I'm now thinking it's possible Farrell could end up with more than Moala. 6-week entry point. Can't get full mitigation so say 2 weeks off if he's lucky. But then there's a possibility of a 2-week add on (as Marcos Kremer got for his 3rd red card / ban, although over a shorter period of time than Farrell).Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 6:51 pmYmx wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 6:45 pm
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.
I had thought Kremer's ban at 5 weeks was the template and Farrell's team might have tried to use that to argue for 4 weeks for him. But I've noticed that LNR used the old and therefore incorrect method of calculating the ban: entry point + aggravation - mitigation, which lead to Kremer getting 3 weeks off in mitigation, equivalent to a 50% reduction on entry point. Can't see a World Rugby panel making the same 'mistake' no matter how convenient it might be.
