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?
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.
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.
As an aside, the article illustrates an annoying feature of the reporting:
His shoulder hit on Taine Basham at Twickenham saw Georgian referee Nika Amashuekli issue him with a yellow card, only for this to be upgraded to a red by the off-field TMO bunker.
The incident has been described in this way several times, as if the ref's initial decision was yellow and the TMO changed it to red, thus exaggerating the flip-flopping of the decision-making. No, the ref sent the player off and asked the TMO to decide whether it was yellow or red. The match day decision-making was clear.
Perhaps it would help if the ref's signal for this process was to hold up both the yellow and red cards. Or a special orange card.
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:47 pm
by Margin_Walker
Yeah, I'm a fan of the bunker system.
Could do without it being undermined from the off because of an unrelated screw up of the first hearing
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:50 pm
by Puja
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:40 pm
A Farrell tackle masterclass:
As an aside, the article illustrates an annoying feature of the reporting:
His shoulder hit on Taine Basham at Twickenham saw Georgian referee Nika Amashuekli issue him with a yellow card, only for this to be upgraded to a red by the off-field TMO bunker.
The incident has been described in this way several times, as if the ref's initial decision was yellow and the TMO changed it to red, thus exaggerating the flip-flopping of the decision-making. No, the ref sent the player off and asked the TMO to decide whether it was yellow or red. The match day decision-making was clear.
Perhaps it would help if the ref's signal for this process was to hold up both the yellow and red cards. Or a special orange card.
That has annoyed the fuck out of me too. The commentary in the Ireland game was bloviating about "Surely the referee could've just shown him a red card there; it's an obvious decision," because they clearly didn't do even the slightest bit of homework on how the bunker system worked and why it was brought in. Orange card is a good idea.
A "tackle" of Farrell's which a lot of reporting into his history seems to miss is this one, presumably because he got away with it absolutely scot-free:
Just baffling decision-making by the ref. It's not a red (although probably has more to do with it being a tall lock than any actual aiming), but it's a definite yellow card on its own merits, let alone because it should've been a penalty try. To me, it's worse than the Atkinson one in terms of intent - he gets stepped by Atkinson and fucks up, but at least he's attempting to make a legal tackle. That one, like the Basham one, is just pure, unfiltered, dangerous boshing.
As an aside, the article illustrates an annoying feature of the reporting:
His shoulder hit on Taine Basham at Twickenham saw Georgian referee Nika Amashuekli issue him with a yellow card, only for this to be upgraded to a red by the off-field TMO bunker.
The incident has been described in this way several times, as if the ref's initial decision was yellow and the TMO changed it to red, thus exaggerating the flip-flopping of the decision-making. No, the ref sent the player off and asked the TMO to decide whether it was yellow or red. The match day decision-making was clear.
Perhaps it would help if the ref's signal for this process was to hold up both the yellow and red cards. Or a special orange card.
That has annoyed the fuck out of me too. The commentary in the Ireland game was bloviating about "Surely the referee could've just shown him a red card there; it's an obvious decision," because they clearly didn't do even the slightest bit of homework on how the bunker system worked and why it was brought in. Orange card is a good idea.
A "tackle" of Farrell's which a lot of reporting into his history seems to miss is this one, presumably because he got away with it absolutely scot-free:
Just baffling decision-making by the ref. It's not a red (although probably has more to do with it being a tall lock than any actual aiming), but it's a definite yellow card on its own merits, let alone because it should've been a penalty try. To me, it's worse than the Atkinson one in terms of intent - he gets stepped by Atkinson and fucks up, but at least he's attempting to make a legal tackle. That one, like the Basham one, is just pure, unfiltered, dangerous boshing.
Puja
I clearly only had a vague memory of this one. In my head it was one of the few good examples of Farrell's impactful tackling technique, although only really being legal because the guy happens to be enormous. There's not even a vague attempt at a wrap though. Granted it was 100% a try if he did basically anything else.
I'm curious to find a longer clip of that actually. I'm not sure who it is at the end saying "I thought your ball carrier also dropped a shoulder" but I can't make much sense of that logic. Is that a South African accent? Proudfoot?
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 2:05 pm
by canta_brian
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:22 am
I wonder if Vunipola will take the tackle course that was so effective for Farrell?
What would the course actually teach?
Don’t target your illegal shoulder charge just one inch below his chin in case a rugby player in a pitch turns out to be able to move.
It’s condescending to the public to expect us to think a course like that would impact behaviour, and to reduce bans for doing the course just adds to that condescension.
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 2:18 pm
by Puja
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:58 pmI'm curious to find a longer clip of that actually. I'm not sure who it is at the end saying "I thought your ball carrier also dropped a shoulder" but I can't make much sense of that logic. Is that a South African accent? Proudfoot?
That's Poite refereeing that, isn't it? I had assumed it was him speaking to Hooper.
ETA. On reflection, that's clearly Jaco Peyper, hence the SA accent
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:58 pmI'm curious to find a longer clip of that actually. I'm not sure who it is at the end saying "I thought your ball carrier also dropped a shoulder" but I can't make much sense of that logic. Is that a South African accent? Proudfoot?
That's Poite refereeing that, isn't it? I had assumed it was him speaking to Hooper.
ETA. On reflection, that's clearly Jaco Peyper, hence the SA accent
Puja
I guess I was confused by him saying "your" ball carrier. So I thought we were hearing part of the England crew somehow.
That logic is surely even stupider from a referee.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:22 am
I wonder if Vunipola will take the tackle course that was so effective for Farrell?
What would the course actually teach?
Don’t target your illegal shoulder charge just one inch below his chin in case a rugby player in a pitch turns out to be able to move.
It’s condescending to the public to expect us to think a course like that would impact behaviour, and to reduce bans for doing the course just adds to that condescension.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:58 pmI'm curious to find a longer clip of that actually. I'm not sure who it is at the end saying "I thought your ball carrier also dropped a shoulder" but I can't make much sense of that logic. Is that a South African accent? Proudfoot?
That's Poite refereeing that, isn't it? I had assumed it was him speaking to Hooper.
ETA. On reflection, that's clearly Jaco Peyper, hence the SA accent
Puja
I guess I was confused by him saying "your" ball carrier. So I thought we were hearing part of the England crew somehow.
That logic is surely even stupider from a referee.
You can hear the bafflement in Hooper's voice as he says, "Yeah... but the ball carrier's allowed to do that [brace with his shoulder]"
Puja
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:37 pm
by Which Tyler
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:50 pm
A "tackle" of Farrell's which a lot of reporting into his history seems to miss is this one, presumably because he got away with it absolutely scot-free:
This is the one that always gets me angry, for some strange reason
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:47 pm
by p/d
Having Jamie George out sprint your 10 would annoy most people
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:52 pm
by p/d
Nicely worded Daws:
Yes, he's the England captain and has huge experience; from all accounts, he's very influential. But I can't, hand on my heart, say he's been ripping up trees for England for a number of years, and I'm not seeing that influence on the pitch."
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:54 pm
by Oakboy
Somebody put me straight on the bunker system. There is nothing to stop a ref giving a straight red, is there? And, he is not obliged to watch a replay of an incident?
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 4:04 pm
by p/d
Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:54 pm
Somebody put me straight on the bunker system. There is nothing to stop a ref giving a straight red, is there? And, he is not obliged to watch a replay of an incident?
yes the ref can issue a straight red.
For any incident in which a red card is not immediately obvious, the referee issues a yellow card, and dedicated reviewers examine the incident using “all available technology and footage”.
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 4:56 pm
by Puja
Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:54 pm
Somebody put me straight on the bunker system. There is nothing to stop a ref giving a straight red, is there? And, he is not obliged to watch a replay of an incident?
Yes, a ref can issue a straight red without watching any replays but... why would they want to? Unless someone has walked up to another player and punched them during a break in play when the ref's looking right at them and there's no distractions, I can't think there's any benefit to a referee not using the TMO (and thus the bunker) for such a pivotal decision in a match.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:54 pm
Somebody put me straight on the bunker system. There is nothing to stop a ref giving a straight red, is there? And, he is not obliged to watch a replay of an incident?
Yes, a ref can issue a straight red without watching any replays but... why would they want to? Unless someone has walked up to another player and punched them during a break in play when the ref's looking right at them and there's no distractions, I can't think there's any benefit to a referee not using the TMO (and thus the bunker) for such a pivotal decision in a match.
Puja
Agreed. I was just thinking of the referee's authority in the light of the 1st Farrell panel's cock-up. That decision was a slight on the bunker red card view obviously but in terms of the overall on-day officials' team it must have been generally resented. I hope the WRU appeal has taken that away.
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:47 pm
by loudnconfident
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:50 pm
A "tackle" of Farrell's which a lot of reporting into his history seems to miss is this one, presumably because he got away with it absolutely scot-free:
Just baffling decision-making by the ref. It's not a red (although probably has more to do with it being a tall lock than any actual aiming), but it's a definite yellow card on its own merits, let alone because it should've been a penalty try. To me, it's worse than the Atkinson one in terms of intent - he gets stepped by Atkinson and fucks up, but at least he's attempting to make a legal tackle. That one, like the Basham one, is just pure, unfiltered, dangerous boshing.
Puja
I can remember that one. Apart from the dangerous tackle itself, Oz should have had an easy penalty kick - which would have won them the match.
Puja wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:50 pm
A "tackle" of Farrell's which a lot of reporting into his history seems to miss is this one, presumably because he got away with it absolutely scot-free:
Just baffling decision-making by the ref. It's not a red (although probably has more to do with it being a tall lock than any actual aiming), but it's a definite yellow card on its own merits, let alone because it should've been a penalty try. To me, it's worse than the Atkinson one in terms of intent - he gets stepped by Atkinson and fucks up, but at least he's attempting to make a legal tackle. That one, like the Basham one, is just pure, unfiltered, dangerous boshing.
Puja
I can remember that one. Apart from the dangerous tackle itself, Oz should have had an easy penalty kick - which would have won them the match.
They did have a penalty kick from that play, just for someone being marginally offside, rather than the blatant shoulder-barge.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:54 pm
Somebody put me straight on the bunker system. There is nothing to stop a ref giving a straight red, is there? And, he is not obliged to watch a replay of an incident?
Yes, a ref can issue a straight red without watching any replays but... why would they want to? Unless someone has walked up to another player and punched them during a break in play when the ref's looking right at them and there's no distractions, I can't think there's any benefit to a referee not using the TMO (and thus the bunker) for such a pivotal decision in a match.
Puja
The whole point of the bunker is to speed up the game I thought?. If I was a ref I'd adopt that idea, see a clear yellow bordering on red and send it for review asap, and that seems to be the way it is being used despite what the commentators are mashing out over their slightly overpaid lips
Is there foul play: yes
Is it a yellow: yes
Can I now get on with the game while another referee decides if it is a red: yes
I think either the rules or the commentary has messed up here. My understanding was the ref says yellow and review and just plays on. The TMO comes back later in a stoppage to update it
Obviously if we have a Calum Clarke or whatever then fine, red red red, but surely the point is to let the ref issue the player off the field and get back on with the game asap while other ref(s) review the degree of danger, mitigation etc
As an aside, the article illustrates an annoying feature of the reporting:
His shoulder hit on Taine Basham at Twickenham saw Georgian referee Nika Amashuekli issue him with a yellow card, only for this to be upgraded to a red by the off-field TMO bunker.
The incident has been described in this way several times, as if the ref's initial decision was yellow and the TMO changed it to red, thus exaggerating the flip-flopping of the decision-making. No, the ref sent the player off and asked the TMO to decide whether it was yellow or red. The match day decision-making was clear.
Perhaps it would help if the ref's signal for this process was to hold up both the yellow and red cards. Or a special orange card.
That has annoyed the fuck out of me too. The commentary in the Ireland game was bloviating about "Surely the referee could've just shown him a red card there; it's an obvious decision," because they clearly didn't do even the slightest bit of homework on how the bunker system worked and why it was brought in. Orange card is a good idea.
A "tackle" of Farrell's which a lot of reporting into his history seems to miss is this one, presumably because he got away with it absolutely scot-free:
Just baffling decision-making by the ref. It's not a red (although probably has more to do with it being a tall lock than any actual aiming), but it's a definite yellow card on its own merits, let alone because it should've been a penalty try. To me, it's worse than the Atkinson one in terms of intent - he gets stepped by Atkinson and fucks up, but at least he's attempting to make a legal tackle. That one, like the Basham one, is just pure, unfiltered, dangerous boshing.
Puja
Yeah, awful refereeing.
This is the thing with Farrell, he seems like a liability but for years in fact had the unique talent of invisibly fouling and injuring other players. Perhaps this is the true reason for his undroppability. Hopefully his invisibility shield has finally run out of juice.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:54 pm
Somebody put me straight on the bunker system. There is nothing to stop a ref giving a straight red, is there? And, he is not obliged to watch a replay of an incident?
Yes, a ref can issue a straight red without watching any replays but... why would they want to? Unless someone has walked up to another player and punched them during a break in play when the ref's looking right at them and there's no distractions, I can't think there's any benefit to a referee not using the TMO (and thus the bunker) for such a pivotal decision in a match.
Puja
The whole point of the bunker is to speed up the game I thought?. If I was a ref I'd adopt that idea, see a clear yellow bordering on red and send it for review asap, and that seems to be the way it is being used despite what the commentators are mashing out over their slightly overpaid lips
Is there foul play: yes
Is it a yellow: yes
Can I now get on with the game while another referee decides if it is a red: yes
I think either the rules or the commentary has messed up here. My understanding was the ref says yellow and review and just plays on. The TMO comes back later in a stoppage to update it
Obviously if we have a Calum Clarke or whatever then fine, red red red, but surely the point is to let the ref issue the player off the field and get back on with the game asap while other ref(s) review the degree of danger, mitigation etc
You are bang on with your interpretation - that is exactly how it is designed to work and how they are using it - unsurprisingly it is the commentators who aren't being competent at their jobs here.
Puja
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2023 10:43 am
by Which Tyler
Also worth noting that the ref also explicitly asks TMO to review with a view to upgrading - both on the microphone and arm signals.
That commentators, once again, ignore the things the ref is saying and doing is just another thing that bugs me about most commentators.
How many times do we hear the ref explaining their rationale to the players in pretty clear and concise terms, only for the commentators to be confused as to what the rationale is 20 seconds later? must be at least once per match.
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2023 11:31 am
by Oakboy
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Aug 24, 2023 10:43 am
Also worth noting that the ref also explicitly asks TMO to review with a view to upgrading - both on the microphone and arm signals.
That commentators, once again, ignore the things the ref is saying and doing is just another thing that bugs me about most commentators.
How many times do we hear the ref explaining their rationale to the players in pretty clear and concise terms, only for the commentators to be confused as to what the rationale is 20 seconds later? must be at least once per match.
In the early days of TV rugby Bill McLaren would commentate with the ball in play, bringing Bill Beaumont in to explain stoppages. It worked.
Re: How long a ban?
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2023 11:59 am
by Cameo
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 1:54 am
“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.
I'm sure in the Fagerson decision from the 6N last year they explicitly said that he couldn't get a reduction for remorse etc. as, while he had admitted it was foul play, he denied it was yellow.
Really, they have just massively overcomplicated the process and made it too legalistic. That might be worth it if it let to consistent defendable decisions but it seems to just lead to lots of money being spent on a lottery. With an explanation of the basic framework and history of each player, any of us could have worked out that Farrell's was worth about 4 weeks and Vunipola's about 2.