How long a ban?

[Son of Mathonwy]

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 makes the rugby authorities look shambolic but IF it leads to the right outcome surely that's better than an outcome that seems corrupt, ignores regulations and supports a dangerous player over the victims of head injuries?

[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

It makes the rugby authorities look shambolic but IF it leads to the right outcome surely that's better than an outcome that seems corrupt, ignores regulations and supports a dangerous player over the victims of head injuries?

I think I'm probably falling on that side - it is stupid and makes the sport look ridiculous, but no stupider than doing nothing, and at least there would be the right result.

It probably won't come to anything though - the only source for this alleged appeal is one reporter at The 42 and I reckon the IRB are going to just let the 48 hours pass and not do anything, with the hope that it'll all blow over.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

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 makes the rugby authorities look shambolic but IF it leads to the right outcome surely that's better than an outcome that seems corrupt, ignores regulations and supports a dangerous player over the victims of head injuries?

I think I'm probably falling on that side - it is stupid and makes the sport look ridiculous, but no stupider than doing nothing, and at least there would be the right result.

It probably won't come to anything though - the only source for this alleged appeal is one reporter at The 42 and I reckon the IRB are going to just let the 48 hours pass and not do anything, with the hope that it'll all blow over.

Puja

Yeah, I agree that this probably will come to nothing - it feels too good to be true. It's the sort of thing you see in politics quite often - like oh, my god, surely they're going to to the right thing here for once . . . oh, no they're not, back to the indefensible.

[Danno]

[Big D]

Appeal is in.

[FKAS]

Appeal is in.

I presume this will force a change in the team for Saturday. It shouldn't because Farrell shouldn't have been in anyway but at 4pm he'll be confirmed as sitting out.

If this doesn't get revisited until next week any ban could eat further into the world cup. Talk about a silver lining.

[twitchy]

I was thinking

[Danno]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66531764

Here we go again.

[Oakboy]

The WRU saying that player welfare is the number one priority rather lays down a mark. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the office of OF's solicitor!

[Puja]

https://www.world.rugby/news/832976/wor ... s-red-card

World Rugby has today confirmed to the Rugby Football Union and Six Nations Rugby that it will exercise its right to appeal in regard to the Owen Farrell disciplinary decision following a careful review of the independent Judicial Committee's full written decision received on 16 August.

World Rugby fully supports the important role that an independent disciplinary process plays in upholding the integrity and values of the sport, particularly regarding foul play involving head contact. Player welfare is the sport’s number one priority, and the Head Contact Process is central to that mission at the elite level of the sport.

Having considered the full written decision, World Rugby considers an appeal to be warranted.

In line with provisions set out under Regulation 17, an independent Appeal Committee will be appointed to determine the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Further details regarding the hearing, including appointments and date, will be confirmed by Six Nations Rugby.

Yup, Farrell's boned. That bolded 8 words basically says that they're reacting to the obloquy from the public/Progressive Rugby and the decision is going to be political, not judicial.

Not that I don't think he doesn't deserve to be banned - he absolutely does - but this will now become a railroad. I suspect that the legal logic that they will use will centre around his actions being "always illegal" and therefore mitigation does not apply, which makes it an error in law by the original panel (as they can only appeal an error in law, not just on the basis of disliking the answer).

It does raise the question of what Fazlet's crack team of lawyers do from here. Do they continue pleading not guilty, despite it being clear that it's highly unlikely that the IRB would be doing this if they haven't made up their mind, and thus lose any chance of mitigation? Do they plead guilty, despite that it'll definitely rule him out of at least some of the pool stages? Have they even got the option to choose guilty now, given that the whole point of mitigation is to save everyone's time wrangling about it and it's not really showing acceptance of fault and remorse if you plead not guilty first?

Puja

[Puja]

Also, even if the hearing is held after the Ireland game, I'm assuming that England will claim that game counts as part of his ban as "time served". So I still think there might be a fudge whereby he misses three games and only misses out on the Argentina match.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Did Farrell not plead guilty to foul play? If so, he could still attract mitigation. The panel was convinced that his foul play did not merit red by repeated representation of the evidence. Therefore, could that not be overturned by appeal now on assessment of fact rather than interpretation of rugby law?

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.world.rugby/news/832976/wor ... s-red-card

World Rugby has today confirmed to the Rugby Football Union and Six Nations Rugby that it will exercise its right to appeal in regard to the Owen Farrell disciplinary decision following a careful review of the independent Judicial Committee's full written decision received on 16 August.

World Rugby fully supports the important role that an independent disciplinary process plays in upholding the integrity and values of the sport, particularly regarding foul play involving head contact. Player welfare is the sport’s number one priority, and the Head Contact Process is central to that mission at the elite level of the sport.

Having considered the full written decision, World Rugby considers an appeal to be warranted.

In line with provisions set out under Regulation 17, an independent Appeal Committee will be appointed to determine the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Further details regarding the hearing, including appointments and date, will be confirmed by Six Nations Rugby.

Yup, Farrell's boned. That bolded 8 words basically says that they're reacting to the obloquy from the public/Progressive Rugby and the decision is going to be political, not judicial.

Not that I don't think he doesn't deserve to be banned - he absolutely does - but this will now become a railroad. I suspect that the legal logic that they will use will centre around his actions being "always illegal" and therefore mitigation does not apply, which makes it an error in law by the original panel (as they can only appeal an error in law, not just on the basis of disliking the answer).

It does raise the question of what Fazlet's crack team of lawyers do from here. Do they continue pleading not guilty, despite it being clear that it's highly unlikely that the IRB would be doing this if they haven't made up their mind, and thus lose any chance of mitigation? Do they plead guilty, despite that it'll definitely rule him out of at least some of the pool stages? Have they even got the option to choose guilty now, given that the whole point of mitigation is to save everyone's time wrangling about it and it's not really showing acceptance of fault and remorse if you plead not guilty first?

Puja

I think the whole reduced sentence for showing remorse (or pretending to be remorseful) is bullshit anyway, but I agree it ought to be impossible for him to do this now.

Having said that it's World Rugby Star Owen Farrell so I'm sure when it comes to having the book thrown at him it'll turn out to be a small pamphlet.

[morepork]

What a shit show.

[Buggaluggs]

Its odd how a ban on an English player has united the various fractions of this board in a way I've not seen before. I do feel sorry for Farrell the man. Not his on field actions, but just as a bloke this must be incredibly stressful. He probably wishes he just had then ban and could get on with life.

[Puja]

I think the whole reduced sentence for showing remorse (or pretending to be remorseful) is bullshit anyway, but I agree it ought to be impossible for him to do this now.

It may be horribly cynical of me, but when the commentators noted that Farrell had gone over to Basham to apologise before walking off the pitch, my first thought was that he was checking an item off his pre-disciplinary-hearing list of showing remorse.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Its odd how a ban on an English player has united the various fractions of this board in a way I've not seen before. I do feel sorry for Farrell the man. Not his on field actions, but just as a bloke this must be incredibly stressful. He probably wishes he just had then ban and could get on with life.

Yeah it’s weird isn’t it. I (along with many on here) have been a huge Farrell critic (as a player and captain) for a long time, but the attention he is getting now and the number of people assuming he is nasty on a personal level is a shame.

[Mikey Brown]

I can't bring myself to watch it but just saw the quote "sport has gone woke, you need mental toughness" on an interview with Gatland. God I fucking hate him. I was starting to like Wales again as well, but he's such a dusty old cunt.

[Lizard]

WR are appealing https://www.world.rugby/news/832976/wor ... s-red-card

So they aren't completely useless, then.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I can't bring myself to watch it but just saw the quote "sport has gone woke, you need mental toughness" on an interview with Gatland. God I fucking hate him. I was starting to like Wales again as well, but he's such a dusty old cunt.

Yeah, I really hoped he'd been consigned to history after the last world cup.

[Which Tyler]

The WRU saying that player welfare is the number one irony rather lays down a mark. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the office of OF's solicitor!

FTFY (unless it was a typo for World Rugby - I'm not seeing any official involvement of the WRU yet)

And, given that there's a path for appeal, thank gods they're taking it!
Personally, I'd be in favour of them sacking the 3 Aussies for bringing the game into disrepute.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think the whole reduced sentence for showing remorse (or pretending to be remorseful) is bullshit anyway, but I agree it ought to be impossible for him to do this now.

It may be horribly cynical of me, but when the commentators noted that Farrell had gone over to Basham to apologise before walking off the pitch, my first thought was that he was checking an item off his pre-disciplinary-hearing list of showing remorse.

Puja

There's a pretty good chance the players are trained to do this.

I don't think you're being cynical. It's that the rules give an advantage to cynical actions. There should be no reward for these shows of 'remorse'. Explicit shows of non-contrition should be punished*, but apologies are so easily faked they shouldn't be rewarded.

* although I wouldn't include pleading not guilty in this.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The WRU saying that player welfare is the number one irony rather lays down a mark. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the office of OF's solicitor!

FTFY (unless it was a typo for World Rugby - I'm not seeing any official involvement of the WRU yet)

And, given that there's a path for appeal, thank gods they're taking it!
Personally, I'd be in favour of them sacking the 3 Aussies for bringing the game into disrepute.

They ought to be sacked for incompetence - they don't understand their own regulations.

[Which Tyler]

There's a pretty good chance the players are trained to do this.

I don't think you're being cynical. It's that the rules give an advantage to cynical actions. There should be no reward for these shows of 'remorse'. Explicit shows of non-contrition should be punished*, but apologies are so easily faked they shouldn't be rewarded.

* although I wouldn't include pleading not guilty in this.

I'd say the chances that they're trained to do this are near enough 100%
I think for contrition to count, it would need to be immediately. I'm sure we've all had times on the rugby pitch where we've screwed up, and the immediate reaction was "fuck, are you okay dude?" - if the show of contrition isn't immediate, then it's not contrition, it's fear of consequence.

FTR, I 100% would change rugby's disciplinary options so that minimum bans are the minimum and the starting point - going up for aggravations, not the start of negotiations for what reductions to apply.
ETA: If we are going for reductions for good behaviour etc, then A] the minimum sentence should be increased (and the wording changed to "starting point" of something similar), and B] those reductions should count as "suspended" - so get added to any repeat offence (maybe a 4 year period). This should absolutely be the case for tackle school reductions.

[Which Tyler]

I don't remember anyone here saying it, but I have seen it elsewhere, that because OF's left arm might have been in a position to potentially wrap after the tackle, it wasn't a shoulder charge, and therefore mitigation does apply.

This video from WR disagrees with that, ironically using video footage of an OF special (though with the right shoulder softer than Basham received) to show that it's the contact arm that has to attempt the wrap