Wales v England I

[C69]

Such arrogance England beat a star studded Wales team and people are angry.

[JM2K6]

[petej]

All the fans of other English clubs know what faz is like.

How long would you like Farrells ban to be?

I think 12-14 weeks is about right.

[inactionman]

All the fans of other English clubs know what faz is like.

How long would you like Farrells ban to be?

I think 12-14 weeks is about right.

Reverse the 2015 Premiership final and we'll talk

[sockwithaticket]

All the fans of other English clubs know what faz is like.

How long would you like Farrells ban to be?

I think 12-14 weeks is about right.

I suspect he'll get away with 5 (it was 4 last time despite being a repeat offence), but it really should be much more. Even these days where they're more common, it's a small number of players who actually get red cards/cited and banned and he's managed it 4 times for the same offence.

[Tichtheid]

His 2020 decapitation of Charlie Atkinson was acknowledged in the judgement for his ban earlier this year and saw the Repeat Offender box on the judgement infographic ticked. That's why he only got two weeks knocked off his 6 weeks for contrition and good conduct at the hearing (:roll: )instead of having the ban halved as seems to be the norm when a player manages to say sorry instead of 'fuck you, I'd do it again'. An extra week was then taken off for the tackle intervention course as it wasn't an option back in 2020.

What was the one earlier this year for? And is the Atkinson one still live as it were?

Shoulder to the jaw


If they considered the Atkinson ban in the judgement earlier this year, I'm not sure why it would be discounted several months on.

As an aside, I've been riding this horse this week after a Scotland try was chalked off for a knock on at least two, probably three (from memory) phases before the try was scored.

The ref in that clip says he can't look at an incident of foul play unless it happened in the same phase

The whole system is stuffed when no one knows the laws (the law is that you can look at knock-ons/offsides two phases before a try is scored, foul play is longer)

[Hal Jordan]

So, I just caught the game on repeat, having spent the match time driving the last leg to Yorkshire on our holiday, unpacking cases and dealing with dinner.

Jesus.

To misquote Calculon, the first half was so bad I think it gave me cancer. The second half was entertaining, in the way a horrific murder is entertaining.

Farrell can fuck off forever. Thick as mince, as inspirational a leader as Major-General Elphinstone in Afghanistan and a fucking leg iron on an attacking team.

Tactics? I think Jorge Valdano's verdict on Liverpool vs Chelsea sums it up.

"Football is made up of subjective feeling, of suggestion and, in that, Anfield is unbeatable. Put a shit hanging from a stick in the middle of this passionate, crazy stadium and there are people who will tell you it's a work of art. It's not: it's a shit hanging from a stick. Chelsea and Liverpool are the clearest, most exaggerated example of the way football is going: very intense, very collective, very tactical, very physical, and very direct, he added. But, a short pass? Noooo. A feint? Noooo. A change of pace? Noooo. A one-two? A nutmeg? A backheel? Don't be ridiculous. None of that. The extreme control and seriousness with which both teams played the semi-final neutralised any creative licence, any moments of exquisite skill."

[petej]

https://www.rugbyworld.com/tournaments/ ... que-128834

Collection of Farrell's moments. Forgot about the 2015 world cup sin binning.

[JM2K6]

What irritates me is how the English always talk of it in terms of "Farrell's tackle technique" in an attempt to diminish the simple fact that he's a cheap thug. He's not trying to tackle at all. Kawazaki will be on to defend him with similar washing attempts.

They even said he's not a dirty player, but how many cards/bans do you need to have to earn that description?

I don't think he's a thug, but his reckless defence so often hits players in the head, and he has made little effort to sort this.
No more mitigations in his disciplinary hearings please. (Which might not even harm England)

I think he's dirty. He's never put any serious work into changing his approach, as is pretty obvious. Not putting work into an area where you need to make I provement is deliberate.

[Gumboot]

I think he's dirty. He's never put any serious work into changing his approach, as is pretty obvious. Not putting work into an area where you need to make I provement is deliberate.

I agree, he's a recidivist cheap shot merchant. A grub with a seemingly endless supply of RFU 'Get Out Of Jail Free' cards.

I hope he cops a lengthy ban, but if history's any indication, he probably won't.

[Camroc2]

I think he's dirty. He's never put any serious work into changing his approach, as is pretty obvious. Not putting work into an area where you need to make I provement is deliberate.

I agree, he's a recidivist cheap shot merchant. A grub with a seemingly endless supply of RFU 'Get Out Of Jail Free' cards.

I hope he cops a lengthy ban, but if history's any indication, he probably won't.

I don't think he's dirty, he is basically just bracing for contact - something he picked up at an early age. But it is red card material, and always has been.

How it wasn't coached out of him by U20's, I don't know. I suspect an Irish player, no matter how talented, would find it hard to progress if he didn't get the message to "tackle" lower.

I thought the Stewart incident was far more cynical, and dangerous. You can see Stewart looking at the ball, looking at the ball, and then looking at the player when he realised he wasn't going to be in a position to contest. So he just ploughed straight through the player, hitting him when he was in the air, with no attempt to mitigate his landing. Straight red imo.

[Margin__Walker]

He honestly can't help himself with those tackles. Absolute liability at this point

On Steward, it was stupid and dangerous, but again the way the directives are you just don't get red cards when the tackled player lands horizontally. It just isn't a thing. He's not going to get a red for it without them setting a new precedent.

[Monk]

Farrell’s hit on Esterhuizen cost us the test match.

[JM2K6]

Yeah, bearing in mind that I think Steward's red against Ireland was deserved, I'm baffled by the number of people who think his yellow was a red. That's not how the law works. If the player lands on their side it's not a red, no matter how hard they clutch their head.

[ASMO]

Farrell needs a ban long enough to rule him out of the RWC. Sadly i think the disciplinery will bottle it and he will play.

[ASMO]

He honestly can't help himself with those tackles. Absolute liability at this point

On Steward, it was stupid and dangerous, but again the way the directives are you just don't get red cards when the tackled player lands horizontally. It just isn't a thing. He's not going to get a red for it without them setting a new precedent.

Steward was never going to be red, not under the current regs

[Torquemada 1420]

English rugby journos inevitably all pushing the line its a disaster that Farrel may miss a game.

All the preparation has been for Farrell to start at 10 and be England's attack leader, defence leader, and captain. Regardless of your opinion of him, it's a big disruption

Eng were infinitely better when Cheapshot was off. His being banned, ironically, might have done you a favour.

[Line6 HXFX]

Thought the Stewart thing, again was so stupid and dangerous. Do English rugby players operate without the use of their brains?

Defence coach, before every session...should give this sort of speech.

"Guys this is a rugby game, the opposition are people with families, mortgages, parents...they are not your enemy invading your country..to be dehumanised and killed...they did not sign up to lose it all...if you think you are going to seriously hurt someone, if you have that anger, that red mist, that lack of control in you, you should be honest with yourself..not be a rugby player, because you can easily end someone tackling incorrectly and illegaly, and not one professional rugby player should have to suffer your presence on the pitch".

[Torquemada 1420]

How it wasn't coached out of him by U20's, I don't know. I suspect an Irish player, no matter how talented, would find it hard to progress if he didn't get the message to "tackle" lower.

Did you watch your U20s this time round?

[Insane_Homer]

Farrell needs a ban long enough to rule him out of the RWC. Sadly i think the disciplinery will bottle it and he will play.

At the hearing it will be found that it was entirely the welshies fault for being near Farrell (they should know by now what he's like) and not doing enough to avoid getting hit on the head.
Farrell will get an apology from ref, tmo & the welshie and ordered to pay Farrell compensation for grave injustice of it all.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I don't think he's dirty, he is basically just bracing for contact - something he picked up at an early age. But it is red card material, and always has been.

How it wasn't coached out of him by U20's, I don't know. I suspect an Irish player, no matter how talented, would find it hard to progress if he didn't get the message to "tackle" lower.

I've wondered for a while if he doesn't in fact have a long standing shoulder injury he plays with, because that tucking in of the shoulder just seems so consistent, and he is a player willing to work hard on details

[Insane_Homer]

The entry-level punishment for that type of tackle is six weeks, though Farrell was given a four-week ban for a similar tackle back in January. On that occasion Farrell’s ban was reduced to three weeks after he attended ‘tackle school’ — however, a player cannot do so twice.

It's going to take some unusual blue sky thinking to justify anything less than 6 weeks.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The entry-level punishment for that type of tackle is six weeks, though Farrell was given a four-week ban for a similar tackle back in January. On that occasion Farrell’s ban was reduced to three weeks after he attended ‘tackle school’ — however, a player cannot do so twice.

It's going to take some unusual blue sky thinking to justify anything less than 6 weeks.

I'd figured five weeks.

He's lucky rugby doesn't take head injuries especially seriously else the entry point and aggravating factors would end his World Cup.

[Hal Jordan]

I still think it should be matches, not weeks, as the latter allows meaningless days to idle by as the punishment winds down.

[sockwithaticket]

I think he's dirty. He's never put any serious work into changing his approach, as is pretty obvious. Not putting work into an area where you need to make I provement is deliberate.

I agree, he's a recidivist cheap shot merchant. A grub with a seemingly endless supply of RFU 'Get Out Of Jail Free' cards.

I hope he cops a lengthy ban, but if history's any indication, he probably won't.

I don't think he's dirty, he is basically just bracing for contact - something he picked up at an early age. But it is red card material, and always has been.

How it wasn't coached out of him by U20's, I don't know. I suspect an Irish player, no matter how talented, would find it hard to progress if he didn't get the message to "tackle" lower.

I thought the Stewart incident was far more cynical, and dangerous. You can see Stewart looking at the ball, looking at the ball, and then looking at the player when he realised he wasn't going to be in a position to contest. So he just ploughed straight through the player, hitting him when he was in the air, with no attempt to mitigate his landing. Straight red imo.

I do. It'll be his 4th ban for this type of offence (not to mention the ones he's gotten away with...). The only other player I can think of with 4 bans is Tomas Lavanini and no one would hesitate to call him dirty.

The vast, vast majority of players managed to not even get banned once during their careers. To keep getting banned for the same thing shows at least reckless a disregard for the safety of fellow players that definitely falls into the dirty category for me.

[petej]

I agree, he's a recidivist cheap shot merchant. A grub with a seemingly endless supply of RFU 'Get Out Of Jail Free' cards.

I hope he cops a lengthy ban, but if history's any indication, he probably won't.

I don't think he's dirty, he is basically just bracing for contact - something he picked up at an early age. But it is red card material, and always has been.

How it wasn't coached out of him by U20's, I don't know. I suspect an Irish player, no matter how talented, would find it hard to progress if he didn't get the message to "tackle" lower.

I thought the Stewart incident was far more cynical, and dangerous. You can see Stewart looking at the ball, looking at the ball, and then looking at the player when he realised he wasn't going to be in a position to contest. So he just ploughed straight through the player, hitting him when he was in the air, with no attempt to mitigate his landing. Straight red imo.

I do. It'll be his 4th ban for this type of offence (not to mention the ones he's gotten away with...). The only other player I can think of with 4 bans is Tomas Lavanini and no one would hesitate to call him dirty.

The vast, vast majority of players managed to not even get banned once during their careers. To keep getting banned for the same thing shows at least reckless a disregard for the safety of fellow players that definitely falls into the dirty category for me.

He has always been given the benefit of the doubt by our media and lawmakers and even with that he has accumulated 4 bans.

[Monk]

England does committees better than anyone else

[Gumboot]

He has always been given the benefit of the doubt by our media and lawmakers and even with that he has accumulated 4 bans.

He's a protected species.

[C69]

Daf Jenkins out for a month

[Raggs]

I do. It'll be his 4th ban for this type of offence (not to mention the ones he's gotten away with...). The only other player I can think of with 4 bans is Tomas Lavanini and no one would hesitate to call him dirty.

The vast, vast majority of players managed to not even get banned once during their careers. To keep getting banned for the same thing shows at least reckless a disregard for the safety of fellow players that definitely falls into the dirty category for me.

Lavanini has come right around (not even bound) a maul, to hammer into the side of a guys knee before (who obviously wasn't expecting any sort of contact). Farrell isn't clean, but he's not what I'd consider dirty either.

With a guilty plea I see it going from 6 weeks to 5.

However, with an all australian (I think) judge panel, it could go either way. World cup could mean they throw the book at him, or maybe they choose to cripple England and give him 3 weeks.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I do. It'll be his 4th ban for this type of offence (not to mention the ones he's gotten away with...). The only other player I can think of with 4 bans is Tomas Lavanini and no one would hesitate to call him dirty.

The vast, vast majority of players managed to not even get banned once during their careers. To keep getting banned for the same thing shows at least reckless a disregard for the safety of fellow players that definitely falls into the dirty category for me.

Lavanini has come right around (not even bound) a maul, to hammer into the side of a guys knee before (who obviously wasn't expecting any sort of contact). Farrell isn't clean, but he's not what I'd consider dirty either.

With a guilty plea I see it going from 6 weeks to 5.

However, with an all australian (I think) judge panel, it could go either way. World cup could mean they throw the book at him, or maybe they choose to cripple England and give him 3 weeks.

I'd assume 5 weeks based on previous examples, but I don't know If Balsham might still be reporting problems (and oddly the story is much more about Farrell than the bloke he clobbered who suffered the trauma) and that would ramp up the severity if he was, and then there's the mystery tick box 'need for deterrent to combat a pattern offending' which must not mean what I think it means given how often it's ignored