Law question- Farrell tackle

[Torquemada 1420]

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.

You really are a twat at times

You are going to try and deny that?
Culturally, the game's roots are diametrically opposite in Eng to, say, Wal or Fra. And whilst rugby's appeal has certainly widened in more recent years, it is still predominantly middle-class and up. You lot would stand out like a battleship parked on a canal on a football forum.

[Niegs]

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.

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.

As an aside, having worked with a post-secondary academic integrity office, that's not half-bad. Some very minor punctuation issues, 'what determine', bit of a word salad... but that arguably makes it MORE like student writing!

[shaggy]

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.

You really are a twat at times

You are going to try and deny that?
Culturally, the game's roots are diametrically opposite in Eng to, say, Wal or Fra. And whilst rugby's appeal has certainly widened in more recent years, it is still predominantly middle-class and up. You lot would stand out like a battleship parked on a canal on a football forum.

2/10. Very lazy. Must try harder.

[SaintK]

You really are a twat at times

You are going to try and deny that?
Culturally, the game's roots are diametrically opposite in Eng to, say, Wal or Fra. And whilst rugby's appeal has certainly widened in more recent years, it is still predominantly middle-class and up. You lot would stand out like a battleship parked on a canal on a football forum.

2/10. Very lazy. Must try harder.

Don't think he can try much harder at being a twat

[Guy Smiley]

In Torq's favour, he's not lining up to valiantly defend the indefensible.

[Paddington Bear]

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

Pfffft.

1) Only in England maybe where rugby is a toffs game.

Ireland? Scotland? Argentina? Australia? Hong Kong? USA?

[Biffer]

Disciplinary panel last night.

No outcome announced yet. Reeks of a stitch up.

[sockwithaticket]

Hold my hands up, I spread some misinformation earlier. Got the Robson incident wrong. It wasn't an on field red that was rescinded, it was an on field yellow that was cited and subsequently earnt a 2 week ban.

Robson - 2016
Atkinson - 2020
Clement - 2023

Three incidents across several years for the same/similar offence. He's not learning and should have the book thrown at him.

The number of players with three trips before a disciplinary panel is tiny. He's either dirty or careless to the point that there's no meaningful distinction to be made.

[Sandstorm]

Hold my hands up, I spread some misinformation earlier. Got the Robson incident wrong. It wasn't an on field red that was rescinded, it was an on field yellow that was cited and subsequently earnt a 2 week ban.

Robson - 2016
Atkinson - 2020
Clement - 2023

Three incidents across several years for the same/similar offence. He's not learning and should have the book thrown at him.

The number of players with three trips before a disciplinary panel is tiny. He's either dirty or careless to the point that there's no meaningful distinction to be made.

Add in the Rodda and Esterhuizen smashes that weren't cited due to almost certain RFU bribery and he's clearly in line for a 12-18 month ban.

[PornDog]

Hold my hands up, I spread some misinformation earlier. Got the Robson incident wrong. It wasn't an on field red that was rescinded, it was an on field yellow that was cited and subsequently earnt a 2 week ban.

Robson - 2016
Atkinson - 2020
Clement - 2023

Three incidents across several years for the same/similar offence. He's not learning and should have the book thrown at him.

The number of players with three trips before a disciplinary panel is tiny. He's either dirty or careless to the point that there's no meaningful distinction to be made.

Add in the Rodda and Esterhuizen smashes that weren't cited due to almost certain RFU bribery and he's clearly in line for a 12-18 month ban.

TBF - the Rodda one was a Penalty Try and Yellow Card all day long, and it was ridiculous that he got away with it, but it was never a red card.

[Kawazaki]

Hold my hands up, I spread some misinformation earlier. Got the Robson incident wrong. It wasn't an on field red that was rescinded, it was an on field yellow that was cited and subsequently earnt a 2 week ban.

Robson - 2016
Atkinson - 2020
Clement - 2023

Three incidents across several years for the same/similar offence. He's not learning and should have the book thrown at him.

The number of players with three trips before a disciplinary panel is tiny. He's either dirty or careless to the point that there's no meaningful distinction to be made.

Add in the Rodda and Esterhuizen smashes that weren't cited due to almost certain RFU bribery and he's clearly in line for a 12-18 month ban.

TBF - the Rodda one was a Penalty Try and Yellow Card all day long, and it was ridiculous that he got away with it, but it was never a red card.

The Esterhuizen tackle wasn't a red either.

[Grandpa]

Disciplinary panel last night.

No outcome announced yet. Reeks of a stitch up.

Stitch up that he will get a very long ban... or stitch up that he will get a very short one?

[Margin__Walker]

He got 4 weeks. Reduced to 3 if he does the tackle awareness thing. There will likely be howls of a stich up, but it's pretty consistent with how these are being dealt with at the moment.

[Tichtheid]

He got 4 weeks. Reduced to 3 if he does the tackle awareness thing. There will likely be howls of a stich up, but it's pretty consistent with how these are being dealt with at the moment.

It will be interesting to read the aggravations/mitigations, if we get to see them.

Clean record?
Need for a deterrent on high tackles?
Other Factors?

Apology?
Acceptance of foul play?
Good conduct at the hearing?

[sockwithaticket]

He got 4 weeks. Reduced to 3 if he does the tackle awareness thing. There will likely be howls of a stich up, but it's pretty consistent with how these are being dealt with at the moment.

It will be interesting to read the aggravations/mitigations, if we get to see them.

Clean record?
Need for a deterrent on high tackles?
Other Factors?

Apology?
Acceptance of foul play?
Good conduct at the hearing?

Notable difference with Coleman in that they did tick the Repeat Offender box for Farrell, and yet they received the same 2 weeks off for mitigation. Which begs the question how many aggravation factors need to be ticked to invoke additional weeks? Coleman had zero and so zero extra weeks, Farrell had one, but still zero extra .

Although I do seem to recall that Coleman had Injury to player ticked, whereas Farrell doesn't. So maybe that explains the same outcome in ban length?

[Tichtheid]

He got 4 weeks. Reduced to 3 if he does the tackle awareness thing. There will likely be howls of a stich up, but it's pretty consistent with how these are being dealt with at the moment.

It will be interesting to read the aggravations/mitigations, if we get to see them.

Clean record?
Need for a deterrent on high tackles?
Other Factors?

Apology?
Acceptance of foul play?
Good conduct at the hearing?

Notable difference with Coleman in that they did tick the Repeat Offender box for Farrell, and yet they received the same 2 weeks off for mitigation. Which begs the question how many aggravation factors need to be ticked to invoke additional weeks? Coleman had zero and so zero extra weeks, Farrell had one, but still zero extra .

Although I do seem to recall that Coleman had Injury to player ticked, whereas Farrell doesn't. So maybe that explains the same outcome in ban length?

I'm puzzled as to why they think there is no need for a deterrent on shoulder to head incidents, given the publicity surrounding early onset dementia to former players and the possibility that these concussive and sub-concussive blows may contribute to MND.

[SaintK]

Disciplinary panel last night.

No outcome announced yet. Reeks of a stitch up.

Yep, complete stitch up
He got the same as Coleman whose tackle completely laid out Wolstencroft who hasn't returned to playing yet.

[Margin__Walker]

That's a good question Tich (although I'm not sure about any proven MND link), but these incidents tend to go mid range 6 to 3 weeks. Then up a touch record dependent. No one is getting particularly long bans for standard high shots. It's not a Farrell thing.

[SaintK]

He got 4 weeks. Reduced to 3 if he does the tackle awareness thing. There will likely be howls of a stich up, but it's pretty consistent with how these are being dealt with at the moment.

Precisely. Completely consistent at present.

[PornDog]

I'd also take issue with the X in the intentional box *. Now obviously he didn't intend to smack him in the head, however he did lead with the shoulder - that's a deliberate act to intentionally increase the force of the collision. Frankly we need to come down much much harder on that.


* This isn't just about Farrell - leading with the shoulder is effectively promoted through inaction pretty much across the game at the moment. This needs to change and change rapidly.

[Biffer]

Has he not done the tackle school thing before? Bit of a nonsense giving him a week off for having to go back and do it again?

[Tichtheid]

That's a good question Tich (although I'm not sure about any proven MND link), but these incidents tend to go mid range 6 to 3 weeks. Then up a touch record dependent. No one is getting particularly long bans for standard high shots. It's not a Farrell thing.

I agree on the overall point that it's not a Farrell thing.

I do think that the bans are too short in general and are not acting as a deterrent, we wouldn't see as many of these incidents if there were, until there is a shift away from making a dominant hit, as opposed to tackling the ball carrier, these incidents will keep occurring.

On MND, the Doddie Weir Foundation were keen to point out that there is no proven link as yet to head impacts and MND, but they didn't explicitly rule it out either, another area where more research is needed.

[Tichtheid]

Has he not done the tackle school thing before? Bit of a nonsense giving him a week off for having to go back and do it again?

He hasn't done it before, but I'm not sure a 31 year old pro with hundreds of games under his belt will change - they do some sort of exercise at their club, video it and send it to the RFU as proof.

[Margin__Walker]

That's a good question Tich (although I'm not sure about any proven MND link), but these incidents tend to go mid range 6 to 3 weeks. Then up a touch record dependent. No one is getting particularly long bans for standard high shots. It's not a Farrell thing.

I agree on the overall point that it's not a Farrell thing.

I do think that the bans are too short in general and are not acting as a deterrent, we wouldn't see as many of these incidents if there were, until there is a shift away from making a dominant hit, as opposed to tackling the ball carrier, these incidents will keep occurring.

On MND, the Doddie Weir Foundation were keen to point out that there is no proven link as yet to head impacts and MND, but they didn't explicitly rule it out either, another area where more research is needed.

Agree for the most part. For me if you are putting a cross in the clean record box, then it probably needs to go up closer to the full tariff, than just up a week.

And the tackle awareness thing seems pretty pointless. I'm sure any player's coaches will be working on them with that stuff anyway. Shouldn't be a way to knock a week off, but hey ho.

[Tichtheid]

I've just had a look at Wiki, after circa 350 senior games he has to go on a course to learn how to tackle?

How long is the course?

[TheFrog]

It will be interesting to read the aggravations/mitigations, if we get to see them.

Clean record?
Need for a deterrent on high tackles?
Other Factors?

Apology?
Acceptance of foul play?
Good conduct at the hearing?

Notable difference with Coleman in that they did tick the Repeat Offender box for Farrell, and yet they received the same 2 weeks off for mitigation. Which begs the question how many aggravation factors need to be ticked to invoke additional weeks? Coleman had zero and so zero extra weeks, Farrell had one, but still zero extra .

Although I do seem to recall that Coleman had Injury to player ticked, whereas Farrell doesn't. So maybe that explains the same outcome in ban length?

I'm puzzled as to why they think there is no need for a deterrent on shoulder to head incidents, given the publicity surrounding early onset dementia to former players and the possibility that these concussive and sub-concussive blows may contribute to MND.

Curious about the "no intent" too...

[Biffer]

That's a good question Tich (although I'm not sure about any proven MND link), but these incidents tend to go mid range 6 to 3 weeks. Then up a touch record dependent. No one is getting particularly long bans for standard high shots. It's not a Farrell thing.

I agree on the overall point that it's not a Farrell thing.

I do think that the bans are too short in general and are not acting as a deterrent, we wouldn't see as many of these incidents if there were, until there is a shift away from making a dominant hit, as opposed to tackling the ball carrier, these incidents will keep occurring.

On MND, the Doddie Weir Foundation were keen to point out that there is no proven link as yet to head impacts and MND, but they didn't explicitly rule it out either, another area where more research is needed.

Agree for the most part. For me if you are putting a cross in the clean record box, then it probably needs to go up closer to the full tariff, than just up a week.

And the tackle awareness thing seems pretty pointless. I'm sure any player's coaches will be working on them with that stuff anyway. Should be a way to knock a week off, but hey ho.

Yeah, from the look of that you've now got to be unapologetic and behave poorly at the hearing before you get the full ban, and have multiple aggravating factors to receive an add on.

[sockwithaticket]

I agree on the overall point that it's not a Farrell thing.

I do think that the bans are too short in general and are not acting as a deterrent, we wouldn't see as many of these incidents if there were, until there is a shift away from making a dominant hit, as opposed to tackling the ball carrier, these incidents will keep occurring.

On MND, the Doddie Weir Foundation were keen to point out that there is no proven link as yet to head impacts and MND, but they didn't explicitly rule it out either, another area where more research is needed.

Agree for the most part. For me if you are putting a cross in the clean record box, then it probably needs to go up closer to the full tariff, than just up a week.

And the tackle awareness thing seems pretty pointless. I'm sure any player's coaches will be working on them with that stuff anyway. Should be a way to knock a week off, but hey ho.

Yeah, from the look of that you've now got to be unapologetic and behave poorly at the hearing before you get the full ban, and have multiple aggravating factors to receive an add on.

I've said it before, contrition and good conduct should be a given and not contribute towards reducing a ban. Not demonstrating them should absolutely provide capacity to increase one, though.

Also agree with Tich that bans are too short, especially with the current mitigation process. The whole thing needs an overhaul if it's actually to serve as a deterrent to future offending. Currently it seems like it's an attempt to be seen to do something yet actively working to avoid keeping players off the pitch for too long.

[Sandstorm]

Remove Low/Med/High end options entirely.
If you get a Low-end decision, reduced by 50% and you miss 1 whole week? Stupid.

Start at 10 weeks for all incidents, then subtract up to 50% mitigation from there or increase as required.

5 weeks minimum on the sidelines should hopefully make players more careful.

[inactionman]

Courses make sense in principle, as the intent of the sanction is to change behaviour of the player.

Would it not make more sense, given the risks of high shots and the fact they're still far too frequent, just to have a mandatory course for all pros? i.e. not wait until they've transgressed?

[Hal Jordan]

So, with the tackle awareness bullshit he's picked up a ban similar to Martin Johnson's 35 day ban for violent conduct in a December 1999 match (vs Saracens!), a ban which coincidentally ended one day before the 2000 Six Nations started...

[SaintK]

.
Also agree with Tich that bans are too short, especially with the current mitigation process. The whole thing needs an overhaul if it's actually to serve as a deterrent to future offending. Currently it seems like it's an attempt to be seen to do something yet actively working to avoid keeping players off the pitch for too long.

Isn't this all led by World Rugby?
The assumption is that all individual Unions apply the WR edicts on discipline (and refereeing) accordingly

[Tichtheid]

.
Also agree with Tich that bans are too short, especially with the current mitigation process. The whole thing needs an overhaul if it's actually to serve as a deterrent to future offending. Currently it seems like it's an attempt to be seen to do something yet actively working to avoid keeping players off the pitch for too long.

Isn't this all led by World Rugby?
The assumption is that all individual Unions apply the WR edicts on discipline (and refereeing) accordingly

I think you're correct in that the guidelines come from WR, but they are implemented by the professional leagues or by the tournament the games are part of.

[Paddington Bear]

Notable difference with Coleman in that they did tick the Repeat Offender box for Farrell, and yet they received the same 2 weeks off for mitigation. Which begs the question how many aggravation factors need to be ticked to invoke additional weeks? Coleman had zero and so zero extra weeks, Farrell had one, but still zero extra .

Although I do seem to recall that Coleman had Injury to player ticked, whereas Farrell doesn't. So maybe that explains the same outcome in ban length?

I'm puzzled as to why they think there is no need for a deterrent on shoulder to head incidents, given the publicity surrounding early onset dementia to former players and the possibility that these concussive and sub-concussive blows may contribute to MND.

Curious about the "no intent" too...

Worth watching in real time, he’s unprepared to make a tackle on the fringe when Gloucester go blindside unexpectedly.

Agree with Ticht that the bans are derisory but this is entirely consistent with what the RFU has been doing all season. Tackle school strikes me as the speed awareness of pro rugby…

[C69]

So, with the tackle awareness bullshit he's picked up a ban similar to Martin Johnson's 35 day ban for violent conduct in a December 1999 match (vs Saracens!), a ban which coincidentally ended one day before the 2000 Six Nations started...

Bingo.
However this one is even worse given the knowledge we now have about player safety and what we know about Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.
The RFU are basically shitting in the mouths and saying fuck you to those who have suffered such damage.
Player safety is toss.

[Sandstorm]

Imagine the irony if Farrell gets concussion from a shoulder tackle in his comeback game against Leicester.

[JM2K6]

So, with the tackle awareness bullshit he's picked up a ban similar to Martin Johnson's 35 day ban for violent conduct in a December 1999 match (vs Saracens!), a ban which coincidentally ended one day before the 2000 Six Nations started...

IIRC that was actually a much longer ban than most people were getting at the time.

Farrell's ban seems about right, anyone wanting more was engaging in very wishful thinking regarding instances he'd gotten away with previously being counted on his record, which obviously isn't how this works.

[Tichtheid]

So, with the tackle awareness bullshit he's picked up a ban similar to Martin Johnson's 35 day ban for violent conduct in a December 1999 match (vs Saracens!), a ban which coincidentally ended one day before the 2000 Six Nations started...

IIRC that was actually a much longer ban than most people were getting at the time.

Farrell's ban seems about right, anyone wanting more was engaging in very wishful thinking regarding instances he'd gotten away with previously being counted on his record, which obviously isn't how this works.

Not so in my case. I want the game to be safer, a ban that punishes the act and serves as a deterrent would be more in line with my thoughts on this.

[Slick]

I'm puzzled as to why they think there is no need for a deterrent on shoulder to head incidents, given the publicity surrounding early onset dementia to former players and the possibility that these concussive and sub-concussive blows may contribute to MND.

Curious about the "no intent" too...

Worth watching in real time, he’s unprepared to make a tackle on the fringe when Gloucester go blindside unexpectedly.

Agree with Ticht that the bans are derisory but this is entirely consistent with what the RFU has been doing all season. Tackle school strikes me as the speed awareness of pro rugby…

Yeah, looks to me like he almost turns his shoulder as a reaction to an unexpected collision coming his way

[petej]

So, with the tackle awareness bullshit he's picked up a ban similar to Martin Johnson's 35 day ban for violent conduct in a December 1999 match (vs Saracens!), a ban which coincidentally ended one day before the 2000 Six Nations started...

IIRC that was actually a much longer ban than most people were getting at the time.

Farrell's ban seems about right, anyone wanting more was engaging in very wishful thinking regarding instances he'd gotten away with previously being counted on his record, which obviously isn't how this works.

3 to 4 weeks is consistent which is good.