1 red card and 2 citings in a 13-year professional career. That's not prolific.
You're reaching because you don't like Farrell. It's pathetic.
Comparing the record of a lock and a fly half is a bit of a push. How about comparing it to another top level 10?
Sexton - never red carded
Russell - one red for a high fend
Biggar - one for a high tackle
Ntmack - no reds
Carter - no cards of any colour
BBarrett - one red
So if you compare him against the same position, he's not looking good in terms of record.
You've got some brass neck putting Biggar in there. If Farrell is seen at the man who gets away with it then Biggar is the invisible man.
1 red card and 2 citings in a 13-year professional career. That's not prolific.
You're reaching because you don't like Farrell. It's pathetic.
Comparing the record of a lock and a fly half is a bit of a push. How about comparing it to another top level 10?
Sexton - never red carded
Russell - one red for a high fend
Biggar - one for a high tackle
Ntmack - no reds
Carter - no cards of any colour
BBarrett - one red
So if you compare him against the same position, he's not looking good in terms of record.
You've got some brass neck putting Biggar in there. If Farrell is seen at the man who gets away with it then Biggar is the invisible man.
Biggar is a prick but the point stands. Farrell has he worst disciplinary record of the top fly halfs.
Comparing the record of a lock and a fly half is a bit of a push. How about comparing it to another top level 10?
Sexton - never red carded
Russell - one red for a high fend
Biggar - one for a high tackle
Ntmack - no reds
Carter - no cards of any colour
BBarrett - one red
So if you compare him against the same position, he's not looking good in terms of record.
You've got some brass neck putting Biggar in there. If Farrell is seen at the man who gets away with it then Biggar is the invisible man.
Biggar is a prick but the point stands. Farrell has he worst disciplinary record of the top fly halfs.
Under current interpretations and sanctions, Carter would have got at least yellow and possibly red for his tackle on Roberts in one of the autumn tests - different criteria were applied then.
Other than that, Sexton and Ntmack are the only ones with no red, and to be frank Sexton's tackle technique is more a risk to himself than anyone else. Hasn't he just mangled his face again?
Under current interpretations and sanctions, Carter would have got at least yellow and possibly red for his tackle on Roberts in one of the autumn tests - different criteria were applied then.
Other than that, Sexton and Ntmack are the only ones with no red, and to be frank Sexton's tackle technique is more a risk to himself than anyone else. Hasn't he just mangled his face again?
Yeah, that's a stretch, but Carter didn't get a single card of any sort at any level.
None of the others have been cited as far as I know though. Farrell top of the list for bad discipline.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:10 pm
by JM2K6
Brazil wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:25 pmLooking at it again I'm amazed it was looked at and that Barnes dismissed it so quickly, not least given the amount of time it took to get Allan off the pitch afterwards. I think the circumstances mitigate sufficiently for it to only be a yellow, but it's still reckless even if you accept that he's trying to pull out when Allan lands awkwardly. It does rather give the impression that player safety is being paid lip service rather than real attention, and is not a great look for the game.
It's such a weird one because he basically human cannonballs himself into contact, like he's fucking Blanka from Street Fighter 2.
Under current interpretations and sanctions, Carter would have got at least yellow and possibly red for his tackle on Roberts in one of the autumn tests - different criteria were applied then.
Other than that, Sexton and Ntmack are the only ones with no red, and to be frank Sexton's tackle technique is more a risk to himself than anyone else. Hasn't he just mangled his face again?
Yeah, that's a stretch, but Carter didn't get a single card of any sort at any level.
None of the others have been cited as far as I know though. Farrell top of the list for bad discipline.
And that's not counting the times he inexplicably didn't get sanctioned at all for his dangerous tackle technique!
Under current interpretations and sanctions, Carter would have got at least yellow and possibly red for his tackle on Roberts in one of the autumn tests - different criteria were applied then.
Other than that, Sexton and Ntmack are the only ones with no red, and to be frank Sexton's tackle technique is more a risk to himself than anyone else. Hasn't he just mangled his face again?
Yeah, that's a stretch, but Carter didn't get a single card of any sort at any level.
None of the others have been cited as far as I know though. Farrell top of the list for bad discipline.
Except he plays at 12 for the comparison you made.
Under current interpretations and sanctions, Carter would have got at least yellow and possibly red for his tackle on Roberts in one of the autumn tests - different criteria were applied then.
Other than that, Sexton and Ntmack are the only ones with no red, and to be frank Sexton's tackle technique is more a risk to himself than anyone else. Hasn't he just mangled his face again?
Yeah, that's a stretch, but Carter didn't get a single card of any sort at any level.
None of the others have been cited as far as I know though. Farrell top of the list for bad discipline.
Except he plays at 12 for the comparison you made.
Under current interpretations and sanctions, Carter would have got at least yellow and possibly red for his tackle on Roberts in one of the autumn tests - different criteria were applied then.
Other than that, Sexton and Ntmack are the only ones with no red, and to be frank Sexton's tackle technique is more a risk to himself than anyone else. Hasn't he just mangled his face again?
Yeah, that's a stretch, but Carter didn't get a single card of any sort at any level.
None of the others have been cited as far as I know though. Farrell top of the list for bad discipline.
A stretch? It was a bad tackle. He was cited and banned (I won't go into the fact is was only a week so he was free to face England - unlike others I'm sure there's no great conspiracy there)
40 seconds shows the swinging arm into the jaw.
I'm only posting this as, if we're comparing red cards for fly halves, it's not useful to include fly halves from eras where head shots weren't routinely carded.
Under current interpretations and sanctions, Carter would have got at least yellow and possibly red for his tackle on Roberts in one of the autumn tests - different criteria were applied then.
Other than that, Sexton and Ntmack are the only ones with no red, and to be frank Sexton's tackle technique is more a risk to himself than anyone else. Hasn't he just mangled his face again?
Yeah, that's a stretch, but Carter didn't get a single card of any sort at any level.
None of the others have been cited as far as I know though. Farrell top of the list for bad discipline.
A stretch? It was a bad tackle. He was cited and banned (I won't go into the fact is was only a week so he was free to face England - unlike others I'm sure there's no great conspiracy there)
40 seconds shows the swinging arm into the jaw.
I'm only posting this as, if we're comparing red cards for fly halves, it's not useful to include fly halves from eras where head shots weren't routinely carded.
Farrell plays test rugby at 12 - a comparison with other 12s would seem more valid for the purposes of yet more kangaroo hysterics about him. Even by people with zero skin in the game feel compelled to whine about Farrell. It really is pathetic.
So your analysis of test flyhalves includes all of their club matches?
Yes. it does.
In which case, I thought Biggar had 1 red and 9 yellows to Farrell's 1 red and 6 yellows?
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:24 pm
by Guy Smiley
Has Farrell been sentenced yet? I'd expect some time in chains at least.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:26 pm
by Kawazaki
Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:24 pm
Has Farrell been sentenced yet? I'd expect some time in chains at least.
Forced to walk naked around the country so the haters can throw their shit at him wouldn't go far enough for some of the whiners in here.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:42 pm
by Paddington Bear
It is pretty farcical that a decision I think everyone agrees was wrong in a prem game has now stretched to four pages here. Had it been in reverse toga and I probably would have commented on the English thread we’d been hard done by, got told to get a grip and move on. The same applies in reverse. It was a bad tackle and should have been a red but was hardly a deliberate cheap shot, people wouldn’t have even suggested that unless it was Faz.
Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:24 pm
Has Farrell been sentenced yet? I'd expect some time in chains at least.
Forced to walk naked around the country so the haters can throw their shit at him wouldn't go far enough for some of the whiners in here.
As I said on the first page of this thread. Haters are going to hate come what may.
He's a real "marmite" character is young Farrell.
Have to say I'd have been mightily pissed off if the same had happened when Sarries were playing Saints. Though to be fair they'd probably have been 30 points behind at that stage
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:16 pm
by Kawazaki
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:42 pm
It is pretty farcical that a decision I think everyone agrees was wrong in a prem game has now stretched to four pages here. Had it been in reverse toga and I probably would have commented on the English thread we’d been hard done by, got told to get a grip and move on. The same applies in reverse. It was a bad tackle and should have been a red but was hardly a deliberate cheap shot, people wouldn’t have even suggested that unless it was Faz.
If Farrell was like Haskell or Marler shooting his mouth off all the time, trying to be funny, mixing with the celebrity crowd etc then I might understand the hate but he's the polar opposite, he's Johnny Wilkinson from Wigan. Massive work ethic, family man, does his JJ charity stuff. The lack of respect is pathetic, English people just hate winners.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:42 pm
It is pretty farcical that a decision I think everyone agrees was wrong in a prem game has now stretched to four pages here. Had it been in reverse toga and I probably would have commented on the English thread we’d been hard done by, got told to get a grip and move on. The same applies in reverse. It was a bad tackle and should have been a red but was hardly a deliberate cheap shot, people wouldn’t have even suggested that unless it was Faz.
If Farrell was like Haskell or Marler shooting his mouth off all the time, trying to be funny, mixing with the celebrity crowd etc then I might understand the hate but he's the polar opposite, he's Johnny Wilkinson from Wigan. Massive work ethic, family man, does his JJ charity stuff. The lack of respect is pathetic, English people just hate winners.
There can’t be many pantomime villains less interested in playing the part.
Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:42 pmI say screw this 'reduced sentence for being a good boy who said he's sow-wy' bullshit! A set list of long periods for each act of foul play. See if they do anything like it again if they get 5, 10, 15 weeks off with no chance of having it reduced.
Won't happen in the boys' club atmosphere where the first response is often "Well, he didn't mean to hurt him." rather than "He really should have been more careful, but do the crime, prepare to do the time." in which they twist things so much to ensure stars come back as soon as possible ... not to mention blaming the ref for 'ruining' the game rather than the careless/reckless player, or considering injured players' careers.
Absolutely.
Showing contrition and good conduct is the bare minimum we should be able to expect from an adult and shouldn't contribute to mitigation. If they're incapable of showing those things it should absolutely increase a ban.
If someone takes advantage of the tackling intervention course then the club should get a fine, because it's only through negligent coaching on their part that a professional player would benefit from an external course on safe tackling
It makes me laugh that there's even a tackling intervention course... for professional adults! On one hand, are they really treating them like children as such? "Alright, Owen, let's get on one knee and aim for the waist." Or is it a lot of joshing and taking the piss? Maybe it's in the middle and it's a complete eye-rolling exercise? So many questions!
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:42 pm
It is pretty farcical that a decision I think everyone agrees was wrong in a prem game has now stretched to four pages here. Had it been in reverse toga and I probably would have commented on the English thread we’d been hard done by, got told to get a grip and move on. The same applies in reverse. It was a bad tackle and should have been a red but was hardly a deliberate cheap shot, people wouldn’t have even suggested that unless it was Faz.
If Farrell was like Haskell or Marler shooting his mouth off all the time, trying to be funny, mixing with the celebrity crowd etc then I might understand the hate but he's the polar opposite, he's Johnny Wilkinson from Wigan. Massive work ethic, family man, does his JJ charity stuff. The lack of respect is pathetic, English people just hate winners.
There can’t be many pantomime villains less interested in playing the part.
He's not the most skillful or physically gifted player in the world or even in his own family but he has something that's like gold dust in professional sport. None of us are qualified to understand it or even recognise it but he's got it in spades.
I hope he's as good at coaching as he's been as a player- it doesn't always translate, but his dad has done well with far less pedigree in RU.
So your analysis of test flyhalves includes all of their club matches?
Yes. it does.
In which case, I thought Biggar had 1 red and 9 yellows to Farrell's 1 red and 6 yellows?
Correct, Biggar’s overall disciplinary record is worse than Farrell’s. Interestingly, Russell, isn’t far behind with 1 red and 5 yellows.
Looking at international games only, Finn Russell easily has the worst disciplinary record for a 10 with 4 yellows and 1 red while playing for Scotland (Farrell just 2 yellows for England and Biggar 4 yellows for Wales).
Edited to add that, on average Russell gets carded once every 13 games for Scotland. For Farrell, the average is 1 card for every 43 games. For Biggar it’s 1 card every 22 games.
In which case, I thought Biggar had 1 red and 9 yellows to Farrell's 1 red and 6 yellows?
Correct, Biggar’s overall disciplinary record is worse than Farrell’s. Interestingly, Russell, isn’t far behind with 1 red and 5 yellows.
Looking at international games only, Finn Russell easily has the worst disciplinary record for a 10, with 4 yellows and 1 red while playing for Scotland (Farrell just 2 yellows for England and Biggar 4 yellows for Wales)..
Dirty bastard!
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:48 pm
by GogLais
Is someone going to do a card per minute played exercise? That would be really interesting. With say a 4:1 red:yellow weighting.
Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:42 pmI say screw this 'reduced sentence for being a good boy who said he's sow-wy' bullshit! A set list of long periods for each act of foul play. See if they do anything like it again if they get 5, 10, 15 weeks off with no chance of having it reduced.
Won't happen in the boys' club atmosphere where the first response is often "Well, he didn't mean to hurt him." rather than "He really should have been more careful, but do the crime, prepare to do the time." in which they twist things so much to ensure stars come back as soon as possible ... not to mention blaming the ref for 'ruining' the game rather than the careless/reckless player, or considering injured players' careers.
Absolutely.
Showing contrition and good conduct is the bare minimum we should be able to expect from an adult and shouldn't contribute to mitigation. If they're incapable of showing those things it should absolutely increase a ban.
If someone takes advantage of the tackling intervention course then the club should get a fine, because it's only through negligent coaching on their part that a professional player would benefit from an external course on safe tackling
It makes me laugh that there's even a tackling intervention course... for professional adults! On one hand, are they really treating them like children as such? "Alright, Owen, let's get on one knee and aim for the waist." Or is it a lot of joshing and taking the piss? Maybe it's in the middle and it's a complete eye-rolling exercise? So many questions!
Haven't seen what exactly the course is comprised of. But there's a a practical roleplay involved and a Q and A session.
The course takes place at the players club with the player and one of the club's coaches. It is videoed and sent to the RFU to confirm that it has been carried out
In which case, I thought Biggar had 1 red and 9 yellows to Farrell's 1 red and 6 yellows?
Correct, Biggar’s overall disciplinary record is worse than Farrell’s. Interestingly, Russell, isn’t far behind with 1 red and 5 yellows.
Looking at international games only, Finn Russell easily has the worst disciplinary record for a 10 with 4 yellows and 1 red while playing for Scotland (Farrell just 2 yellows for England and Biggar 4 yellows for Wales).
Edited to add that, on average Russell gets carded once every 13 games for Scotland. For Farrell, the average is 1 card for every 43 games. For Biggar it’s 1 card every 22 games.
Yeah but have you included all the times Biffer thinks Farrell should have been sent off but wasn't?
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 6:21 pm
by TheFrog
Ymx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:12 am
For me it’s a clear red. Contact to chin, leading with shoulder, no mitigation.
But there’s a surprising number of comments saying it’s fine??
Thoughts?
By Koroibete's precedent against France, it's red on the pitch and cleared by the disciplinary commission.
I think yellow would be sufficient here but by the letter of the law, it could well have been red.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 6:36 pm
by Ymx
Right. This settles it.
Stephen Jones is on your team Toga/Paddington.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 6:41 pm
by Ymx
You would never confuse the public demeanour of Owen Farrell with a ball of fun, and the true mentality of the man was revealed starkly on Friday evening at Kingsholm.
But, sorry to disappoint those who have spent the intervening time hunting him down like a pack of slobbering dogs, that mentality was not revealed during an incident when Farrell made contact in a tackle with Gloucester’s Jack Clement.
No. The teak hardness of the man’s competitive fighting spirit was shown at the very end of a tumultuous game. The ball was in play with both teams showing their desperation and the scores level.
Saracens had possession and were driving on both sides of the rucks to try to get near enough for the winning score. Farrell was ice. He was quiet, without gestures or concern. He knew that he had to take responsibility, had to take the ball up to the defensive line to try to usher someone through the gap, but Gloucester’s magnificent defence stayed strong.
Eventually, Farrell read the play perfectly and eased his way back into the pocket behind his attacking line. His kicking all evening had been below his normal standards and the pressure was enormous. He had one last chance with the clock dead.
He is not by nature a great drop-goal taker but eventually he called for the ball. He put over the most perfect drop-goal and Saracens had won. That was Farrell, the real Farrell, right there.
The thunderstorm of bile and bilge that has broken around his head since he made the hit on Clement a little earlier has grown throughout the weekend. It has been staggering. Or come to think of it, it has not even been surprising.
Farrell wins few popularity contests, and in fact enters none. He keeps quiet, he is not naturally a beamer, he is not loquacious, he doesn’t bother to schmooze with media or people who would be anxious to tell their friends that they just had a chat with “Faz”.
Tragically for any chances of being loved, he is also a Saracen. The shocking over-punishment of Saracens, and the naked jealousy of them, given an outlet by their unwitting infringement of the salary cap, was bad enough.
But even worse for the jealous, the vast majority of the Saracens have stayed with their club, presumably despite lower pay. And they are still highly successful, as dominant in the Gallagher Premiership as they once were. And the steel man is still at the helm.
The other element in the storm is the almost animal fury and poison which (admittedly in the cause of safety) the new strictures have introduced. What happens whenever a potentially illegal hit has been spotted is now a grooved-in procedure. As the big screens replay the incident at the stadium the crowd begin to rise in noisy fury, and as the contact itself approaches on the screen, it grows to a crescendo.
Then at the point of contact, and no matter any lack of evidence that there was an offence, they roar in naked anger. It’s meant to help the officials make up their minds.
And I am not singling out Gloucester — they will always remain my favourite club, stadium and fans. We go back decades.
Meanwhile, across the nation, you can imagine the furious fingers on social media and amateur websites not even bothering to consider the weight of evidence but ready to savage the alleged miscreant as a disgrace. Farrell went through all those levels on Friday. People pointed to his shocking past as an illegal tackler. Funny that, because he doesn’t have one.
The Farrell/Clement incident was nowhere remotely near the top end compared with some of the horrible head-on-head contacts that we see. Clement carried the ball up with knees bent, Farrell certainly made little attempt to go low as Clement was upon him, but he did make an attempt to wrap his arms around the carrier as the laws dictate, but he then caught Clement on the lower jaw.
Had I been refereeing (God help everyone) I would have awarded a penalty and a yellow card. The officials got their wires crossed a little and play was waved on.
The priority in the tackle is to protect players, given the awful evidence that a raft of great men are struggling with ghastly illnesses after retiring. But someone had added an extra measure. If Farrell is involved, even tangentially, then it is a heinous crime.
He will undoubtedly be cited tomorrow, there is a case to answer, and then his fate lies in the near-pantomime world that disciplinary procedures have become. He could be banned from England’s first match, in under a month against Scotland. The riding hunters would love that — possibly until they watch their national team play without him.
You do feel that people need to grow up about Farrell. He and his father, Andrew, the Ireland head coach, have brought welcome new attitudes into rugby. The doomed, disastrous Eddie Jones tried to fire England by playing the elusive Marcus Smith at fly half when Farrell, by a world and a half, is the better proposition at international level.
The whole debate has gone crazy. Part of me thinks they should banish replays of alleged head shots from the screens, so that officials can make up their minds in an atmosphere of calm.
Head shots must cease. But the victimisation of players, including Farrell, and the hair-trigger pomposity of his haters, is of equal danger to prospects of a quiet life and a safe sport.
You would never confuse the public demeanour of Owen Farrell with a ball of fun, and the true mentality of the man was revealed starkly on Friday evening at Kingsholm.
But, sorry to disappoint those who have spent the intervening time hunting him down like a pack of slobbering dogs, that mentality was not revealed during an incident when Farrell made contact in a tackle with Gloucester’s Jack Clement.
No. The teak hardness of the man’s competitive fighting spirit was shown at the very end of a tumultuous game. The ball was in play with both teams showing their desperation and the scores level.
Saracens had possession and were driving on both sides of the rucks to try to get near enough for the winning score. Farrell was ice. He was quiet, without gestures or concern. He knew that he had to take responsibility, had to take the ball up to the defensive line to try to usher someone through the gap, but Gloucester’s magnificent defence stayed strong.
Eventually, Farrell read the play perfectly and eased his way back into the pocket behind his attacking line. His kicking all evening had been below his normal standards and the pressure was enormous. He had one last chance with the clock dead.
He is not by nature a great drop-goal taker but eventually he called for the ball. He put over the most perfect drop-goal and Saracens had won. That was Farrell, the real Farrell, right there.
The thunderstorm of bile and bilge that has broken around his head since he made the hit on Clement a little earlier has grown throughout the weekend. It has been staggering. Or come to think of it, it has not even been surprising.
Farrell wins few popularity contests, and in fact enters none. He keeps quiet, he is not naturally a beamer, he is not loquacious, he doesn’t bother to schmooze with media or people who would be anxious to tell their friends that they just had a chat with “Faz”.
FFS did Farrells mum write that? Such OTT sycophantic drivel should come with a sick bag
Tragically for any chances of being loved, he is also a Saracen. The shocking over-punishment of Saracens, and the naked jealousy of them, given an outlet by their unwitting infringement of the salary cap, was bad enough.
But even worse for the jealous, the vast majority of the Saracens have stayed with their club, presumably despite lower pay. And they are still highly successful, as dominant in the Gallagher Premiership as they once were. And the steel man is still at the helm.
The other element in the storm is the almost animal fury and poison which (admittedly in the cause of safety) the new strictures have introduced. What happens whenever a potentially illegal hit has been spotted is now a grooved-in procedure. As the big screens replay the incident at the stadium the crowd begin to rise in noisy fury, and as the contact itself approaches on the screen, it grows to a crescendo.
Then at the point of contact, and no matter any lack of evidence that there was an offence, they roar in naked anger. It’s meant to help the officials make up their minds.
And I am not singling out Gloucester — they will always remain my favourite club, stadium and fans. We go back decades.
Meanwhile, across the nation, you can imagine the furious fingers on social media and amateur websites not even bothering to consider the weight of evidence but ready to savage the alleged miscreant as a disgrace. Farrell went through all those levels on Friday. People pointed to his shocking past as an illegal tackler. Funny that, because he doesn’t have one.
The Farrell/Clement incident was nowhere remotely near the top end compared with some of the horrible head-on-head contacts that we see. Clement carried the ball up with knees bent, Farrell certainly made little attempt to go low as Clement was upon him, but he did make an attempt to wrap his arms around the carrier as the laws dictate, but he then caught Clement on the lower jaw.
Had I been refereeing (God help everyone) I would have awarded a penalty and a yellow card. The officials got their wires crossed a little and play was waved on.
The priority in the tackle is to protect players, given the awful evidence that a raft of great men are struggling with ghastly illnesses after retiring. But someone had added an extra measure. If Farrell is involved, even tangentially, then it is a heinous crime.
He will undoubtedly be cited tomorrow, there is a case to answer, and then his fate lies in the near-pantomime world that disciplinary procedures have become. He could be banned from England’s first match, in under a month against Scotland. The riding hunters would love that — possibly until they watch their national team play without him.
You do feel that people need to grow up about Farrell. He and his father, Andrew, the Ireland head coach, have brought welcome new attitudes into rugby. The doomed, disastrous Eddie Jones tried to fire England by playing the elusive Marcus Smith at fly half when Farrell, by a world and a half, is the better proposition at international level.
The whole debate has gone crazy. Part of me thinks they should banish replays of alleged head shots from the screens, so that officials can make up their minds in an atmosphere of calm.
Head shots must cease. But the victimisation of players, including Farrell, and the hair-trigger pomposity of his haters, is of equal danger to prospects of a quiet life and a safe sport.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 7:36 pm
by ASMO
Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 6:36 pm
Right. This settles it.
Stephen Jones is on your team Toga/Paddington.
It's Stephen Jones, i automatically ignored it.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:20 am
by Ymx
Well, indeed. And one should be taking a serious look at themselves if they find themselves agreeing with Walrus. Which side of history… and so on.
In which case, I thought Biggar had 1 red and 9 yellows to Farrell's 1 red and 6 yellows?
Correct, Biggar’s overall disciplinary record is worse than Farrell’s. Interestingly, Russell, isn’t far behind with 1 red and 5 yellows.
Looking at international games only, Finn Russell easily has the worst disciplinary record for a 10 with 4 yellows and 1 red while playing for Scotland (Farrell just 2 yellows for England and Biggar 4 yellows for Wales).
Edited to add that, on average Russell gets carded once every 13 games for Scotland. For Farrell, the average is 1 card for every 43 games. For Biggar it’s 1 card every 22 games.
Yeah but have you included all the times Biffer thinks Farrell should have been sent off but wasn't?
Toga has gone full Kiwi!
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:27 am
by Kawazaki
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:20 am
Well, indeed. And one should be taking a serious look at themselves if they find themselves agreeing with Walrus. Which side of history… and so on.
Just a quick rudimentary look at the stats has shown Biffer up. For whatever reason, some people just froth and get triggered by Farrell which just gets others frothing and triggered and then the paranoid feedback loop about him starts up again. Other players do the same or worse and it gets ignored.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:32 am
by Paddington Bear
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:20 am
Well, indeed. And one should be taking a serious look at themselves if they find themselves agreeing with Walrus. Which side of history… and so on.
Not so much about ‘picking sides’ as it is about pointing out that four pages for a missed call in a club game is a massive overreaction.
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:20 am
Well, indeed. And one should be taking a serious look at themselves if they find themselves agreeing with Walrus. Which side of history… and so on.
Not so much about ‘picking sides’ as it is about pointing out that four pages for a missed call in a club game is a massive overreaction.
Is it?
It's early January, the 6N is close and the Heineken Cup is this coming weekend. Having a very important player in both competitions involved in this situation is a big deal.
The fire is of course stoked because there is a perception, real or not, that Farrell should have received many more cards than he has for this same offence.
I think it's not a huge reach for it to be a talking point on a rugby bored.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:48 am
by Sandstorm
Kawazaki wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:27 am
Other players do the same or worse and it gets ignored.
No-one cares about some random club journeyman in the dock 3 weeks before the 6N.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:50 am
by Grandpa
So why is Owen Farrell not seen in the same light as Johnny Wilkinson? If they are so similar... why is one seen as the pantomime villain and the other admired not only by the English, but just about everyone else too?
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:59 am
by Kawazaki
Grandpa wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:50 am
So why is Owen Farrell not seen in the same light as Johnny Wilkinson? If they are so similar... why is one seen as the pantomime villain and the other admired not only by the English, but just about everyone else too?
Probably a combination of things;
Home counties accent > Wigan accent
Doleful philosophical thinker > Hard northern bastard
Played for a team that losses a lot > Team that always beats you
Wears heart of sleeve > Doesn't have a heart
On one hand, are they really treating them like children as such? "Alright, Owen, let's get on one knee and aim for the waist." Or is it a lot of joshing and taking the piss? Maybe it's in the middle and it's a complete eye-rolling exercise? So many questions!