued his case, and now is getting sent back in for a second trial because of public opinion. And what does it mean for the mitigation - does Farrell's original not-guilty plea count against him if the IRB appeal and find him guilty? Will they do some kind of hodge-podge where they ban him because they need to be seen to be doing something, but not by very much so that he doesn't get his expensive lawyer and sue them? I would like him to be banned, for both on and off-field reasons, but it sets a bad precedent that the opinions of the disciplinary boards are final unless enough people disagree with them.

This is especially weird because the average person has no clue about the byzantine organisation of the various disciplinary panels and so it looks like World Rugby are arguing with themselves. Absolute amateur hour.

Puja

On the other hand, if we get to the right answer, the overall messaging would end up ok...plus someone might say, this process is a bit fcked.


Dream on, I guess.

[p/d]

Don’t agree. Changing this decision is no better than the decision that undermined the bunker system.

The only saving grace would be for SB to make a statement that under the circumstances Farrell will not be available for selection until the pool stage of WC

[Banquo]

Don’t agree. Changing this decision is no better than the decision that undermined the bunker system.

The only saving grace would be for SB to make a statement that under the circumstances Farrell will not be available for selection until the pool stage of WC

Oh no!!! I disagree with your disagreement...as above, if you come up with the right answer here, you at least undermine a flawed system...surely that is better than completely the wrong decision??

[LongForgotten]

Hold on, this may be taking a turn....

This is risible. Justice would absolutely be him getting banned, but there should not be this backing-and-forthing happening. Farrell could quite reasonably (if he wasn't so obviously guilty) be quite annoyed that he's had his hearing, argued his case, and now is getting sent back in for a second trial because of public opinion. And what does it mean for the mitigation - does Farrell's original not-guilty plea count against him if the IRB appeal and find him guilty? Will they do some kind of hodge-podge where they ban him because they need to be seen to be doing something, but not by very much so that he doesn't get his expensive lawyer and sue them? I would like him to be banned, for both on and off-field reasons, but it sets a bad precedent that the opinions of the disciplinary boards are final unless enough people disagree with them.

This is especially weird because the average person has no clue about the byzantine organisation of the various disciplinary panels and so it looks like World Rugby are arguing with themselves. Absolute amateur hour.

Puja

It looks ridiculous (even I as a fairly engaged fan didn't/don't really understand the accountable bodies here) but probably is beneficial for World Rugby* to reinforce the importance of high tackle protocols. Just need to hope that's the motivation and not the backlash...

*I still really dislike that name.

[Puja]

Both tackles are pretty bad/dangerous, but Tonga gets 10 weeks and England none?

Technically, it's Tonga 5 weeks, as he got 50% mitigation, but the point is absolutely valid outside of my pedantry.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Tua culpa:

[Puja]

SCW failing to cope with people not talking about him and forced to admit that this is actually all his fault:



Puja

[Danno]

Probably paid the bloody fee as well

[Mellsblue]

https://x.com/markismith50/status/16918 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

[loudnconfident]

SCW failing to cope with people not talking about him and forced to admit that this is actually all his fault:



Puja

Hey - we may be chasing the rest wrt fluent play, passing, and entertainment - but we lead the RU world in legal expertise!

[Oakboy]

If any appeal changes the outcome to the correct one it has to be fully supported, IMO, because the decision to rescind the red card was so wrong.

Had the panel's decision been a case of NOT upgrading from yellow to red that would have been bad enough on the evidence. However, it was an incorrect decision to downgrade from red to yellow, overturning a legitimate earlier process upgrading from yellow to red.

I see no disrepute in the decision now being appealed. Getting the right end decision matters.

I still say that the ultimate fault has to be Farrell's because he chose to tackle too high, thereby endangering an opponent by possible head contact. Everything else is peripheral and relatively unimportant. That 'choice to risk causing injury' needs removing from the game as is acknowledged almost universally EXCEPT BY THIS PANEL.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

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.

On the same weekend, George Moala does this tip-tackle:



And gets a 10 week entry point, with 50% mitigation for having no previous. Now, I'm not saying that's not a red card tackle, but it appears the difference is representing yourself and pleading guilty, instead of employing a very expensive lawyer to argue that you've not done anything wrong at all. Frankly, had Moala had Farrell's lawyer, he could've very easily argued LeSage lands on his side and therefore it shouldn't've been a red.

A lot of PI players opining on Twitter that, were Farrell of PI descent, he'd've been banned for months. Hard to think they're wrong.

Puja

That's not that much difference from Stewards is it? He just drops him and he lands on his back?

[Beasties]

Just got caught up on the post game shenanigans. I’m staggered by this. Which brand of micrometer did they use to assess the drop in height of the victim? And why didn’t they assess Farrell’s increase in tackle height at all from deliberations? He drove his shoulder upwards at the point of contact. Absolutely blown my mind all this.

[Puja]

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

On the same weekend, George Moala does this tip-tackle:



And gets a 10 week entry point, with 50% mitigation for having no previous. Now, I'm not saying that's not a red card tackle, but it appears the difference is representing yourself and pleading guilty, instead of employing a very expensive lawyer to argue that you've not done anything wrong at all. Frankly, had Moala had Farrell's lawyer, he could've very easily argued LeSage lands on his side and therefore it shouldn't've been a red.

A lot of PI players opining on Twitter that, were Farrell of PI descent, he'd've been banned for months. Hard to think they're wrong.

Puja

That's not that much difference from Stewards is it? He just drops him and he lands on his back?

I suppose the difference is the intent - Steward blunders into someone who has jumped in the air, whereas LeSage is minding his own business on the ground before getting lifted and flipped. Mind, potentially the IRB's fault for letting hapless amateurs like Canada play a high-level team .

Plus tip tackles are still down in the books as extra bad things, so it's easier to get a red for those than for taking someone out in the air. For the latter, they need to land on head or neck, whereas for the former, it just has to be "upper back, head or neck". Still marginal though.

Puja

[FKAS]

On the same weekend, George Moala does this tip-tackle:



And gets a 10 week entry point, with 50% mitigation for having no previous. Now, I'm not saying that's not a red card tackle, but it appears the difference is representing yourself and pleading guilty, instead of employing a very expensive lawyer to argue that you've not done anything wrong at all. Frankly, had Moala had Farrell's lawyer, he could've very easily argued LeSage lands on his side and therefore it shouldn't've been a red.

A lot of PI players opining on Twitter that, were Farrell of PI descent, he'd've been banned for months. Hard to think they're wrong.

Puja

That's not that much difference from Stewards is it? He just drops him and he lands on his back?

I suppose the difference is the intent - Steward blunders into someone who has jumped in the air, whereas LeSage is minding his own business on the ground before getting lifted and flipped. Mind, potentially the IRB's fault for letting hapless amateurs like Canada play a high-level team .

Plus tip tackles are still down in the books as extra bad things, so it's easier to get a red for those than for taking someone out in the air. For the latter, they need to land on head or neck, whereas for the former, it just has to be "upper back, head or neck". Still marginal though.

Puja

Agreed. Difference is the intent. Steward makes what would have been a legal tackle were Adams on the floor. You can call it clumsy and mistimed. Picking someone up, flipping them and dropping them really speaks to the intent to cause some damage and make a physical statement. If Moala keeps hold of the player on the way down and brings him to ground on his back he doesn't get more than a yellow, maybe even just a penalty.

[Puja]

That's not that much difference from Stewards is it? He just drops him and he lands on his back?

I suppose the difference is the intent - Steward blunders into someone who has jumped in the air, whereas LeSage is minding his own business on the ground before getting lifted and flipped. Mind, potentially the IRB's fault for letting hapless amateurs like Canada play a high-level team .

Plus tip tackles are still down in the books as extra bad things, so it's easier to get a red for those than for taking someone out in the air. For the latter, they need to land on head or neck, whereas for the former, it just has to be "upper back, head or neck". Still marginal though.

Puja

Agreed. Difference is the intent. Steward makes what would have been a legal tackle were Adams on the floor. You can call it clumsy and mistimed. Picking someone up, flipping them and dropping them really speaks to the intent to cause some damage and make a physical statement. If Moala keeps hold of the player on the way down and brings him to ground on his back he doesn't get more than a yellow, maybe even just a penalty.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far as that - it's actually pretty easy to accidentally drop someone in that situation, given that a) a person is heavy and b) you've got in your brain, "Shit, I've lifted him up in the air and I'm not allowed to drive him into the ground," and it's very easy to overcorrect. Looks worse than it is in terms of intent.

I'd still say that, with a good lawyer, that's only a yellow.

Puja

[FKAS]

I suppose the difference is the intent - Steward blunders into someone who has jumped in the air, whereas LeSage is minding his own business on the ground before getting lifted and flipped. Mind, potentially the IRB's fault for letting hapless amateurs like Canada play a high-level team .

Plus tip tackles are still down in the books as extra bad things, so it's easier to get a red for those than for taking someone out in the air. For the latter, they need to land on head or neck, whereas for the former, it just has to be "upper back, head or neck". Still marginal though.

Puja

Agreed. Difference is the intent. Steward makes what would have been a legal tackle were Adams on the floor. You can call it clumsy and mistimed. Picking someone up, flipping them and dropping them really speaks to the intent to cause some damage and make a physical statement. If Moala keeps hold of the player on the way down and brings him to ground on his back he doesn't get more than a yellow, maybe even just a penalty.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far as that - it's actually pretty easy to accidentally drop someone in that situation, given that a) a person is heavy and b) you've got in your brain, "Shit, I've lifted him up in the air and I'm not allowed to drive him into the ground," and it's very easy to overcorrect. Looks worse than it is in terms of intent.

I'd still say that, with a good lawyer, that's only a yellow.

Puja

Yeah there's certainly a bit in how you bring them to floor. Even if you do lose control of the person's mass I'd always advocate dropping to floor with them and trying to land more chest than shoulder first. The more dramatic it looks the more the ref is likely to reach for a card or the TMO is to flag it up.