RugbyRebels

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 6:44 am**

Well at least the rugby world has united for once. Perhaps we can use this unity to fix some of the big issues in the game. Hope springs eternal and all that.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:36 am**

Gloskarlos wrote: ↑ That has also just fecked the bunker system. 10 minutes to make a 'wrong' decision.

I’ve been thinking about this and the answer to avoid undermining the system is surely that the defendant can’t argue whether a red card was the correct decision but only the severity of any ban.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:40 am**

Well it appears I’m still pissed off about this today.

I don’t mean in the way I usually moan about absolutely everything, but this actually seems like it may be really bad for the sport.

Even Reddit, which is mostly just a bit Owen Farrell circlejerk, is 98% in line with what we’re saying on here.

Another element I hate about it, in an age of focus on diversity and accessibility, is the idea you now need to have a top lawyer to hand to justify your actions on the pitch.

The outrage from a number of tier 2 players/teams receiving huge bans for similar/lesser infringements is understandable, with many now pretty vocal about how they don’t even expect the same consideration from the top as the ‘important’ teams.

It’s not even about what I think of Farrell as a person or a player anymore. Everything about this fucking sucks. I still don’t know why I’m so wound up, or so surprised, by all of it despite making almost this exact prediction that he’d get away with it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:44 am**

Rather than berate him, we should celebrate fly-half as our best player of modern era.

Chris Ashton August 16th 2023

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:59 am**

p/d wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:44 am Rather than berate him, we should celebrate fly-half as our best player of modern era.

Chris Ashton August 16th 2023

Who’s been having a go at Dan Carter?

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 8:09 am**

!

Message from:

p/d wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:44 am Rather than berate him, we should celebrate fly-half as our best player of modern era.

Chris Ashton August 16th 2023

I suppose Ashton's defence is understandable in one respect - their background in rugby league. In a way, it confirms that the disciplinary process is so far out of touch with the avoidance of head injury aim in union. Farrell could obviously have tackled at waist level but CHOSE NOT TO. That is the fundamental fact in all this and makes any marginal effect from George's earlier contact irrelevant by any reasonable standard.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 8:09 am**

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:59 am
p/d wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:44 am Rather than berate him, we should celebrate fly-half as our best player of modern era.

Chris Ashton August 16th 2023
Who’s been having a go at Dan Carter?

I'm behind Ashy. As he said, it is Farrell's physicality and leadership that will lead us to World Cup success. Go team Owen!!

Just think what the margin of victory would have been last Saturday had the bunker ref used the 10mins available to review the incident rather than play sticky fingers

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 8:28 am**

Good to hear that Basham is seemingly not suffering, but what a contribution to the discussion from Gatland here.

Basham was the victim of an Owen Farrell head shot that saw the England captain sent off on Saturday. The Wales back-rower was unable to return to the field after failing the test, but Warren Gatland has now questioned the process.

He wrote in the Telegraph: "Taine failed his HIA (head injury assessment) after he was taken off but we are going to ask further questions about that because the player said he felt fine and that the assessment was hard to take because there was a television on in the same room."

During the assessment, the player’s immediate memory, concentration, balance and delayed recall are all tested, with the player having to remember and recite back a series of random words among other things.

Basham has undergone all of the relevant HIA protocols since Saturday and as of yet it is not a confirmed concussion. The first HIA test is only for suspected concussions but the confirmed diagnosis comes from the second or third test.

Wales hope he could still be available for the weekend match against South Africa - a game he could start in.

Attack coach Alex King added: "It's not a confirmed concussion so I think that's a positive from that point of view," said King. "Fingers crossed there's no side effects from the tackle."

Maybe this is a clumsy quote, and it seems fair to question any distraction that affect the HIA tests, but surely "the player said he felt fine" is at least 10 years out of date on this topic?

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:15 am**

The bit about the TV in the room is an odd one. As there is always a TV in the room, which the Dr uses to watch replays of the incident to help with the assessment. This is standard.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:26 am**

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:36 am
Gloskarlos wrote: ↑ That has also just fecked the bunker system. 10 minutes to make a 'wrong' decision.
I’ve been thinking about this and the answer to avoid undermining the system is surely that the defendant can’t argue whether a red card was the correct decision but only the severity of any ban.

Exactly. They have the same angles of replay, 10 minutes is plenty for a professional to make a decision. That shouldn't be overturned in my view - ever. Ban length is the only discussion, previous record, apologetic, courses etc. thereafter taken into account.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:41 am**

Six Nations who were responsible for the disciplinary are refusing to publish their full judgement. Six nations have stitched World Rugby up ahead of the biggest tournament on the calendar. Terrific.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:42 am**

This is a miserable "decision" on all counts.

One small misery is that England are, IMO, tainted by it. We look like cheating, privileged tw*ts - and do we need another reason to be disliked...

(The safety issues and wrecking of the disciplinary process are much bigger issues, of course, but the above is a negative outcome, too)

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:42 am**

I’ve just read Sinfield’s defence of Farrell. I can see why he’s not a KC. I appreciate he can’t sit there and say that he thought a red was the correct decision but…
That said, something along the lines of ‘I don’t think it’s a red card, for the reasons the disciplinary committee state, but it was an unintentionally reckless tackle and does not portray how we want to play the game’ would be nice. Standing him down, as actions speak louder than words, for the remaining warmup games would be even better.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:54 am**

Big D wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:41 am Six Nations who were responsible for the disciplinary are refusing to publish their full judgement. Six nations have stitched World Rugby up ahead of the biggest tournament on the calendar. Terrific.

Thought it was an 'Independant Judicial Committee', hence the 3 Australians?

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:02 am**

Gloskarlos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:26 am
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:36 am
Gloskarlos wrote: ↑ That has also just fecked the bunker system. 10 minutes to make a 'wrong' decision.
I’ve been thinking about this and the answer to avoid undermining the system is surely that the defendant can’t argue whether a red card was the correct decision but only the severity of any ban.
Exactly. They have the same angles of replay, 10 minutes is plenty for a professional to make a decision. That shouldn't be overturned in my view - ever. Ban length is the only discussion, previous record, apologetic, courses etc. thereafter taken into account.

The referee is the sole judge of fact. If he and the other officials make a decision on the day, there is case for that to be upheld at a later hearing.

Would simplify things no end.

However, officials can err - Freddie Steward v Ireland for instance.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:09 am**

oldbackrow wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:54 am
Big D wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:41 am Six Nations who were responsible for the disciplinary are refusing to publish their full judgement. Six nations have stitched World Rugby up ahead of the biggest tournament on the calendar. Terrific.
Thought it was an 'Independant Judicial Committee', hence the 3 Australians?

Panel organised and run by 6N.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:09 am**

fivepointer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:02 am
Gloskarlos wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:26 am
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 7:36 am

I’ve been thinking about this and the answer to avoid undermining the system is surely that the defendant can’t argue whether a red card was the correct decision but only the severity of any ban.
Exactly. They have the same angles of replay, 10 minutes is plenty for a professional to make a decision. That shouldn't be overturned in my view - ever. Ban length is the only discussion, previous record, apologetic, courses etc. thereafter taken into account.
The referee is the sole judge of fact. If he and the other officials make a decision on the day, there is case for that to be upheld at a later hearing.

Would simplify things no end.

However, officials can err - Freddie Steward v Ireland for instance.

I can understand the process to allow a downgrade (or upgrade) when the official on the field is under time pressure to make a decision but that isn’t the case with, and was the whole point of, the bunker system.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:22 am**

Imagine if somehow Farrell played the other warmups before the ban being reinstated and he ends up missing even more games. I understand there is a 0% chance of that happening and I'd probably die laughing if it did.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:56 am**

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:22 am Imagine if somehow Farrell played the other warmups before the ban being reinstated and he ends up missing even more games. I understand there is a 0% chance of that happening and I'd probably die laughing if it did.

At the moment, I'm visualising Farrell coming off the bench vs Ireland, clothes-lining someone with his first act and getting red carded again. Trying to manufest it with thoughts.

Puja

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:03 pm**

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:56 am
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:22 am Imagine if somehow Farrell played the other warmups before the ban being reinstated and he ends up missing even more games. I understand there is a 0% chance of that happening and I'd probably die laughing if it did.
At the moment, I'm visualising Farrell coming off the bench vs Ireland, clothes-lining someone with his first act and getting red carded again. Trying to manufest it with thoughts.

Puja

Why would he get red carded for that if they chose to run into his arm?

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:04 pm**

Plus.... he doesn't like using his arms, so this at least would be progress....

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:07 pm**

wanderingjock wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:03 pm
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:56 am
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 10:22 am Imagine if somehow Farrell played the other warmups before the ban being reinstated and he ends up missing even more games. I understand there is a 0% chance of that happening and I'd probably die laughing if it did.
At the moment, I'm visualising Farrell coming off the bench vs Ireland, clothes-lining someone with his first act and getting red carded again. Trying to manufest it with thoughts.

Puja
Why would he get red carded for that if they chose to run into his arm?

Red card overturned on appeal, as the Irish player went into the contact upright and was partially to blame for the forearm to the chin.

Puja

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 1:33 pm**

Big D wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 9:41 am Six Nations who were responsible for the disciplinary are refusing to publish their full judgement. Six nations have stitched World Rugby up ahead of the biggest tournament on the calendar. Terrific.

I heard about this today. The lack of transparency is very poor and will stoke up more bribery/corruption allegations. It might actually help being able to look at the decision to see what the full justification was. It also might not, but until we can see the report the hope would be it contained something that would help the red card being rescinded make sense (such as a list of biscuits brought to the meeting). This modern political move of 'pretending nothing happened possibly followed by a transparent attempt at distraction (oh look immigrants etc)' normally breeds resentment in those who can see the bullshittery in action... and in this case everyone can see the bullshittery.

World Rugby did release the Sexton decision but here it's not World Rugby so.. ho hum.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 1:37 pm**

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 1:57 am
Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 10:41 pm
Insouciant wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 10:24 pm

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.

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

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2023 1:40 pm**

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 1:37 pm
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 1:57 am
Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 10:41 pm 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.

Puja

That tackle is pretty bad. Pick twist and throw the guy to the floor. It's a red purely because it's so reckless. If he holds on and takes him to floor I'd agree with the yellow but to drop him from a height is inexcusable and a red.

RugbyRebels

How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?

Re: How long a ban?