Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:01 am
He needs to do some underwear ads...
Page 5 of 23
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:06 am
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:06 am
This is just my personal view, Wilkinson was just as competitive, possibly more so than today's players. Reading his book I often thought, "sheesh, lighten up, don't be so hard on yourself".
Farrell is a bit like Sexton and Biggar in that they do try to force their will on the referees and that sticks in the craw a bit. It's not jealousy because other Saracens players over the years haven't attracted the opprobrium that Farrell does, Itoje's idiotic antics also attract a lot of heat, but they come with appreciation of his playing ability.
Maybe Sarries getting caught with their hand in the salary cap till adds to the circus too.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:07 am
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:10 am
I'm trying to think of another sportsman who polarises opinion... Roy Keane maybe? I used to hate him... but at the same time wish he played for Liverpool...Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:06 am
This is just my personal view, Wilkinson was just as competitive, possibly more so than today's players. Reading his book I often thought, "sheesh, lighten up, don't be so hard on yourself".
Farrell is a bit like Sexton and Biggar in that they do try to force their will on the referees and that sticks in the craw a bit. It's not jealousy because other Saracens players over the years haven't attracted the opprobrium that Farrell does, Itoje's idiotic antics also attract a lot of heat, but they come with appreciation of his playing ability.
Maybe Sarries getting caught with their hand in the salary cap till adds to the circus too.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:11 am
Meh; everyone respected Johnson, but not many liked him.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:16 am
Yeah it definitely is, we all knew immediately he’d got away with one and roughly the length of ban he can expect. It isn’t like there’s been a massive shitfight about either of these points.Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:42 amIs it?Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:32 amNot 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.
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 10:18 am
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:30 am
Too flamboyant... needs to be a sportsman who despite their methodical make-up, made up for it through shear willpower.. Farrell, Keane, Djokovic...
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:32 am
They don’t, though. Every time a player is involved in a dodgy play that invites a card there is lengthy debate and shit flinging.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:27 am
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.
What is a little unusual is the lengths you’re going to to defend Farrell. Mental gymnastics.
Darrell’s downfall is (autocorrect and fuck it I’m leaving it there) that he got away with a few glaring incidents that deserved action… a shoulder charge on the line is the one I clearly remember. Other than that, he’s just another player and the fuss over this latest is no more unusual than the fuss that erupts over anyone else doing something similar.
You could always drop the aggrieved defense and allow that.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:33 am
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:42 am
Thought about him... but he's too nice and doesn't really polarise does he? He may have been hated for being too good.. but not for his personality?
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:44 am
Is there divided opinion on McCaw?
There was talk of Invisibility Cloaks and all but that is part of what made him so good.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:49 am
Patrick Reed... actually no, Nick Faldo...
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:55 am
I'm not the biggest Farrell fan but he appears to get far more shit flung at him for his actions than just about any other English player I can think of.Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:32 amThey don’t, though. Every time a player is involved in a dodgy play that invites a card there is lengthy debate and shit flinging.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:27 am
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.
What is a little unusual is the lengths you’re going to to defend Farrell. Mental gymnastics.
Darrell’s downfall is (autocorrect and fuck it I’m leaving it there) that he got away with a few glaring incidents that deserved action… a shoulder charge on the line is the one I clearly remember. Other than that, he’s just another player and the fuss over this latest is no more unusual than the fuss that erupts over anyone else doing something similar.
You could always drop the aggrieved defense and allow that.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:01 am
Ronaldo?
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:07 am
You don't seem to point out in this reply that Farrell is a 12?
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:08 am
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:10 am
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:43 am
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:45 am
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:07 amYou don't seem to point out in this reply that Farrell is a 12?
And?
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 11:53 am
Length of thread on an internet forum has little to do with the importance of the thing under discussion; it's mostly about with whether or not people agree. When they disagree they keep trying to convince each other and the thread grows.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:32 amNot 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.
Which is why 1/6 of the posts on the thread are by you or Toga.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
Their mother's, wives, agents?
OK, you win...
Djokovic then... though he is pretty talented if somewhat methodical..
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:17 pm
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:28 pm
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:31 pm
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:39 pm
It's the tucked arm that really gets me. Everything else can be mitigated to one degree or another so long as it was a legal attempt to tackle. But so often his very first action in preparing to tackle is illegal - you [should] lose all mitigating factors in your favour when you start your process with a deliberately illegal act.
Don't get me started on the American Football style diving at the legs we see so often when people are barrelling against the line. Even forgetting about its legality, it seems like awful technique. Yet you see it pretty much every set within 5 yards of the line
Don't get me started on the American Football style diving at the legs we see so often when people are barrelling against the line. Even forgetting about its legality, it seems like awful technique. Yet you see it pretty much every set within 5 yards of the line
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:50 pm
Yep. Incredibly dangerous. You sometimes see people having a knee on the ground before tackling. Not, so far as I know, legal.PornDog wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:39 pm
Don't get me started on the American Football style diving at the legs we see so often when people are barrelling against the line. Even forgetting about its legality, it seems like awful technique. Yet you see it pretty much every set within 5 yards of the line
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:27 pm
Point of order. Ntamack a top level 10?Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 3:37 pmComparing 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.
Ironically, Ntamack might have been redded by another ref for his hit on Boudehent at the w/e.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:35 pm
Probably quite tight which no. shirt Farrell has started in when playing for Eng but hardly the whole picture e.g. how many times has the notional 10 been shuffled outside of Farrell in game time to allow him to play 10?
The reality is where it counts (in Farrell's and Jones' minds), Farrell is a 10.
Be interesting to see how it looks cw with all positions in the backs.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:38 pm
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:39 pm
Errr, maybe because with other players, it isn't. The only debate here is whether with Farrell it's deliberate or mitigated against deliberate by a refusal to learn how to tackle properly. In my opinion, it amounts to the same thing. His refusal to change endangers fellow pros. and shows a contempt for their safety.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.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:42 pm
Quoting Jones period lacks credulity but this:
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: Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:45 pm
I asked ChatGPT what it thinks. Interestingly, the collective wisdom of the Internet seems to think rugby players are often given the benefit of the doubt.
ChatGPT wrote: As a machine learning model, I don't have personal opinions or feelings, so I can't provide an opinion on whether or not Owen Farrell should be banned for his high tackle. Decisions on whether or not to issue a ban for a rugby player are typically made by a panel of experts, such as a disciplinary committee or judicial officer.
The rules regarding high tackles in rugby union are designed to protect players from the risk of injury. Tackles above the shoulder are not allowed, and players who commit such tackles can face penalties including a yellow card, red card, or a ban. The specific details of the incident you're referring to and the judgement of the match officials, are the key factors to determine the disciplinary action if any.
It's worth noting that rugby players are often given the benefit of the doubt, and incidents are usually reviewed by a panel of experts to determine the severity of the infraction and the appropriate punishment. So, regardless of whether or not a tackle is high, what determine the severity is the angle, the intent, the force and the outcome of the contact.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:49 pm
Pfffft.
1) Only in England maybe where rugby is a toffs game.
2) Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Did you mean intelligent versus thick as sh*t maybe?
3) Losses (sic): RWC winning team? Or are you talking about Sarries............ whose winning record is tarnished by cheating. So, yeah. Can see why there is anti cheaters sentiment around.
4) Never saw Wilkinson as that sort of player on the field. Farrell is far more animated (maybe it's a contagious illness contracted from Itoje) than Wikinson ever was.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:52 pm
That was the other one in the SA game?Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 10:32 amThey don’t, though. Every time a player is involved in a dodgy play that invites a card there is lengthy debate and shit flinging.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:27 am
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.
What is a little unusual is the lengths you’re going to to defend Farrell. Mental gymnastics.
Darrell’s downfall is (autocorrect and fuck it I’m leaving it there) that he got away with a few glaring incidents that deserved action… a shoulder charge on the line is the one I clearly remember. Other than that, he’s just another player and the fuss over this latest is no more unusual than the fuss that erupts over anyone else doing something similar.
You could always drop the aggrieved defense and allow that.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:29 pm
No... Australia
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:56 pm
You really are a twat at timesTorquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:49 pmPfffft.
1) Only in England maybe where rugby is a toffs game.
2) Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Did you mean intelligent versus thick as sh*t maybe?
3) Losses (sic): RWC winning team? Or are you talking about Sarries............ whose winning record is tarnished by cheating. So, yeah. Can see why there is anti cheaters sentiment around.
4) Never saw Wilkinson as that sort of player on the field. Farrell is far more animated (maybe it's a contagious illness contracted from Itoje) than Wikinson ever was.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:58 pm
Don’t have to be posh/toff to get onboard the North/South pantomime hate.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:49 pmPfffft.
1) Only in England maybe where rugby is a toffs game.
2) Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Did you mean intelligent versus thick as sh*t maybe?
3) Losses (sic): RWC winning team? Or are you talking about Sarries............ whose winning record is tarnished by cheating. So, yeah. Can see why there is anti cheaters sentiment around.
4) Never saw Wilkinson as that sort of player on the field. Farrell is far more animated (maybe it's a contagious illness contracted from Itoje) than Wikinson ever was.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:11 pm
Ahhh. My bad memory. That was the one which I thought was also in the SA game. Cheers.