Law question- Farrell tackle

[Niegs]

Why I roll my eyes now everytime someone says/tweets "Player safety is paramount..." Like fuck it is. There'd be instant, no mitigation, long-term sanctioned punishments. Behaviour would change within a month. We almost never see stomps or tips any more.

[Tichtheid]

Why I roll my eyes now everytime someone says/tweets "Player safety is paramount..." Like fuck it is. There'd be instant, no mitigation, long-term sanctioned punishments. Behaviour would change within a month. We almost never see stomps or tips any more.

Yep, or punching.

[Line6 HXFX]

How isn't the game of rugby considered just full on, corrupt as fuck?

...well first off you have to develope a culture of vigourously attacking, and calling anyone who complains about any decision a whiner, crybaby, then you have to have a culture of respecting the ref no matter what fucked up, game deciding nonsense they pullout of their ass...then you have to pretend and have romantic notions that all bad decisions even out, so there can be no corruption.

Commentators should warn the public at the beginning not to bet or take the game in anyway seriously as it is just all comes down to the a toss (or the pocketing) of a coin, like wrestling.

Warning, this game is corrupt as fuck, just enjoy your day whoever wins, or whatever happens... its fine.
Just don't undermine the pretense it is honest. We want people to care about this shite,
Ton of Controversy = people talking about the game all week= interest = cash.

[JM2K6]

Rfu really have gone six nations is coming up lads let's allow some headhunting by our key players.

Nah, the actual problem is a few refs have decided what's most important is to SPEED THE GAME UP and that means making snap decisions and never ever going back on them. Barnes instantly decided there was nothing worth looking at there, said "he was on his knees so it's legal" (!?) and refused to look any further. There were several examples of these snap calls being made in the interests of speeding the game up. Pearce did something similar the other night, so desperate to be the man making the quick calls and treating the pace of the game as their personal victory condition that some very fucking strange calls were made.

At no point is this a fucking legal tackle, Wayne:



It's mitigated down from a red but it's still an out of control shoulder charge to the face at great force with no wrap

[GogLais]

Ignorance is bliss. I’m certainly no expert on the laws. There’s a protocol for dealing with blows to the head but surely there must still be some overarching violent/dangerous play law that perhaps is being ignored because it’s easier just to use the protocol.

[Torquemada 1420]

Nah, the actual problem is a few refs have decided what's most important is to SPEED THE GAME UP and that means making snap decisions and never ever going back on them. Barnes instantly decided there was nothing worth looking at there, said "he was on his knees so it's legal" (!?) and refused to look any further. There were several examples of these snap calls being made in the interests of speeding the game up. Pearce did something similar the other night, so desperate to be the man making the quick calls and treating the pace of the game as their personal victory condition that some very fucking strange calls were made.

Meantime allowing scrums and lineouts to take forever!

[Sandstorm]

Nah, the actual problem is a few refs have decided what's most important is to SPEED THE GAME UP and that means making snap decisions and never ever going back on them. Barnes instantly decided there was nothing worth looking at there, said "he was on his knees so it's legal" (!?) and refused to look any further. There were several examples of these snap calls being made in the interests of speeding the game up. Pearce did something similar the other night, so desperate to be the man making the quick calls and treating the pace of the game as their personal victory condition that some very fucking strange calls were made.

Meantime allowing scrums and lineouts to take forever!

Stormers 9 blown up on Sunday for not "using it" quickly enough behind a ruck. Shocked everyone really.

[clydecloggie]

Farrell's been cited. Looks like he won't get away with this one.

Any word on Tuilagi?

[Torquemada 1420]

WTF was Dickson doing on Twatter in regards the incident?

https://www.cityam.com/karl-dicksons-ow ... lls-right/

[Kiwias]

Farrell's been cited. Looks like he won't get away with this one.

Any word on Tuilagi?

According to a tweet from Alex Spink, no citing.

[sockwithaticket]

Farrell's been cited. Looks like he won't get away with this one.

Any word on Tuilagi?

Not that I agree with it, but based on a recent ban for Adam Coleman, I'm resigned to a ban that leaves him being free to play for the 6N.

Tuilagi is less clear cut. I'd punish it more severely, but I can see how a citing officer might decide yellow only and thus not take further action.

[westport]

Conveniently he will get 6 weeks reduced to 3 despite his previous

[Kawazaki]

Conveniently he will get 6 weeks reduced to 3 despite his previous

He hasn't got much previous though, certainly much less than Adam Coleman has and he only got a few weeks for a far more egregious shoulder into head tackle.

[Tichtheid]

Conveniently he will get 6 weeks reduced to 3 despite his previous

Apparently he'd be eligible for the tackling course because he hasn't attended one before, so he could get a reduction down to two, if they accept that he has a clean record.

[Margin__Walker]

Conveniently he will get 6 weeks reduced to 3 despite his previous

Apparently he'd be eligible for the tackling course because he hasn't attended one before, so he could get a reduction down to two, if they accept that he has a clean record.

He's not getting 2. It will be 6, down to 4 or 5 with depending on how they view the previous (record can't possibly be clean by any interpretation). Then an extra 1 for the course. So I'd guess 3 or 4 total

[Margin__Walker]

Conveniently he will get 6 weeks reduced to 3 despite his previous

He hasn't got much previous though, certainly much less than Adam Coleman has and he only got a few weeks for a far more egregious shoulder into head tackle.

Pretty sure Coleman has had the same number of bans for red card worthy offences as Farrell (2)

[Tichtheid]

Conveniently he will get 6 weeks reduced to 3 despite his previous

Apparently he'd be eligible for the tackling course because he hasn't attended one before, so he could get a reduction down to two, if they accept that he has a clean record.

He's not getting 2. It will be 6, down to 4 or 5 with depending on how they view the previous (record can't possibly be clean by any interpretation). Then an extra 1 for the course. So I'd guess 3 or 4 total

In the Adam Coleman thing on the English thread, the aggravating factors are Repeat Offender - this will be Farrell's third appearance before the beak for dangerous tackling, the two previous visits resulting in a total of ten weeks off.
Need for a deterrent - I think it would be very difficult to argue that there is no need for a deterrent for high tackles
Any other factors - none that I can see.

In mitigation he doesn't have a clean record, but he will offer an apology, be of good conduct through the hearing and he'll accept that he committed an act of foul play.

[Biffer]

Conveniently he will get 6 weeks reduced to 3 despite his previous

Apparently he'd be eligible for the tackling course because he hasn't attended one before, so he could get a reduction down to two, if they accept that he has a clean record.

He's not getting 2. It will be 6, down to 4 or 5 with depending on how they view the previous (record can't possibly be clean by any interpretation). Then an extra 1 for the course. So I'd guess 3 or 4 total

No chance they're banning him for the start of the 6 Nations. None. 2 weeks so he gets a game before the opener

[sockwithaticket]

Conveniently he will get 6 weeks reduced to 3 despite his previous

He hasn't got much previous though, certainly much less than Adam Coleman has and he only got a few weeks for a far more egregious shoulder into head tackle.

Pretty sure Coleman has had the same number of bans for red card worthy offences as Farrell (2)

Despite BT making a big deal of him having two reds last season, both against Saracens supposedly, in the written judgement Coleman only has one prior offence acknowledged. (Bottom of page 8 https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/bb/b ... final).pdf )

[Torquemada 1420]

In mitigation he doesn't have a clean record, but he will offer an apology, be of good conduct through the hearing and he'll accept that he committed an act of foul play.

You forgot his charity work

[Torquemada 1420]

No chance they're banning him for the start of the 6 Nations. None. 2 weeks so he gets a game before the opener

Same fiddling as Marler.

[Sandstorm]

Was it 12 months ago to the day that England fans were begging anyone who would listen to ban Farrell for 6 weeks because his form was so shit?

[Margin__Walker]

He hasn't got much previous though, certainly much less than Adam Coleman has and he only got a few weeks for a far more egregious shoulder into head tackle.

Pretty sure Coleman has had the same number of bans for red card worthy offences as Farrell (2)

Despite BT making a big deal of him having two reds last season, both against Saracens supposedly, in the written judgement Coleman only has one prior offence acknowledged. (Bottom of page 8 https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/bb/b ... final).pdf )

Yeah, he'll be high visibility for Toga as he's managed to pick up three reds against Sarries in the last 18 months. One of those was a complete piss take though where he copped the ball carriers shoulder in the face. Got knocked out and given a red for his troubles. That one was rescinded.

Either way, two in the last 18 months is too many, but that's it for his career. He's hardly Chris Hala'ufia

[Kawazaki]

Conveniently he will get 6 weeks reduced to 3 despite his previous

He hasn't got much previous though, certainly much less than Adam Coleman has and he only got a few weeks for a far more egregious shoulder into head tackle.

Pretty sure Coleman has had the same number of bans for red card worthy offences as Farrell (2)

Farrell got his only red card 30 months ago. And even the most hate-filled Farrell abuser must agree that the Farrell tackle was far less serious than the recent Coleman red card tackle was.

[Kawazaki]

Was it 12 months ago to the day that England fans were begging anyone who would listen to ban Farrell for 6 weeks because his form was so shit?

No. 12 months ago he was injured. Didn't play in any of the 6Ns matches but, remarkably, still got blamed by some of the usual mob for England being utter shite.

[Niegs]

I say screw this 'reduced sentence for being a good boy who said he's sow-wy' bullshit! A set list of long periods for each act of foul play. See if they do anything like it again if they get 5, 10, 15 weeks off with no chance of having it reduced.

Won't happen in the boys' club atmosphere where the first response is often "Well, he didn't mean to hurt him." rather than "He really should have been more careful, but do the crime, prepare to do the time." in which they twist things so much to ensure stars come back as soon as possible ... not to mention blaming the ref for 'ruining' the game rather than the careless/reckless player, or considering injured players' careers.

[Torquemada 1420]

Farrell got his only red card 30 months ago. And even the most hate-filled Farrell abuser must agree that the Farrell tackle was far less serious than the recent Coleman red card tackle was.

Everyone appreciates that is factually correct and that it is not the player's fault that somehow he has avoided sanctions throughout his career that would have been treated differently were it another player.
Doesn't alter the fact that he is a repeated, cheap shot hitter.

[JM2K6]

Apparently he'd be eligible for the tackling course because he hasn't attended one before, so he could get a reduction down to two, if they accept that he has a clean record.

He's not getting 2. It will be 6, down to 4 or 5 with depending on how they view the previous (record can't possibly be clean by any interpretation). Then an extra 1 for the course. So I'd guess 3 or 4 total

No chance they're banning him for the start of the 6 Nations. None. 2 weeks so he gets a game before the opener

I cannot for the life of me think of a single English poster who gives a shit about the bans dished out for other country's domestic competitions and how they might affect the internationals, let alone consistently come up with conspiracy theories about it, but there's no end of non-English people who seem to genuinely believe the RFU con everybody every year. It's quite remarkable.

Our citings and bans are as fucking insane and random as everyone else's, I'm afraid.

[Margin__Walker]

He hasn't got much previous though, certainly much less than Adam Coleman has and he only got a few weeks for a far more egregious shoulder into head tackle.

Pretty sure Coleman has had the same number of bans for red card worthy offences as Farrell (2)

Farrell got his only red card 30 months ago. And even the most hate-filled Farrell abuser must agree that the Farrell tackle was far less serious than the recent Coleman red card tackle was.

Sure, but he was also cited and banned for the Robson hit prior to that, as it was judged to have been a red card offence.

So two all. Soon to be 3 - 2 to Faz.

[sockwithaticket]

I say screw this 'reduced sentence for being a good boy who said he's sow-wy' bullshit! A set list of long periods for each act of foul play. See if they do anything like it again if they get 5, 10, 15 weeks off with no chance of having it reduced.

Won't happen in the boys' club atmosphere where the first response is often "Well, he didn't mean to hurt him." rather than "He really should have been more careful, but do the crime, prepare to do the time." in which they twist things so much to ensure stars come back as soon as possible ... not to mention blaming the ref for 'ruining' the game rather than the careless/reckless player, or considering injured players' careers.

Absolutely.

Showing contrition and good conduct is the bare minimum we should be able to expect from an adult and shouldn't contribute to mitigation. If they're incapable of showing those things it should absolutely increase a ban.

If someone takes advantage of the tackling intervention course then the club should get a fine, because it's only through negligent coaching on their part that a professional player would benefit from an external course on safe tackling

[JM2K6]

Pretty sure Coleman has had the same number of bans for red card worthy offences as Farrell (2)

Farrell got his only red card 30 months ago. And even the most hate-filled Farrell abuser must agree that the Farrell tackle was far less serious than the recent Coleman red card tackle was.

Sure, but he was also cited and banned for the Robson hit prior to that, as it was judged to have been a red card offence.

So two all. Soon to be 3 - 2 to Faz.

Decent if old article on Farrell's tackling here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... -captains/

[Kawazaki]

Pretty sure Coleman has had the same number of bans for red card worthy offences as Farrell (2)

Farrell got his only red card 30 months ago. And even the most hate-filled Farrell abuser must agree that the Farrell tackle was far less serious than the recent Coleman red card tackle was.

Sure, but he was also cited and banned for the Robson hit prior to that, as it was judged to have been a red card offence.

So two all. Soon to be 3 - 2 to Faz.

That was 4 years before the Atkinson red.

He's hardly a prolific offender.

[Margin__Walker]

Farrell got his only red card 30 months ago. And even the most hate-filled Farrell abuser must agree that the Farrell tackle was far less serious than the recent Coleman red card tackle was.

Sure, but he was also cited and banned for the Robson hit prior to that, as it was judged to have been a red card offence.

So two all. Soon to be 3 - 2 to Faz.

That was 4 years before the Atkinson red.

He's hardly a prolific offender.

You said he had much less previous than Coleman.

Which is either debatable or bollocks. I'm going with bollocks.

[Kawazaki]

Sure, but he was also cited and banned for the Robson hit prior to that, as it was judged to have been a red card offence.

So two all. Soon to be 3 - 2 to Faz.

That was 4 years before the Atkinson red.

He's hardly a prolific offender.

You said he had much less previous than Coleman.

Which is either debatable or bollocks. I'm going with bollocks.

1 red card and 2 citings in a 13-year professional career. That's not prolific.

You're reaching because you don't like Farrell. It's pathetic.

[Margin__Walker]

I never said it was prolific.

I said he doesn't have 'much less' previous than Coleman.

Your words Toga. Not imaginary ones attributed to me.

[Brazil]

Rfu really have gone six nations is coming up lads let's allow some headhunting by our key players.

Nah, the actual problem is a few refs have decided what's most important is to SPEED THE GAME UP and that means making snap decisions and never ever going back on them. Barnes instantly decided there was nothing worth looking at there, said "he was on his knees so it's legal" (!?) and refused to look any further. There were several examples of these snap calls being made in the interests of speeding the game up. Pearce did something similar the other night, so desperate to be the man making the quick calls and treating the pace of the game as their personal victory condition that some very fucking strange calls were made.

At no point is this a fucking legal tackle, Wayne:



It's mitigated down from a red but it's still an out of control shoulder charge to the face at great force with no wrap

Looking at it again I'm amazed it was looked at and that Barnes dismissed it so quickly, not least given the amount of time it took to get Allan off the pitch afterwards. I think the circumstances mitigate sufficiently for it to only be a yellow, but it's still reckless even if you accept that he's trying to pull out when Allan lands awkwardly. It does rather give the impression that player safety is being paid lip service rather than real attention, and is not a great look for the game.

[Kawazaki]

I never said it was prolific.

I said he doesn't have 'much less' previous than Coleman.

Your words Toga. Not imaginary ones attributed to me.

Ok, Coleman's reds are for worse tackles and in a shorter time frame. Happy?

[inactionman]

Even speaking as an England fan, there were certainly some tackles where I thought he was lucky to get away with no immediate sanction or further action. It's the lack of cards, rather than the cards themselves.

To be fair, that could be equally be said of quite a few tackles and players over the years , but Farrell's profile perhaps doing him a disservice.

[Biffer]

1 red card and 2 citings in a 13-year professional career. That's not prolific.

You're reaching because you don't like Farrell. It's pathetic.

Comparing the record of a lock and a fly half is a bit of a push. How about comparing it to another top level 10?

Sexton - never red carded
Russell - one red for a high fend
Biggar - one for a high tackle
Ntmack - no reds
Carter - no cards of any colour
BBarrett - one red

So if you compare him against the same position, he's not looking good in terms of record.

[Simian]

Nah, the actual problem is a few refs have decided what's most important is to SPEED THE GAME UP and that means making snap decisions and never ever going back on them. Barnes instantly decided there was nothing worth looking at there, said "he was on his knees so it's legal" (!?) and refused to look any further. There were several examples of these snap calls being made in the interests of speeding the game up. Pearce did something similar the other night, so desperate to be the man making the quick calls and treating the pace of the game as their personal victory condition that some very fucking strange calls were made.

Meantime allowing scrums and lineouts to take forever!

Stormers 9 blown up on Sunday for not "using it" quickly enough behind a ruck. Shocked everyone really.

Especially given how long they were afforded to set up their lineouts