Law question- Farrell tackle

Where goats go to escape
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

User avatar
Grandpa
Posts: 2266
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:23 pm
Location: Kiwi abroad

Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:39 pm 4 match ban.

That’s it.
Well at least he lives!

Probably to be expected... I guess his past transgressions didn't come into it? Which seems odd...
Decision in full
A Six Nations statement reads: "Following an initial Disciplinary Committee hearing for England number 10 Owen Farrell, who received a red card during the Summer Nations Series match between England and Wales on Saturday 12th August, World Rugby lodged a formal appeal against the Committees’ decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow, appealing for the red card to be upheld.

“The Appeal Committee met on Tuesday 22nd August and unanimously determined that in the original hearing the Disciplinary Committee should have considered the attempt of the player to wrap his opponent in the tackle. This point did not feature in the original decision.

“The failure to attempt to wrap was judged to be an important element of the Foul Play Review Officer’s (FPRO) report and had led to an upgrading of the referee’s yellow card to a red card during the match.

“As this element did not feature in the original decision, the Appeal Committee decided it was in the interests of justice to hear the case afresh on that key point alone, which included hearing from the player.

“Following the review by the Appeal Committee of this key element, it was determined that the FPRO was correct in his decision leading to the red card. The Appeal Committee subsequently determined that the tackle was ‘always illegal’.

“When applying the terms of World Rugby’s Head Contact Process, no mitigation can be applied to a tackle that is ‘always illegal’.

“The Appeal Committee therefore considered that the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow card had been manifestly wrong, which led to the Disciplinary Committee’s decision being overturned, the appeal brought by World Rugby being allowed, and the red card upheld.

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.

“The Appeal Committee accepted submissions on behalf of the player that the Ireland v England match on 19 August 2023, for which the player was voluntarily stood down would be included as part of the sanction. Therefore, the suspension applies to the following matches:

Ireland v England 19 August 2023
England v Fiji 26 August 2023
England v Argentina 9 September 2023
England v Japan 17 September 2023
User avatar
ASMO
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:08 pm

That is a complete cop out
User avatar
S/Lt_Phillips
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:31 pm

Grandpa wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:52 pm
Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:39 pm 4 match ban.

That’s it.
Well at least he lives!

Probably to be expected... I guess his past transgressions didn't come into it? Which seems odd...
Decision in full
A Six Nations statement reads: "Following an initial Disciplinary Committee hearing for England number 10 Owen Farrell, who received a red card during the Summer Nations Series match between England and Wales on Saturday 12th August, World Rugby lodged a formal appeal against the Committees’ decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow, appealing for the red card to be upheld.

“The Appeal Committee met on Tuesday 22nd August and unanimously determined that in the original hearing the Disciplinary Committee should have considered the attempt of the player to wrap his opponent in the tackle. This point did not feature in the original decision.

“The failure to attempt to wrap was judged to be an important element of the Foul Play Review Officer’s (FPRO) report and had led to an upgrading of the referee’s yellow card to a red card during the match.

“As this element did not feature in the original decision, the Appeal Committee decided it was in the interests of justice to hear the case afresh on that key point alone, which included hearing from the player.

“Following the review by the Appeal Committee of this key element, it was determined that the FPRO was correct in his decision leading to the red card. The Appeal Committee subsequently determined that the tackle was ‘always illegal’.

“When applying the terms of World Rugby’s Head Contact Process, no mitigation can be applied to a tackle that is ‘always illegal’.

“The Appeal Committee therefore considered that the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow card had been manifestly wrong, which led to the Disciplinary Committee’s decision being overturned, the appeal brought by World Rugby being allowed, and the red card upheld.

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.

“The Appeal Committee accepted submissions on behalf of the player that the Ireland v England match on 19 August 2023, for which the player was voluntarily stood down would be included as part of the sanction. Therefore, the suspension applies to the following matches:

Ireland v England 19 August 2023
England v Fiji 26 August 2023
England v Argentina 9 September 2023
England v Japan 17 September 2023
Hang on, he gets 2 weeks off for 'acceptance of foul play' plus biscuits etc

But

Surely if he had accepted it was foul play, the red card should have always stood? And not been overturned? Or did he only accept that it was foul, but not foul enough for a red? In which case that surely shouldn't be enough contrition to allow the ban to be reduced by 2 games. Trying to understand the mental gymnastics here.
Last edited by S/Lt_Phillips on Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Left hand down a bit
User avatar
Insane_Homer
Posts: 5389
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:14 pm
Location: Leafy Surrey

ASMO wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:56 pm That is a complete cop out
Agreed and fully expected.
“Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.”
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

This part is a lie isn’t it
minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character,
User avatar
Paddington Bear
Posts: 5961
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
User avatar
Grandpa
Posts: 2266
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:23 pm
Location: Kiwi abroad

Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:02 pm This part is a lie isn’t it
minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character,
What do they consider bad character?
inactionman
Posts: 3065
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:37 am

:lol:

That satisfies just about no-one. Good work all.
User avatar
ASMO
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:08 pm

This is world rugby trying to please everyone and ultimately pleasing no one
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

Grandpa wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:05 pm
Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:02 pm This part is a lie isn’t it
minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character,
What do they consider bad character?
Well he didn’t kill any babies. Is that good enough?
Slick
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.

I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
User avatar
ASMO
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:08 pm

Tokenism at its best, they shit the bed on this one and it will come back to back them on the arse
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4154
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

Grandpa wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:05 pm
Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:02 pm This part is a lie isn’t it
minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character,
What do they consider bad character?
He's the England captain. As if we'd appoint a wanker or an obstructive type to lead us.

Doubting his character? Disgraceful!
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 6623
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Slick wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:14 pm
Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.

I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks
Spot on. I’m neither a Farrell lover or Farrell hater and just hope there’s not another pile on
World Rugby need to get their shit sorted on the whole process
inactionman
Posts: 3065
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:37 am

What's the bettings he high-shots someone in his first game back?
User avatar
Grandpa
Posts: 2266
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:23 pm
Location: Kiwi abroad

Hal Jordan wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:18 pm
Grandpa wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:05 pm
Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:02 pm This part is a lie isn’t it

What do they consider bad character?
He's the England captain. As if we'd appoint a wanker or an obstructive type to lead us.

Doubting his character? Disgraceful!
True... he's more of a leader by action, rather than by words type of guy...
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 9401
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

Slick wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:14 pm
Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.

I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks


The bit that concerns me is, didn't he get a four match ban in Feb for the very same thing?
User avatar
C69
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:42 pm

and BILLY?
User avatar
Grandpa
Posts: 2266
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 2:23 pm
Location: Kiwi abroad

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:24 pm
Slick wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:14 pm
Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.

I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks


The bit that concerns me is, didn't he get a four match ban in Feb for the very same thing?
History doesn't seem to come into it...
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 6623
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

C69 wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:25 pmand BILLY?
Due tomorrow morning
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
No. That’s not true at all. It is not ever reduced if they accept it as just a yellow card. It’s only reduced if they accept the red card. It’s not rocket science as to why this would be the case.

Maybe he did in this hearing however, unlike the other one.

However, showing remorse. He picked a fight.

Good character 😂😂
Biffer
Posts: 9142
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:24 pm
Slick wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:14 pm
Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.

I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks


The bit that concerns me is, didn't he get a four match ban in Feb for the very same thing?
Yep. No deterrent involved for someone’s fourth ban for the same offence.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Biffer
Posts: 9142
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

Biffer wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:37 pm
Fixed the link
topofthemoon
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:22 pm

Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:36 pm
Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
No. That’s not true at all. It is not ever reduced if they accept it as just a yellow card. It’s only reduced if they accept the red card. It’s not rocket science as to why this would be the case.

Maybe he did in this hearing however, unlike the other one.

However, showing remorse. He picked a fight.

Good character 😂😂
World Rugby changed the guidance / regs. It used to be if you didn't accept it was a red card and contested you couldn't get the mitigation for admitting guilt (eg Zander Fagerson's first ban he got a week longer as he argued the red).

Now acceptance of guilt only requires admitting committing an act of foul play - players don't have to accept that that act of foul play met the red card threshold. Gives a free pass to dispute the red and try and get it down to a yellow so I think we will see more and more contested red cards and citings.
Slick
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

inactionman wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 pm What's the bettings he high-shots someone in his first game back?
Particularly as it’s against those wee Japanese guys
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

This I loved from the Hask




Edit: now the full version


Best mates
Last edited by Ymx on Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
C69
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:42 pm

Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:36 pm
Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
No. That’s not true at all. It is not ever reduced if they accept it as just a yellow card. It’s only reduced if they accept the red card. It’s not rocket science as to why this would be the case.

Maybe he did in this hearing however, unlike the other one.

However, showing remorse. He picked a fight.

Good character 😂😂
Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the committee agreed a four-match suspension.
topofthemoon
Posts: 289
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 11:22 pm

Feels a wee bit fudgy. A player with 3 previous bans not getting any increase in their ban for aggravating factors.

So, for example, Grant Gilchrist gets the first red of his 12 year, 248-match career and gets a 3-week ban and a 4th time offender only gets 1 week longer.
_Os_
Posts: 2678
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:19 pm

inactionman wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 pm What's the bettings he high-shots someone in his first game back?
Exactly, he's a liability.

I have not looked through the Bok route beyond the quarters. But anyone meeting England will want Farrell to start, refs will be watching him closely, there's a non-zero chance he gets carded and makes everything easier. Pumas would've preferred him starting I bet.
Last edited by _Os_ on Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

topofthemoon wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:43 pm
Ymx wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:36 pm
Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
No. That’s not true at all. It is not ever reduced if they accept it as just a yellow card. It’s only reduced if they accept the red card. It’s not rocket science as to why this would be the case.

Maybe he did in this hearing however, unlike the other one.

However, showing remorse. He picked a fight.

Good character 😂😂
World Rugby changed the guidance / regs. It used to be if you didn't accept it was a red card and contested you couldn't get the mitigation for admitting guilt (eg Zander Fagerson's first ban he got a week longer as he argued the red).

Now acceptance of guilt only requires admitting committing an act of foul play - players don't have to accept that that act of foul play met the red card threshold. Gives a free pass to dispute the red and try and get it down to a yellow so I think we will see more and more contested red cards and citings.
That makes absolutely zero sense, given anything adjudged a yellow results in zero ban.

Are you absolutely certain? You have any links to this?

The phrase foul play is used in both yellow and red card situations.
User avatar
Ymx
Posts: 8557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:03 pm

Found an interesting link on the ban/sanctions, based on type of foul play

https://passport.world.rugby/match-day- ... lation-17/
Biffer
Posts: 9142
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

Two weeks off for good character. Was he telling jokes or something? Took his chariddy work into account?
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 10887
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

Biffer wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:01 pm Two weeks off for good character. Was he telling jokes or something? Took his chariddy work into account?
Really good lawyer
User avatar
Paddington Bear
Posts: 5961
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Turns out ‘good character’ isn’t based on what some blokes off the internet think of the man, who saw that coming
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
User avatar
Guy Smiley
Posts: 6018
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:03 pm
Biffer wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:01 pm Two weeks off for good character. Was he telling jokes or something? Took his chariddy work into account?
Really good lawyer
As I furiously threw some dirty underpants into the wash basket on hearing the news, it occurred to me that these good character judgements are made in the context of an appeal room setting... not the real world. Rugby could do with copping onto its public image over these cases, not what some beak argues from within his perfumed coiffure.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 10887
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

EnergiseR2 wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:09 pm As good as normal men like me could have expected with you fucking losers on the mike
Your hysteria this quarter is probably why the IRB is taking the side of these dangerous players and letting them off each time.
User avatar
Guy Smiley
Posts: 6018
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:52 pm

Sandstorm wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:12 pm
EnergiseR2 wrote: Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:09 pm As good as normal men like me could have expected with you fucking losers on the mike
Your hysteria this quarter is probably why the IRB is taking the side of these dangerous players and letting them off each time.
WR are based in Dublin, aren't they? That would explain the shutters and soundproofing.
TedMaul
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2021 12:19 pm

Tbf
I’ve read your work.
It’s very much the opposite.
Post Reply