How long a ban?

[Son of Mathonwy]

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.“

He said it wasn't worth a red. How is that a clear demonstration of remorse?

What does 'good character' mean? It can't mean a clean record. Maybe it means 'we think he's nice'??

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

[morepork]

Who isn’t?

Scrum-Half Danny Care.

Ah, so addressing someone who won't read it, gotcha.

What? Care won't read may post? lol.

[Margin_Walker]

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.“

He said it wasn't worth a red. How is that a clear demonstration of remorse?

What does 'good character' mean? It can't mean a clean record. Maybe it means 'we think he's nice'??

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

Guessing good character just means both being a total arse on the day. These days you just have to admit it was foul play, not necessarily that it was a red card offence. You can be remorseful of your error in a yellow-card worthy action etc.

[canta_brian]

How stupid do they think we are? Can a player show acceptance of foul play whilst simultaneously having their lawyer argue that there was no foul play?

[Mikey Brown]

How stupid do they think we are? Can a player show acceptance of foul play whilst simultaneously having their lawyer argue that there was no foul play?

Is the point of remorse not meant to indicate you won’t do it again. I feel like not acknowledging this was a dangerous red card tackle (that could only ever hit someone high) kind of undermines that.

Or did he admit it this time, a week after saying it should have been a yellow?

Oh well. They didn’t bottle it completely I suppose.

[Margin_Walker]

How stupid do they think we are? Can a player show acceptance of foul play whilst simultaneously having their lawyer argue that there was no foul play?

The yellow card offence is still foul play. so they are effectively admitting foul play.

Either way the system needs an overhaul and an entry point needs to be an entry point for all repeat offenders.

[Oakboy]

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.“

He said it wasn't worth a red. How is that a clear demonstration of remorse?

What does 'good character' mean? It can't mean a clean record. Maybe it means 'we think he's nice'??

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

If 6 matches was the entry point, why can factors not add sanction? Having done the tackle course and then shortly afterwards committed the same offence, Farrell must have implied contempt for the course or at the very least failed to heed its lessons. Since attendance cut a week off his last ban, surely that week should be added to his next offence automatically. Counting the Ireland match is twisted logic. I see a case for 7 matches minimum from now.

[FKAS]

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.“

He said it wasn't worth a red. How is that a clear demonstration of remorse?

What does 'good character' mean? It can't mean a clean record. Maybe it means 'we think he's nice'??

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

If 6 matches was the entry point, why can factors not add sanction? Having done the tackle course and then shortly afterwards committed the same offence, Farrell must have implied contempt for the course or at the very least failed to heed its lessons. Since attendance cut a week off his last ban, surely that week should be added to his next offence automatically. Counting the Ireland match is twisted logic. I see a case for 7 matches minimum from now.

I agree the tackle school should not simply waive a week of the ban but should postpone it against any further citing in the next 12 months.

Having committed the same offence twice in roughly six months I'm not sure they should have allowed any mitigation in terms of ban.

[fivepointer]

BREAKING: Billy Vunipola has been banned for three games.
This will reduced to two games if he does the tackle course.
Will likely only miss the Argentina match at the World Cup

[Mikey Brown]

BREAKING: Billy Vunipola has been banned for three games.
This will reduced to two games if he does the tackle course.
Will likely only miss the Argentina match at the World Cup

Are you think Borthwick won't in fact be dropping him from the squad forever and calling up Tom Willis?

[Mellsblue]

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

Billy admitted to it being a red card offence…

[Sandydragon]

How stupid do they think we are? Can a player show acceptance of foul play whilst simultaneously having their lawyer argue that there was no foul play?

Exactly.

[Oakboy]

BREAKING: Billy Vunipola has been banned for three games.
This will reduced to two games if he does the tackle course.
Will likely only miss the Argentina match at the World Cup

Are you think Borthwick won't in fact be dropping him from the squad forever and calling up Tom Willis?

Will either of the cases affect Borthwick's plans at all? He will probably see no need to change his original selection decisions.

[Banquo]

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

But why? I don't get why they wouldn't want to throw the book at him. He's hardly box office.

[Oakboy]

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

But why? I don't get why they wouldn't want to throw the book at him. He's hardly box office.

It's an international conspiracy against us. Forcing SB to dump both players might have increased our chances.

[Mikey Brown]

BREAKING: Billy Vunipola has been banned for three games.
This will reduced to two games if he does the tackle course.
Will likely only miss the Argentina match at the World Cup

Are you think Borthwick won't in fact be dropping him from the squad forever and calling up Tom Willis?

Will either of the cases affect Borthwick's plans at all? He will probably see no need to change his original selection decisions.

Well, yes. I thought you were the one suggesting he might use this as an opportunity to ditch Billy. Maybe I got that wrong.

Nothing will ever change. We're going to be shit and slow and boring until at least the next world cup.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

But why? I don't get why they wouldn't want to throw the book at him. He's hardly box office.

I reckon it's a combination of things.

He's a big name (even non-rugby fans may have heard of him), he's claimed to be a top player, so there's a (conscious or unconscious) desire to keep him in the game, not to upset the powers that be, not to lose a slight % of viewing figures/advertising revenue.

Also there's that whole nebulous 'good character' thing. What does this even mean? What is it, how is it measured? It's perhaps the same thing that's allowed him to escape punishment on the pitch too many times, the same thing that's seen him seem undroppable. Don't ask me, I can't see it but there must be something there, some 'golden boy' thing perhaps.

Finally, if some south sea islanders are getting worse punishments there may even be some unconscious racism sneaking in there.

[Puja]

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.“

He said it wasn't worth a red. How is that a clear demonstration of remorse?

What does 'good character' mean? It can't mean a clean record. Maybe it means 'we think he's nice'??

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

If 6 matches was the entry point, why can factors not add sanction? Having done the tackle course and then shortly afterwards committed the same offence, Farrell must have implied contempt for the course or at the very least failed to heed its lessons. Since attendance cut a week off his last ban, surely that week should be added to his next offence automatically. Counting the Ireland match is twisted logic. I see a case for 7 matches minimum from now.

Agreed with most of that, but I do think it's fair to count the Ireland game as he didn't play that game because of the disciplinary process and, had they done their job correctly the first time, that would've been the first game of his ban.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

I wonder if Vunipola will take the tackle course that was so effective for Farrell?

[p/d]

If he can’t play this weekend or v Arg then Billy has to go. All we have heard from camp is how better he gets by playing. Rod for own back

[Oakboy]

Are you think Borthwick won't in fact be dropping him from the squad forever and calling up Tom Willis?

Will either of the cases affect Borthwick's plans at all? He will probably see no need to change his original selection decisions.

Well, yes. I thought you were the one suggesting he might use this as an opportunity to ditch Billy. Maybe I got that wrong.

Nothing will ever change. We're going to be shit and slow and boring until at least the next world cup.

I was clutching at straws, hoping that both would be dumped if the bans were longer. I never really expected SB to do anything if the short lengths of the bans gave him an excuse not to. Having said that, I would still suggest that a strong disciplinarian would have replaced them in time for the Fiji game - on principle.

The irony is that the Argentina game could be the crunch one and both will miss it. Any debate is a bit academic but where will SB (and his selection policy) stand in the event of a) a major victory or b) a major defeat?

[Oakboy]

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.“

He said it wasn't worth a red. How is that a clear demonstration of remorse?

What does 'good character' mean? It can't mean a clean record. Maybe it means 'we think he's nice'??

Poor. Any excuse to circumvent the proper punishment.

If 6 matches was the entry point, why can factors not add sanction? Having done the tackle course and then shortly afterwards committed the same offence, Farrell must have implied contempt for the course or at the very least failed to heed its lessons. Since attendance cut a week off his last ban, surely that week should be added to his next offence automatically. Counting the Ireland match is twisted logic. I see a case for 7 matches minimum from now.

Agreed with most of that, but I do think it's fair to count the Ireland game as he didn't play that game because of the disciplinary process and, had they done their job correctly the first time, that would've been the first game of his ban.

Puja

But there was nothing to stop Farrell being picked, was there? Could it not be argued that it was a tactical/cynical omission to free him up for an extra RWC game?

[Which Tyler]

I agree the tackle school should not simply waive a week of the ban but should postpone it against any further citing in the next 12 months.

Having committed the same offence twice in roughly six months I'm not sure they should have allowed any mitigation in terms of ban.

I'd say that any reduction from a previous ban should be "suspended sentence" and automatically added to any future bans for similar incidents (maybe aging out after 4 years)

[Danno]

If 6 matches was the entry point, why can factors not add sanction? Having done the tackle course and then shortly afterwards committed the same offence, Farrell must have implied contempt for the course or at the very least failed to heed its lessons. Since attendance cut a week off his last ban, surely that week should be added to his next offence automatically. Counting the Ireland match is twisted logic. I see a case for 7 matches minimum from now.

Agreed with most of that, but I do think it's fair to count the Ireland game as he didn't play that game because of the disciplinary process and, had they done their job correctly the first time, that would've been the first game of his ban.

Puja

But there was nothing to stop Farrell being picked, was there? Could it not be argued that it was a tactical/cynical omission to free him up for an extra RWC game?

This is my view. He would have been starting vs Ireland but for someone putting their head in the automatic targetting reticle attached to his shoulder. Even delayed the team announcement to see if WR would lodge the appeal.

[Son of Mathonwy]

If 6 matches was the entry point, why can factors not add sanction? Having done the tackle course and then shortly afterwards committed the same offence, Farrell must have implied contempt for the course or at the very least failed to heed its lessons. Since attendance cut a week off his last ban, surely that week should be added to his next offence automatically. Counting the Ireland match is twisted logic. I see a case for 7 matches minimum from now.

Agreed with most of that, but I do think it's fair to count the Ireland game as he didn't play that game because of the disciplinary process and, had they done their job correctly the first time, that would've been the first game of his ban.

Puja

But there was nothing to stop Farrell being picked, was there? Could it not be argued that it was a tactical/cynical omission to free him up for an extra RWC game?

I can see both sides of this argument. It would be best if World Rugby made an explicit rule on this point.