Law question- Farrell tackle

[Biffer]

I genuinely think this is because the Aussies are so far behind the northern hemisphere on the topic of player safety.

I also think there is a bit of this.

From the few Super Rugby games I watched, I couldn't believe the high shots that refs were letting go.

From the many Supe games I watched, I don't believe that's remotely true.

Examples, please.

Shall we start with the twenty minute red card bullshit and work from there?

[Gumboot]

I also think there is a bit of this.

From the few Super Rugby games I watched, I couldn't believe the high shots that refs were letting go.

From the many Supe games I watched, I don't believe that's remotely true.

Examples, please.

Shall we start with the twenty minute red card bullshit and work from there?

Again, what has that got to do with refs "letting high shots go"?

Seems to have a lot more to do with "desperately moving the goalposts", imho.

[Guy Smiley]

From the many Supe games I watched, I don't believe that's remotely true.

Examples, please.

Shall we start with the twenty minute red card bullshit and work from there?

Again, what has that got to do with refs "letting high shots go"?

Seems to have a lot more to do with "desperately moving the goalposts", imho.

Possibly worth pointing out at this stage that the SH isn’t faced with a high profile star repeat offending due to lack of disciplinary action over a period of years….

[Torquemada 1420]

Owens is spot on:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/footbal ... AA1frMboke

All the smoke screen of Basham changing line late is bollox because Farrell was always illegal. May was well say Basham was pushed off line late which gives Farrell a freebie to punch him in the face.

[Torquemada 1420]

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

No. Because he wasn't selected and, anyway, I think a ban is only effective from final decision. And another point is he should get no deductions because he did not admit the offence.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Shall we start with the twenty minute red card bullshit and work from there?

Again, what has that got to do with refs "letting high shots go"?

Seems to have a lot more to do with "desperately moving the goalposts", imho.

Possibly worth pointing out at this stage that the SH isn’t faced with a high profile star repeat offending due to lack of disciplinary action over a period of years….

fair to say the NZ team do most of their wife beating and intimidation of witnesses away from the arena of rugby, and there it's the 'normal' courts who decline to take action

[Guy Smiley]

Again, what has that got to do with refs "letting high shots go"?

Seems to have a lot more to do with "desperately moving the goalposts", imho.

Possibly worth pointing out at this stage that the SH isn’t faced with a high profile star repeat offending due to lack of disciplinary action over a period of years….

fair to say the NZ team do most of their wife beating and intimidation of witnesses away from the arena of rugby, and there it's the 'normal' courts who decline to take action

Struck a nerve did I dearie?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Possibly worth pointing out at this stage that the SH isn’t faced with a high profile star repeat offending due to lack of disciplinary action over a period of years….

fair to say the NZ team do most of their wife beating and intimidation of witnesses away from the arena of rugby, and there it's the 'normal' courts who decline to take action

Struck a nerve did I dearie?

Without doubt I've been pissed off for years NZ doesn't give a shit about domestic violence. But they don't so..

[Raggs]

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

No. Because he wasn't selected and, anyway, I think a ban is only effective from final decision. And another point is he should get no deductions because he did not admit the offence.

I'm 99% sure it will be included. Players have been voluntarily stood down by the club, waiting the result of a hearing, and due to the later decision, the game was included. Obviously if he'd been played then it wouldn't have included.

[Gumboot]

Without doubt I've been pissed off for years NZ doesn't give a shit about domestic violence. But they don't so..

Once again, nothing but feeble attempts at deflection from the Owen Feral apologists. Sad.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Without doubt I've been pissed off for years NZ doesn't give a shit about domestic violence. But they don't so..

Once again, nothing but feeble attempts at deflection from the Owen Feral apologists. Sad.

I'm not apologising for Farrell. Left to me he'd be getting a 12-18 week ban, given the actual history of bans applied and there's been no notice of an increase in severity it seems more reasonable he'd be looking at a 6 match ban.

But one can be frustrated by Farrell's actions, ashamed of the various defences of him and still pissed by by the sweeping under the carpet of other serious issues, domestic violence as a for instance. More than one thought is allowed.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

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

No. Because he wasn't selected and, anyway, I think a ban is only effective from final decision. And another point is he should get no deductions because he did not admit the offence.

I'm 99% sure it will be included. Players have been voluntarily stood down by the club, waiting the result of a hearing, and due to the later decision, the game was included. Obviously if he'd been played then it wouldn't have included.

Yeah, they're not going to be that unfair carrying in not having a hearing until after a game and then saying you can't include said game should any ban be applied.

Does seem the whole thing should have been sped up somewhat, you wouldn't want for instance an appeal being after a quarter-final and then finding out you should have been free to play only after your side was knocked out.

[Gumboot]

Without doubt I've been pissed off for years NZ doesn't give a shit about domestic violence. But they don't so..

Once again, nothing but feeble attempts at deflection from the Owen Feral apologists. Sad.

I'm not apologising for Farrell. Left to me he'd be getting a 12-18 week ban, given the actual history of bans applied and there's been no notice of an increase in severity it seems more reasonable he'd be looking at a 6 match ban.

But one can be frustrated by Farrell's actions, ashamed of the various defences of him and still pissed by by the sweeping under the carpet of other serious issues, domestic violence as a for instance. More than one thought is allowed.

Of course, but are false equivalences?

[topofthemoon]

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

No. Because he wasn't selected and, anyway, I think a ban is only effective from final decision. And another point is he should get no deductions because he did not admit the offence.

He accepted he had committed an act of foul play. He did not accept that it warranted a red card.

The process as it stands now only requires the former as admission of guilt. That then allows part mitigation to be applied.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Of course, but are false equivalences?

Depends I suppose how one reads 'SH isn’t faced with a high profile star repeat offending due to lack of disciplinary action over a period of years….' and how much one takes a view a conversation cannot branch out

[Torquemada 1420]

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

No. Because he wasn't selected and, anyway, I think a ban is only effective from final decision. And another point is he should get no deductions because he did not admit the offence.

I'm 99% sure it will be included. Players have been voluntarily stood down by the club, waiting the result of a hearing, and due to the later decision, the game was included. Obviously if he'd been played then it wouldn't have included.

FM. So he is suspended from a game he wouldn't have played?

[Raggs]

No. Because he wasn't selected and, anyway, I think a ban is only effective from final decision. And another point is he should get no deductions because he did not admit the offence.

I'm 99% sure it will be included. Players have been voluntarily stood down by the club, waiting the result of a hearing, and due to the later decision, the game was included. Obviously if he'd been played then it wouldn't have included.

FM. So he is suspended from a game he wouldn't have played?

How do you know he wouldn't have played it? It's not like when a club player is banned (especially 2nd string), they pick and choose which of the next 6+ games etc they suspect the player would have been involved in. It's always done on the assumption of available games, not "Yes he'd definitely be picked for this one, but probably not that one."

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm 99% sure it will be included. Players have been voluntarily stood down by the club, waiting the result of a hearing, and due to the later decision, the game was included. Obviously if he'd been played then it wouldn't have included.

FM. So he is suspended from a game he wouldn't have played?

How do you know he wouldn't have played it? It's not like when a club player is banned (especially 2nd string), they pick and choose which of the next 6+ games etc they suspect the player would have been involved in. It's always done on the assumption of available games, not "Yes he'd definitely be picked for this one, but probably not that one."

Because Borthwick has been making noises as loudly as possible to say Farrell was a dead cert starter which means, given Eng's behaviour in this whole affair, it's just a ruse to try and get one more game off.

Anyway, I go back to the basic principle that he shouldn't be allowed to commence his sentence until sentence has been passed. This is not like being held on remand: his omission was voluntary.

[Torquemada 1420]

Boris Palu has just been sent off in Racing v UBB game. I thought is was a neck roll to start with but it's basically a "legit" rolling Poirot from his torso out of the ruck. Entry legal a far as I can see. However, because it meant Poirot got his leg trapped, Blasco seemed influenced enough to have deemed it dangerous.

FWIW, I think it was a harsh call to say it was dangerous but contrast with the Farrell decision where he set out to do something dangerous.

[Torquemada 1420]

Does seem the whole thing should have been sped up somewhat, you wouldn't want for instance an appeal being after a quarter-final and then finding out you should have been free to play only after your side was knocked out.

It's all a nonsense. So presumably if Sarries had had 4 reserve warm up games in the interim, Eng could have claimed he was due to play those too?

On your last line point: I guess that's tough just as it is for those held on remand who are found innocent after trial.

[Raggs]

Does seem the whole thing should have been sped up somewhat, you wouldn't want for instance an appeal being after a quarter-final and then finding out you should have been free to play only after your side was knocked out.

It's all a nonsense. So presumably if Sarries had had 4 reserve warm up games in the interim, Eng could have claimed he was due to play those too?

On your last line point: I guess that's tough just as it is for those held on remand who are found innocent after trial.

I mean Australia claimed Beale I think (maybe someone else) would definitely have played for their local Old Pisspoorians against Alcoholics Anon XV, a while back, and got a week off his ban for it.

[Torquemada 1420]

Does seem the whole thing should have been sped up somewhat, you wouldn't want for instance an appeal being after a quarter-final and then finding out you should have been free to play only after your side was knocked out.

It's all a nonsense. So presumably if Sarries had had 4 reserve warm up games in the interim, Eng could have claimed he was due to play those too?

On your last line point: I guess that's tough just as it is for those held on remand who are found innocent after trial.

I mean Australia claimed Beale I think (maybe someone else) would definitely have played for their local Old Pisspoorians against Alcoholics Anon XV, a while back, and got a week off his ban for it.

Exactly. And with Sexton playing in Old Priest Paedophiles v St Stephen's Porto 3rd XV, rugby continues to show no evidence that it gives a sH8t about punishing players for misdemeanours of any kind.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Does seem the whole thing should have been sped up somewhat, you wouldn't want for instance an appeal being after a quarter-final and then finding out you should have been free to play only after your side was knocked out.

It's all a nonsense. So presumably if Sarries had had 4 reserve warm up games in the interim, Eng could have claimed he was due to play those too?

On your last line point: I guess that's tough just as it is for those held on remand who are found innocent after trial.

The game hasn't always handled these situations well, claims leading players would feature in games Vs Old Paralegals 3rd Xvs, but it is adapting to the various scenarios, and increasingly calling BS out as BS. Probably a ways to go, but things have been improving taking a wider view

[Raggs]

It's all a nonsense. So presumably if Sarries had had 4 reserve warm up games in the interim, Eng could have claimed he was due to play those too?

On your last line point: I guess that's tough just as it is for those held on remand who are found innocent after trial.

I mean Australia claimed Beale I think (maybe someone else) would definitely have played for their local Old Pisspoorians against Alcoholics Anon XV, a while back, and got a week off his ban for it.

Exactly. And with Sexton playing in Old Priest Paedophiles v St Stephen's Porto 3rd XV, rugby continues to show no evidence that it gives a sH8t about punishing players for misdemeanours of any kind.

But that's really not the same as Farrell not playing in an England rugby match. Personally I'd have expected him on the bench at the very least, if not starting 12. However if you don't know if he's banned, then you need others getting game time.

It's already problematic enough in that if he now gets 6+ weeks, he's officially part of the world cup squad, whereas if he had got that in the original hearing, since it was pre deadline, in theory he could have been replaced.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I mean Australia claimed Beale I think (maybe someone else) would definitely have played for their local Old Pisspoorians against Alcoholics Anon XV, a while back, and got a week off his ban for it.

Exactly. And with Sexton playing in Old Priest Paedophiles v St Stephen's Porto 3rd XV, rugby continues to show no evidence that it gives a sH8t about punishing players for misdemeanours of any kind.

Wtaf is this post. Actually you are all a fucking a state

Justice for the Current Priest Paedophiles XV?

or more the thought whether old or current there'd be a hell of lot more than XV?

[ScarfaceClaw]

Shall we add Vunipola to this thread or does he get a separate one?

[dpedin]

Shall we add Vunipola to this thread or does he get a separate one?

Keep this one going, they go to the same tackle school.

[Torquemada 1420]

Shall we add Vunipola to this thread or does he get a separate one?

Keep this one going, they go to the same tackle school.

Needs more Toga.

[Ymx]

Attempt 2

Kiwi Chair who is a KC
An Irish and a Singaporean.

No Aussies, no dogs, …

[Ymx]

Looks like twitter links are now coming out as x.com

So you need to fix it to Twitter.com before posting here, so it can inline the tweet.

[Ymx]

I was going to post this because of the R Mo comments, and then more so as I also saw this little squabble of someone tearing strips of an esteemed riter from our sister site.

The discussion below the tweet linked here.

[Torquemada 1420]

I was going to post this because of the R Mo comments, and then more so as I also saw this little squabble of someone tearing strips of an esteemed riter from our sister site.

The discussion below the tweet linked here.

When the f**k was PR a serious website?

[Ymx]

I don’t know. But the exchange was tough to watch. It made me wince it was so harsh.

[Tichtheid]

World Rugby say

The player (Moala, my brackets) accepted that foul play occurred and that the offending warranted a red card. The Committee considered the Player’s submissions as to entry point along with all other evidence and decided that the offence warranted a mid-range sanction (ten matches). Having considered the mitigating factors, the Committee decided to reduce the sanction by the maximum mitigation of 50 per cent. The matches to which the sanction applies is to be confirmed.

[Simian]

I was going to post this because of the R Mo comments, and then more so as I also saw this little squabble of someone tearing strips of an esteemed riter from our sister site.

The discussion below the tweet linked here.

I'm not getting your point here (or the reply by the person you've retweeted).

The article says that offence was in principle deemed by the panel to be worthy of a 10 week ban, but it was cut to 5 because of mitigating factors. Isn't that right?

Farrell's was deemed by the panel to not be a red card offence.

[Margin__Walker]

The pray for Moala angle on twitter that has been all the rage in the last week is weird though. If you want to highlight inconsistencies in the way tier 2 and PI players may be treated in these scenarios its an odd one to pick. It was a bad tackle and the bloke literally got the minimum possible ban

[Ymx]

I was going to post this because of the R Mo comments, and then more so as I also saw this little squabble of someone tearing strips of an esteemed riter from our sister site.

The discussion below the tweet linked here.

I'm not getting your point here (or the reply by the person you've retweeted).

The article says that offence was in principle deemed by the panel to be worthy of a 10 week ban, but it was cut to 5 because of mitigating factors. Isn't that right?

Farrell's was deemed by the panel to not be a red card offence.

I think it’s this part they had issue with

“where the controversy comes in is that not long before the Farrell incident former All Blacks turned Tongan centre George Moala was initially banned for 10 weeks for a tip-tackle.”

It’s wrong as the initial ban was 5 weeks. 10 was the possible sanction, but that number was never issued.

Or at best it was being deliberately misleading. 10 vs 0

[Tichtheid]

I think it’s this part they had issue with

“where the controversy comes in is that not long before the Farrell incident former All Blacks turned Tongan centre George Moala was initially banned for 10 weeks for a tip-tackle.”

It’s wrong as the initial ban was 5 weeks. 10 was the possible sanction, but that number was never issued.

Or at best it was being deliberately misleading. 10 vs 0

It's poor and inaccurate journalism, but I don't really understand the problem beyond that.


On the tackle itself it was bad, but not too much worse than Farrell's although it's difficult to compare when one was a shoulder straight to the face and one was a tip tackle where the player landed on his shoulder.

I would have thought that all things considered, more comparable sanctions should have been applied.

[Ymx]

I think it’s this part they had issue with

“where the controversy comes in is that not long before the Farrell incident former All Blacks turned Tongan centre George Moala was initially banned for 10 weeks for a tip-tackle.”

It’s wrong as the initial ban was 5 weeks. 10 was the possible sanction, but that number was never issued.

Or at best it was being deliberately misleading. 10 vs 0

It's poor and inaccurate journalism, but I don't really understand the problem beyond that.


On the tackle itself it was bad, but not too much worse than Farrell's although it's difficult to compare when one was a shoulder straight to the face and one was a tip tackle where the player landed on his shoulder.

I would have thought that all things considered, more comparable sanctions should have been applied.

Totally agree with all of that.

I think the amusing bit was that the PR chief forum mod/admin got a mauling by someone. Just made me chuckle.

[topofthemoon]

I was going to post this because of the R Mo comments, and then more so as I also saw this little squabble of someone tearing strips of an esteemed riter from our sister site.

The discussion below the tweet linked here.

I'm not getting your point here (or the reply by the person you've retweeted).

The article says that offence was in principle deemed by the panel to be worthy of a 10 week ban, but it was cut to 5 because of mitigating factors. Isn't that right?

Farrell's was deemed by the panel to not be a red card offence.

The ban imposed is always entry point less mitigation plus aggravation. The entry point is not a ban in principle or a ban initially imposed, it is simply the starting point based on the assessment of on-field factors for that specific act of foul play. Every player will have relevant off-field elements taken into account for both mitigating and aggravating factors therefore a ban imposed can only be identified once all 3 steps have been completed. I can't recall ever seeing a ban reported this way.

I think it's particularly relevant for them to be accurate in this case as the initial tweets about Moala's ban, comparing this to Farrell's, stated that Moala was suspended for 10 weeks and failed to mention anything about mitigation and that the ban imposed was actually 5 weeks. This was picked up and amplified on Twitter (including some journalists) before a couple of sources quoted the actual disciplinary decision and noted that Moala was actually only suspended for 5 weeks.