Law question- Farrell tackle

[assfly]

What are the chances that money exchanged hands here?

[Simian]

Six nations have stitched World Rugby up ahead of the biggest tournament on the calendar. Terrific.

WR surely will appeal the decision? Or are they not able to?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

There is no way to clean it up. They might get the 100, thousand micro concussions Alix Popham suffered down to about 90 thousand, but the brain is impacting the inside of the skull etc.

" His consultant asked him to make a rough count of the tackles, carries and clean-outs he made in every game and training session. “He thinks minimum I’ve had over 100,000 sub-concussions. Minimum. And that’s just my professional career. I started playing when I was four.” One of his neurologists explained it like this: “Every contact causes a little bit of damage to your brain. Look at it like a leaking tap. If it drips once or twice on a piece of mud there’d be no mark, but if it drips for 14 years there would be a lot of damage. And there is a lot of damage showing on my scans.”

ah, the we're doomed so might as well give up now perspective.

sub-concussions are a thing sure, but the outcome is varied. so we need to determine what our red flags would be and for some people that'll mean stepping back from contact sports. but a lot of people like contact sports, to watch and to play, and we probably don't need to worry you'll pry it from our cold dead hands as you'll have already topped yourself in despair

We are not fighting a war, running away in defeat, we are giving up a sport because the human impact is far far far too great for its meagre entertainment value.

I don't care if I never see a scrum or lineout for the rest of my life.
I don't care if I never see a ruck or maul for the rest of my life.
So thats like 3/4 of the sport of Rugby I could do without watching.

What's so great about the rest of it, that we are accepting of such human sacrifice?

So don't watch. But if you're really not interested maybe find something on the interweb you do like rather than maintain such a focus on the negative, or even why don't you switch off your internet set and go do something less boring instead

[Paddington Bear]

It's a bit Occam's razor. Three globally known (Fagerson not so much but he is a Lion) players get very lenient bans that coincidentally mean they're available for the world cup.

There is simply no other explanation when they're taken together.

There’s clearly an effort to ensure that Tier 1 sides have their full squads available to them, this time it’s also combined with Super Rugby’s more liberal interpretation of shouldering someone’s head. Absolute shitshow

But why is that focus on the perpetrators? Why should World Rugby not be making sure that the victims of these collisions are available for the World Cup. It seems so counterintuitive. Why allow someone with a dangerous tackle technique to continue to be dangerous on the pitch, potentially ruling other players out through injury?

Surely its better to lose one player through their own poor actions than it is to potentially lose multiple other players through being the victim of a high shot?

Because this is World Rugby’s only moneyspinner. I don’t agree with it but the logic is pretty clear

[inactionman]

What are the chances that money exchanged hands here?

I'd say little to none, but I would think there was at least half an eye on broader commercial matters.

In a way, I almost hope that's the case, as otherwise the decision is simply random.

[petej]

World rugby have been flagging head contact happens qnd thats just life for a while. I won't go back and pick out your posts praising the decision to rescind the red card for the English fullback on Keenan as I am too lazy but it was almost universal. 'A victory for coomonsense' etc etc. We even had a little sprinkling of Keenan rolling around and Irish players looking for the card. That was worse than Farrells by a country mile as no one interfered with the lad he just fucked up how he braced himself and tried to kill Keenan. I said at the time you cant be a little in and a little out on this so viewed thrpugh that prism the decision is not only the correct one but the onfield refs deserve a dressing down for causing all the fuss

Top trolling.

[Gumboot]

So don't watch. But if you're really not interested maybe find something on the interweb you do like rather than maintain such a focus on the negative, or even why don't you switch off your internet set and go do something less boring instead

Refry's continued rugby viewing is strictly for research purposes. It's a dirty job, but a necessary one. Especially when Wales are playing.

[SaintK]

Six nations have stitched World Rugby up ahead of the biggest tournament on the calendar. Terrific.

WR surely will appeal the decision? Or are they not able to?

I think they have 48 hours to appeal it?
They should most certainly stand down the idiots on the panel and ensure they never sit on a disciplinary hearing again.

[Sandstorm]

2023: The Last Money-First RWC?

[Brazil]

Six nations have stitched World Rugby up ahead of the biggest tournament on the calendar. Terrific.

WR surely will appeal the decision? Or are they not able to?

I think they have 48 hours to appeal it?
They should most certainly stand down the idiots on the panel and ensure they never sit on a disciplinary hearing again.

Being cynical, I bet the calculus will be that it's only the rugby community that's up in arms about this, and there's more to be gained for the tournament commercially by having the big names there even if they've been caught buttfucking a meth-heads corpse. Hope I'm wrong and sanity prevails though, as it's an incredibly ugly moment for the sport.

[Slick]

WR surely will appeal the decision? Or are they not able to?

I think they have 48 hours to appeal it?
They should most certainly stand down the idiots on the panel and ensure they never sit on a disciplinary hearing again.

Being cynical, I bet the calculus will be that it's only the rugby community that's up in arms about this, and there's more to be gained for the tournament commercially by having the big names there even if they've been caught buttfucking a meth-heads corpse. Hope I'm wrong and sanity prevails though, as it's an incredibly ugly moment for the sport.

More chasing of an imaginary new audience at the expense of the one they already have

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I think they have 48 hours to appeal it?
They should most certainly stand down the idiots on the panel and ensure they never sit on a disciplinary hearing again.

Being cynical, I bet the calculus will be that it's only the rugby community that's up in arms about this, and there's more to be gained for the tournament commercially by having the big names there even if they've been caught buttfucking a meth-heads corpse. Hope I'm wrong and sanity prevails though, as it's an incredibly ugly moment for the sport.

More chasing of an imaginary new audience at the expense of the one they already have

More a realisation the number of rugby fans who'll care about, frankly even know about, this latest Farrell high shot is a relatively small number of the overall WC viewing audience. And they don't make money from having rugby fans take an interest in a RWC

[tc27]

Put the tin foil hats away guys.

The number of people who woult watch a RWC because Farrel isn't playing is not going to be significant.

[Ymx]

Put the tin foil hats away guys.

The number of people who woult watch a RWC because Farrel isn't playing is not going to be significant.

True.

I would say perhaps Farrells dad. But obviously that’s not true.

[Niegs]

Reminds me how much I dislike 'tackle school' as well. It's so juvenile and insulting to club coaches. I wonder if they half-ass it through the motions, too, or the player's resisting a bit of eye rolling? "Yeah, I got that incident wrong because I wasn't thinking / saw a bit of red mist." As if today's pros can't break down a 'textbook' tackle. And then they get let off on something that's probably a bit of a joke to them.

Double the punishments, no forgiveness for admission, saying sorry, bringing a tray of mum's cookies, or whatever. A set list of weeks off for each incident that puts the most egregious ones at 5-10 weeks would see players change pretty damn quick.

[Line6 HXFX]

Matt Dawson coming out against rugby..


[media] [/media]

[Ymx]

[Ymx]

Let’s see what happens with this latest twist…

Saturdays team to be announced tomorrow I assume.

[Sandstorm]

PILE ON AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGHHHH

Shut up son. This isn’t about Ireland today.

[Slick]

PILE ON AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGHHHH

Shut up son. This isn’t about Ireland today.

It’s always about Ireland

[JM2K6]

Gosh another quality bit of banter from Ireland's finest poster

[SaintK]

Gosh another quality bit of banter from Ireland's finest poster

To be honest I can never understand what he's on about!

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Tick tock World Rugby, tick tock

[Slick]

Gosh another quality bit of banter from Ireland's finest poster

To be honest I can never understand what he's on about!

It can take a bit of work, but it's usually pretty good IMO. I like working for my giggles.

[SaintK]

An explainer from Planet Rugby on who is responsible for what !
Long read so spoilered
The key points

The facts of the matter are:
1. The warm ups are administered by Six Nations Rugby Ltd.(SNR)
2. The Independent Panel is appointed and administered by SNR from the approved list of World Rugby adjudicators in these matters, and is relevant ONLY to the World Rugby (WR) regulations. World Rugby’s responsibilities start and end here.
3. Six Nations Rugby have not yet published the hearing transcripts.
4. As a matter of course, SNR do not habitually publish hearing transcripts (the only governing body not to) but have occasionally, in the past, released them upon requests from journalists.
5. World Rugby have the right of appeal against Farrell’s sanction, but they will not do so until they have the facts of the hearing transcript.

Spoiler

Show

Rarely have we seen rugby fans, pundits and ex-players as united on social media and elsewhere as we have done so in the recent overturning of Owen Farrell’s red card.

However, in all of the opprobrium that’s been flying around it’s helpful to get the process, organisation and procedures correct.

Since the overturning, most of social media ire has been directed randomly at both England Rugby and World Rugby, neither of whom are remotely responsible for the Independent Panel Decision.

The facts of the matter are:
1. The warm ups are administered by Six Nations Rugby Ltd.(SNR)
2. The Independent Panel is appointed and administered by SNR from the approved list of World Rugby adjudicators in these matters, and is relevant ONLY to the World Rugby (WR) regulations. World Rugby’s responsibilities start and end here.
3. Six Nations Rugby have not yet published the hearing transcripts.
4. As a matter of course, SNR do not habitually publish hearing transcripts (the only governing body not to) but have occasionally, in the past, released them upon requests from journalists.
5. World Rugby have the right of appeal against Farrell’s sanction, but they will not do so until they have the facts of the hearing transcript.

So, whilst WR govern the game, in this instance they are subservient to the governing body of the match, which in this instance is SNR.

For the record, Planet Rugby, alongside many broadsheet, tabloid and online news organisations have reached out to SNR to request the transcripts- and have, as of the time of publishing, been told it is not their policy, although we understand there’s a discussion around this specific case due to the public feeling about the outcome. Planet Rugby also understands that at this moment in time, SNR themselves do not have the full transcript and are awaiting the signed off document which should arrive shortly.

To continually blame WR in this instance is to bring further opacity to an already opaque situation. There’s a need for absolute accuracy and clarity in this unusual situation and put bluntly, the fans and pundits missing this point may as well shout at NATO or the FSB as World Rugby themselves, despite the undoubted good intentions to correct an obviously contentious outcome from the SNR panel.

Planet Rugby understands that WR will give due consideration to an appeal upon sight of the correct documents (the hearing transcript) as they would in any other contentious judicial hearing.
In the case of England Rugby and the RFU, to criticise them for trying to ensure the availability of their own assets is risible; in addition, the appointment of the Legal Council means, under SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) that he or she must at all times act in the best interests of their client, in this instance, Owen Farrell. So again, blaming the RFU is a little bit of a leap of faith.

The game needs cleaning up and it needs outcome consistency, that’s a given, but knowing the people who do that sweeping and polishing is key and shouting loudly at them when the blame is with the people who made the mess in the first place is simply not helping this delicate and controversial situation.

In this instance, sniper’s bullets aimed at the correct target will prove a lot more effective than wild blunderbusses of opprobrium fired aimlessly in the path of random rugby officials.

[JM2K6]

Gosh another quality bit of banter from Ireland's finest poster

You have such a hard on for me it makes me blush. On amother site it would be diluted but here it just rages purple

Yeah such a hard on that I was, what, the 3rd? 4th? person to mock your shit-tier posting on this topic? Real obsessive stuff, definitely the real problem here and not the tedious shtick you persist in dribbling onto these threads

[JM2K6]

An explainer from Planet Rugby on who is responsible for what !
Long read so spoilered
The key points

The facts of the matter are:
1. The warm ups are administered by Six Nations Rugby Ltd.(SNR)
2. The Independent Panel is appointed and administered by SNR from the approved list of World Rugby adjudicators in these matters, and is relevant ONLY to the World Rugby (WR) regulations. World Rugby’s responsibilities start and end here.
3. Six Nations Rugby have not yet published the hearing transcripts.
4. As a matter of course, SNR do not habitually publish hearing transcripts (the only governing body not to) but have occasionally, in the past, released them upon requests from journalists.
5. World Rugby have the right of appeal against Farrell’s sanction, but they will not do so until they have the facts of the hearing transcript.

Spoiler

Show

Rarely have we seen rugby fans, pundits and ex-players as united on social media and elsewhere as we have done so in the recent overturning of Owen Farrell’s red card.

However, in all of the opprobrium that’s been flying around it’s helpful to get the process, organisation and procedures correct.

Since the overturning, most of social media ire has been directed randomly at both England Rugby and World Rugby, neither of whom are remotely responsible for the Independent Panel Decision.

The facts of the matter are:
1. The warm ups are administered by Six Nations Rugby Ltd.(SNR)
2. The Independent Panel is appointed and administered by SNR from the approved list of World Rugby adjudicators in these matters, and is relevant ONLY to the World Rugby (WR) regulations. World Rugby’s responsibilities start and end here.
3. Six Nations Rugby have not yet published the hearing transcripts.
4. As a matter of course, SNR do not habitually publish hearing transcripts (the only governing body not to) but have occasionally, in the past, released them upon requests from journalists.
5. World Rugby have the right of appeal against Farrell’s sanction, but they will not do so until they have the facts of the hearing transcript.

So, whilst WR govern the game, in this instance they are subservient to the governing body of the match, which in this instance is SNR.

For the record, Planet Rugby, alongside many broadsheet, tabloid and online news organisations have reached out to SNR to request the transcripts- and have, as of the time of publishing, been told it is not their policy, although we understand there’s a discussion around this specific case due to the public feeling about the outcome. Planet Rugby also understands that at this moment in time, SNR themselves do not have the full transcript and are awaiting the signed off document which should arrive shortly.

To continually blame WR in this instance is to bring further opacity to an already opaque situation. There’s a need for absolute accuracy and clarity in this unusual situation and put bluntly, the fans and pundits missing this point may as well shout at NATO or the FSB as World Rugby themselves, despite the undoubted good intentions to correct an obviously contentious outcome from the SNR panel.

Planet Rugby understands that WR will give due consideration to an appeal upon sight of the correct documents (the hearing transcript) as they would in any other contentious judicial hearing.
In the case of England Rugby and the RFU, to criticise them for trying to ensure the availability of their own assets is risible; in addition, the appointment of the Legal Council means, under SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) that he or she must at all times act in the best interests of their client, in this instance, Owen Farrell. So again, blaming the RFU is a little bit of a leap of faith.

The game needs cleaning up and it needs outcome consistency, that’s a given, but knowing the people who do that sweeping and polishing is key and shouting loudly at them when the blame is with the people who made the mess in the first place is simply not helping this delicate and controversial situation.

In this instance, sniper’s bullets aimed at the correct target will prove a lot more effective than wild blunderbusses of opprobrium fired aimlessly in the path of random rugby officials.

Crikey that's poorly written. Let me guess - Jake?

[Brazil]

In this instance, sniper’s bullets aimed at the correct target will prove a lot more effective than wild blunderbusses of opprobrium fired aimlessly in the path of random rugby officials

.

Wait, wut?

[JM2K6]

You have such a hard on for me it makes me blush. On amother site it would be diluted but here it just rages purple

Yeah such a hard on that I was, what, the 3rd? 4th? person to mock your shit-tier posting on this topic? Real obsessive stuff, definitely the real problem here and not the tedious shtick you persist in dribbling onto these threads

Just remember I have no recollection of how I first annoyed you or any incident since. You have that all to yourself. You just pop up scowling and brighten my day.

There's no incident. You just post like a dickhead and it's not funny. That's it, no big mystery to it. Sorry if you were hoping you'd done something to trigger a vendetta but actually it's just a groan of vague frustration as you launch into your tedious shitposting yet again.

The number of times I've pointed this out is a tiny percentage of the times you've posted miserably unfunny shit.

[JM2K6]

Absolutely untrue. Search shtick ny handle and yours and it will come up weekly. You are obsessed, your word, and I am flattered.

Or, you can actually do that search and it comes up twice, one of which is a reply to Biffer who was getting extremely frustrated with your usual inanity. It's very weird that you've spent so much time inventing me as some sort of arch-rival and nemesis but the truth is I post a lot on here and a couple of times in all those posts I've expressed the opinion that your look-at-me dumb-fuck trolling is irritating at best. Beyond that, I just don't care about you in the same way you obviously care about me. I don't need attention the same way you do - I just think maybe it would be better for everyone trying to read these threads if you didn't try this stuff every time. By all means feel free to ignore the suggestion, it's a free world and I'm sure you're getting some enjoyment out of your posts even if no-one else is.

Though I'd feel better if you eased off on this attempt to build some sort of e-rivalry; I'm really not interested in you.

[inactionman]

Christ, get a room.

[inactionman]

An explainer from Planet Rugby on who is responsible for what !
Long read so spoilered
The key points

The facts of the matter are:
1. The warm ups are administered by Six Nations Rugby Ltd.(SNR)
2. The Independent Panel is appointed and administered by SNR from the approved list of World Rugby adjudicators in these matters, and is relevant ONLY to the World Rugby (WR) regulations. World Rugby’s responsibilities start and end here.
3. Six Nations Rugby have not yet published the hearing transcripts.
4. As a matter of course, SNR do not habitually publish hearing transcripts (the only governing body not to) but have occasionally, in the past, released them upon requests from journalists.
5. World Rugby have the right of appeal against Farrell’s sanction, but they will not do so until they have the facts of the hearing transcript.

Spoiler

Show

Rarely have we seen rugby fans, pundits and ex-players as united on social media and elsewhere as we have done so in the recent overturning of Owen Farrell’s red card.

However, in all of the opprobrium that’s been flying around it’s helpful to get the process, organisation and procedures correct.

Since the overturning, most of social media ire has been directed randomly at both England Rugby and World Rugby, neither of whom are remotely responsible for the Independent Panel Decision.

The facts of the matter are:
1. The warm ups are administered by Six Nations Rugby Ltd.(SNR)
2. The Independent Panel is appointed and administered by SNR from the approved list of World Rugby adjudicators in these matters, and is relevant ONLY to the World Rugby (WR) regulations. World Rugby’s responsibilities start and end here.
3. Six Nations Rugby have not yet published the hearing transcripts.
4. As a matter of course, SNR do not habitually publish hearing transcripts (the only governing body not to) but have occasionally, in the past, released them upon requests from journalists.
5. World Rugby have the right of appeal against Farrell’s sanction, but they will not do so until they have the facts of the hearing transcript.

So, whilst WR govern the game, in this instance they are subservient to the governing body of the match, which in this instance is SNR.

For the record, Planet Rugby, alongside many broadsheet, tabloid and online news organisations have reached out to SNR to request the transcripts- and have, as of the time of publishing, been told it is not their policy, although we understand there’s a discussion around this specific case due to the public feeling about the outcome. Planet Rugby also understands that at this moment in time, SNR themselves do not have the full transcript and are awaiting the signed off document which should arrive shortly.

To continually blame WR in this instance is to bring further opacity to an already opaque situation. There’s a need for absolute accuracy and clarity in this unusual situation and put bluntly, the fans and pundits missing this point may as well shout at NATO or the FSB as World Rugby themselves, despite the undoubted good intentions to correct an obviously contentious outcome from the SNR panel.

Planet Rugby understands that WR will give due consideration to an appeal upon sight of the correct documents (the hearing transcript) as they would in any other contentious judicial hearing.
In the case of England Rugby and the RFU, to criticise them for trying to ensure the availability of their own assets is risible; in addition, the appointment of the Legal Council means, under SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) that he or she must at all times act in the best interests of their client, in this instance, Owen Farrell. So again, blaming the RFU is a little bit of a leap of faith.

The game needs cleaning up and it needs outcome consistency, that’s a given, but knowing the people who do that sweeping and polishing is key and shouting loudly at them when the blame is with the people who made the mess in the first place is simply not helping this delicate and controversial situation.

In this instance, sniper’s bullets aimed at the correct target will prove a lot more effective than wild blunderbusses of opprobrium fired aimlessly in the path of random rugby officials.

It is a bit tricky to read, but useful info - ta

Is this 48 hour appeal thingy - if that's actually the case - only in effect once the transcripts are released? You'd assume so, otherwise, they'd just routinely wait 49 hours before releasing.

[Big D]

Appeal is in.

[Sandstorm]

Appeal is in.

Still a good chance the current verdict is upheld.

[JM2K6]

OK cool, bye now

[JM2K6]

Appeal is in.

Honestly was worried they wouldn't do it. I guess the near-unanimous reaction and the absolute clusterfuck it would've created for the tournament left them no option. The only correct decision.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out now...

[Torquemada 1420]

This c**t should have his inbox flooded

Well that's a cunt of a post.

No. Whatever you think about something, never try to arrange a pile on. That's just shitty behaviour.

Yours is the easiest one of these posts to pin a reply to.

I absolutely disagree that anyone involved in engineering this decision should be afforded the same ground rules of decency normally expected. The extreme nature at one end drags the tideline of the acceptable with it.

I was particularly struck by this:

Peter Robinson, whose son Ben died after sustaining a brain injury in a school rugby match in Northern Ireland in 2011 at the age of 14, said: “We’ve tried our best to help educate and protect players. But every now and then I have to think what’s the f***ing point? Grass roots going above and beyond to protect players and then men in suits come along and stick up two fingers to everything.”

which chimes with my very early comment on wanting to see what Steve Thompson would say about it (which he has subsequently : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... rance.html).

However, I am issuing a partial apology because I can see now that my original hasty post looks like an appeal for a "pile on". It wasn't
a) I wouldn't expect anyone here to behave in that way.
b) What would be the point? Any emails of that type would be ignored or dumped into spam/filtered out.

For anyone who cares, I did email Smith and the exact content of that mail is spoilered below (minus my personal details)

Spoiler

Show

Sir,

This email footer contains my genuine work contact information and regulatory status thus providing my full accountability for its contents.

I appreciate the somewhat peculiar nature inherent in your profession which necessitates an entire focus towards the individual (client) leading to the potential of adverse consequences upon the wider world. However, given this current furore generated from your accurately stated ability to “achieve incredible results from seemingly impossible situations” (perhaps not quite as impossible when deploying your formidable skills against weak minded Antipodeans), I wonder if this is the epitome of a Pyrrhic victory?

At the very least the follow on has been bad press on an epic scale even in the context of a sport renown for repeatedly shooting itself in the foot in the best of Pythonesque traditions. In extremis, you may have created a precedent that proves catastrophic for rugby.

My point? I hope World Rugby successfully launches an appeal and equally hope you will consider whether your talents might take a well earned vacation in that period!

Kind regards

and given today's news I hope he takes that vacation.

[SaintK]

An explainer from Planet Rugby on who is responsible for what !
Long read so spoilered
The key points

The facts of the matter are:
1. The warm ups are administered by Six Nations Rugby Ltd.(SNR)
2. The Independent Panel is appointed and administered by SNR from the approved list of World Rugby adjudicators in these matters, and is relevant ONLY to the World Rugby (WR) regulations. World Rugby’s responsibilities start and end here.
3. Six Nations Rugby have not yet published the hearing transcripts.
4. As a matter of course, SNR do not habitually publish hearing transcripts (the only governing body not to) but have occasionally, in the past, released them upon requests from journalists.
5. World Rugby have the right of appeal against Farrell’s sanction, but they will not do so until they have the facts of the hearing transcript.

Spoiler

Show

Rarely have we seen rugby fans, pundits and ex-players as united on social media and elsewhere as we have done so in the recent overturning of Owen Farrell’s red card.

However, in all of the opprobrium that’s been flying around it’s helpful to get the process, organisation and procedures correct.

Since the overturning, most of social media ire has been directed randomly at both England Rugby and World Rugby, neither of whom are remotely responsible for the Independent Panel Decision.

The facts of the matter are:
1. The warm ups are administered by Six Nations Rugby Ltd.(SNR)
2. The Independent Panel is appointed and administered by SNR from the approved list of World Rugby adjudicators in these matters, and is relevant ONLY to the World Rugby (WR) regulations. World Rugby’s responsibilities start and end here.
3. Six Nations Rugby have not yet published the hearing transcripts.
4. As a matter of course, SNR do not habitually publish hearing transcripts (the only governing body not to) but have occasionally, in the past, released them upon requests from journalists.
5. World Rugby have the right of appeal against Farrell’s sanction, but they will not do so until they have the facts of the hearing transcript.

So, whilst WR govern the game, in this instance they are subservient to the governing body of the match, which in this instance is SNR.

For the record, Planet Rugby, alongside many broadsheet, tabloid and online news organisations have reached out to SNR to request the transcripts- and have, as of the time of publishing, been told it is not their policy, although we understand there’s a discussion around this specific case due to the public feeling about the outcome. Planet Rugby also understands that at this moment in time, SNR themselves do not have the full transcript and are awaiting the signed off document which should arrive shortly.

To continually blame WR in this instance is to bring further opacity to an already opaque situation. There’s a need for absolute accuracy and clarity in this unusual situation and put bluntly, the fans and pundits missing this point may as well shout at NATO or the FSB as World Rugby themselves, despite the undoubted good intentions to correct an obviously contentious outcome from the SNR panel.

Planet Rugby understands that WR will give due consideration to an appeal upon sight of the correct documents (the hearing transcript) as they would in any other contentious judicial hearing.
In the case of England Rugby and the RFU, to criticise them for trying to ensure the availability of their own assets is risible; in addition, the appointment of the Legal Council means, under SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) that he or she must at all times act in the best interests of their client, in this instance, Owen Farrell. So again, blaming the RFU is a little bit of a leap of faith.

The game needs cleaning up and it needs outcome consistency, that’s a given, but knowing the people who do that sweeping and polishing is key and shouting loudly at them when the blame is with the people who made the mess in the first place is simply not helping this delicate and controversial situation.

In this instance, sniper’s bullets aimed at the correct target will prove a lot more effective than wild blunderbusses of opprobrium fired aimlessly in the path of random rugby officials.

Crikey that's poorly written. Let me guess - Jake?

Don't know, didn't check the byline, but probably

[Ymx]

Oh and I didnt read your post so all that effort for naught. Ha

I rate you even more now for that !

[And 1 guest]

If Farrell cops a ban in the appeal would it include this weekend's game or not?