It could also be argued that they were taking a pre-emptive punishment, treating him as guilty before the decision came in. If it were anyone but Farrell, with his name carved into the teamsheet and inked with blood, missing the big warmup game against Ireland could mean losing his place in the side if his replacement played well.Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:55 amBut 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?Puja wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:18 amAgreed 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.Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:53 am
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.
Puja
To my mind, Farrell followed all of the (off-pitch) rules correctly and it's not his fault that the original panel fucked up. To ban him for an extra RWC game than would've happened if they'd been competent first time, would seem to be putting on an additional punishment for something not his fault. This is taking away from the emotional aspect where I don't want him to play for England at all in this RWC and just looking at how I would want any other player to be treated.
Puja