NPR

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:56 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑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.

You really are a twat at times

clydecloggie wrote: ↑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.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:16 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:56 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑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.

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.

shaggy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:50 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:16 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:56 pm
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.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:49 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 9:59 am

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

Pfffft.

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

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:08 am 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:20 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:08 am 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:32 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:20 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:08 am 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:01 am Disciplinary panel last night.

No outcome announced yet. Reeks of a stitch up.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:59 am 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:10 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:59 am 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:20 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:10 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:59 am 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?

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:01 am Disciplinary panel last night.

No outcome announced yet. Reeks of a stitch up.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:59 am 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.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:37 pm 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:42 pm 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:42 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:37 pm 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 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:30 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:20 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:10 pm



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.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:47 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:42 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:37 pm 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:58 pm

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:47 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:42 pm


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 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:06 pm.
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.

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:23 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:06 pm.
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

TheFrog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:57 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:30 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:20 pm



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...

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:18 pm 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...

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:18 pm 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...

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:41 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:18 pm 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.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:43 pm

TheFrog wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:57 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:30 pm



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…

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:41 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:18 pm 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.