NPR

Hither and thither

Edit: I thought you had done a snecky bit of editing there Enz but no it was right there in the article

Completely disagree that it is medium entry level, it was extremely dangerous, the player he tried to decapitate is unlikely to play again this season.

It's also not his first red card. He received a retrospective red and ban for knocking out Dan Robson by tackling his head.

What did he get? Was it not meant to be today?

Outrage by proxy reins hither and thither, with hyperbolic assumption ruling fact.

I dunno about Farrell's offence but that sentence is a fucking crime.

And how the fuck do you tackle with deeper detail??

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:08 pm

Outrage by proxy reins hither and thither, with hyperbolic assumption ruling fact.

I dunno about Farrell's offence but that sentence is a fucking crime.

And how the fuck do you tackle with deeper detail??

I would say that Jake was putting hither and thither in there as a nod to his ritin' critix but that would require a level of self-awareness that I'm not sure he possesses.

Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:24 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:08 pm

Outrage by proxy reins hither and thither, with hyperbolic assumption ruling fact.

I dunno about Farrell's offence but that sentence is a fucking crime.

And how the fuck do you tackle with deeper detail??

I would say that Jake was putting hither and thither in there as a nod to his ritin' critix but that would require a level of self-awareness that I'm not sure he possesses.

"I'm going to write an entire article so full of heinous crimes against the English language that my critics will have heart attacks" is some 7D chess for sure

Five games.

Top end offence so 10 games, reduced by 50% for previous good record etc.

So the standard is now set that if you only have one previous ban, you still have a good disciplinary record.

Awfully convenient that it makes sure he’s available for the England games, isn’t it. Must be a complete coincidence.

Only the one prior ban for the same offence, reckless rather than malicious, he's sowwy and Jones, McCall and a charity have said he's a good sort.

Predictable but disappointing. Anyone know where this ban durations in matches instead of weeks stuff comes from?

Joke level of reduction on that ban. I expected he'd only get 5 - 6 weeks, but it's still disappointing.

Red Revolution wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:36 pm Only the one prior ban for the same offence, reckless rather than malicious, he's sowwy and Jones, McCall and a charity have said he's a good sort.

Predictable but disappointing. Anyone know where this ban durations in matches instead of weeks stuff comes from?

Think it came in so that players wouldn't have bans run their course during the off or pre-season. Equally, with the Prem Cup (formerly the Anglo-Welsh), European knock out rounds and Prem play offs there are potentially some dead weeks which could have contributed to a ban elapsing without the player actually having to miss any rugby.

If Hartley had been England captain at his first offence his career bans would have totalled 10 weeks maximum

[quoteFollowing the red card handed out to Owen Farrell for his awful tackle on Wasps’ Charlie Atkinson, features writer James While delves into a debate which has caused much furore online.

Taking a stroll down the fetid corridors of social media this week and you’ll glean that the preferred punishment for Farrell’s red card against Wasps should be somewhere between death by electric chair to 30 years hard labour.

Outrage by proxy reins hither and thither, with hyperbolic assumption ruling fact. In Farrell’s career, there have been a few tackles that have been perhaps debatable in legality, but the simple truth is that this is his first red card in 217 professional games and only his second citing in 10 years as a professional.

Yes, there’s been a few questionable moments; South African fans, who seem to conveniently forget the actions of the likes of Marius Bosman, Corne Krige and Elandre van den Bergh in days gone by, will never forgive Farrell for a technically poor and clumsy tackle in 2018 in the dying minutes of a Test on André Esterhuizen, a hit that effectively sealed the fate of the Boks on that day. Nevertheless, the truth is that the on-field referee, Angus Gardner, TMO and the citing officer saw very little wrong with the collision, even after several reviews.

Then there was the perhaps dubious clash of shoulders two weeks later at Twickenham, when the Saracen threw his body in the path of Izack Rodda as the Aussie sprinted for the line. No sanction was made, despite the protestations of Michael Cheika, with on-field referee Jaco Peyper awarding a penalty; not for the Farrell barge but for an earlier offside by flanker Mark Wilson on the 22 metre line.

For a player that’s played 288 matches and averaged, say, 12 tackles per game, that equates to something around 3,500 tackles, none of which, until Saturday, have been deemed threatening enough or illegal enough to warrant anything but a penalty. In that time, Farrell has received nine yellow cards, six for poor tackles. His two yellows at Test level came for obstruction on an open-field runner (Matt Giteau) and for killing the ball against New Zealand six years ago. In his time with England and the Lions (87 Tests), the Saracens fly-half has conceded precisely 33 penalties, an average of less than half a penalty a game. These are not the statistics of a dirty player, nor a serial offender. In fact, they’re pretty much exemplary from a defender that leads the blitz line and is particularly abrasive in his work.

However, to study these facts in isolation is dangerous. Farrell has been living on the edge of legality for a long time; if you unpack those reasons, he defends in channel one, where he, a relatively smaller man, has to stop a lot of heavy traffic, often as the second tackler in the hit – that means often his clear target is the upper body as the first (forward) defender will almost always have gone low. Secondly, his background is one of mixed codes; embracing rugby league as much as union, where double team tackles, one low and one high, are a feature of defensive technique. Lastly, his absolute commitment to the power hit means his commitment is an early one, thus preventing marginal adjustment if a player moves, changes height or direction.

Add the above up and you’ll agree that this red card was one that was going to be inevitable. That doesn’t mean, however, that he should be penalised by a panel on actions that were, historically, deemed legal or were previously punished with penalties or yellows. The disciplinary panel, like a court of law, will examine two things only; the events that led up to the card on the day (the offence) and Farrell’s track record (previous convictions) where there is just one blemish four years ago which resulted in a two-week ban.

The main task the panel have is to decide entry point: high or medium danger. Outcome judged, there is no question that the entry point was medium, but the media furore and current climate for safety in rugby may see that upgraded.

The result will be either 10 weeks (high danger) or six weeks (medium). Farrell’s record will then see a 50% reduction and remorse, as per precedent, to five or three weeks. In short, 3-5 weeks, don’t do it again, have a few weeks’ holiday and see you in October in the England training camp.

At the foot of the charge sheet for the incident is a much bigger issue. The fact that even the most myopic Saracens or England fan will agree this was an accident waiting to happen and that Farrell’s tackle technique needs a degree of amelioration to comply with the picture that the modern safety-first referee is looking for.

Perhaps it’s a godsend it happened in a nothing game in the Premiership rather than a crucial Test match where his action could have cost a Six Nations title or a World Cup tie. Farrell needs to sort his work out, tackle with greater precision and with deeper detail. One thing is for sure, he’s the ultimate competitor and he’ll be as anxious as anyone to sort his shape out, be legal, fair but hard and, above all, never to let his team and fans down as he clearly did on Saturday.

by James While [/quote]

Really?

Outrage by proxy reins hither and thither, with hyperbolic assumption ruling fact.

I thought reins are things you use to steer a horse.

Anyway, 5 games is ridiculous - reckon it should've been at least 6 months.

Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:43 pm

Outrage by proxy reins hither and thither, with hyperbolic assumption ruling fact.

I thought reins are things you use to steer a horse.

Anyway, 5 games is ridiculous - reckon it should've been at least 6 months.

5 games is a joke; & continues to show the bias towards, Tier-1 Nations.

If this was a Fijian, or Georgian, they'd be looking at 75% of the full tariff, regardless of how much contrition they showed.

This was easily a 10-12 game ban worthy offense; & given his previous, he deserved zero off that.

5 games.

Fishfoodie you're insane. A guilty plea always knocks off a lot. 1 previous incident 4 years ago is never going to have a large effect, contrition at the time and good character references.

5 games is more than i expected, but also what i feel is reasonable.

5 games lol, thinks about this for a change, what if Owen was ..... black? ... whole year i bet.

stemoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:13 am 5 games lol, thinks about this for a change, what if Owen was ..... black? ... whole year i bet.

Dickhead

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:13 pm If Hartley had been England captain at his first offence his career bans would have totalled 10 weeks maximum

The Johnson Protocol.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:12 am

Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:43 pm

Outrage by proxy reins hither and thither, with hyperbolic assumption ruling fact.

I thought reins are things you use to steer a horse.

Anyway, 5 games is ridiculous - reckon it should've been at least 6 months.

5 games is a joke; & continues to show the bias towards, Tier-1 Nations.

If this was a Fijian, or Georgian, they'd be looking at 75% of the full tariff, regardless of how much contrition they showed.

This was easily a 10-12 game ban worthy offense; & given his previous, he deserved zero off that.

That... isn't really true. If players with bad records show contrition it's not enough.

Look, the injustice here is that he's never really been punished for his previous transgressions, which means he has a pretty clean record for this one. It was inevitable that the 50% reduction would come in. Which is one of the reasons why I thoroughly dislike the idea of such a big reduction being default in the first place.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:32 pmSo the standard is now set that if you only have one previous ban, you still have a good disciplinary record.

y...yes? that's been the standard for some time: a single offence a long time ago has rarely stopped players from getting a big reduction.

It's stupid but the problem here is refs and citing commissions bottling it time and again up til now, giving him this 'clean' record.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:10 am

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:12 am

Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:43 pm

I thought reins are things you use to steer a horse.

Anyway, 5 games is ridiculous - reckon it should've been at least 6 months.

5 games is a joke; & continues to show the bias towards, Tier-1 Nations.

If this was a Fijian, or Georgian, they'd be looking at 75% of the full tariff, regardless of how much contrition they showed.

This was easily a 10-12 game ban worthy offense; & given his previous, he deserved zero off that.

That... isn't really true. If players with bad records show contrition it's not enough.

Look, the injustice here is that he's never really been punished for his previous transgressions, which means he has a pretty clean record for this one. It was inevitable that the 50% reduction would come in. Which is one of the reasons why I thoroughly dislike the idea of such a big reduction being default in the first place.

Pretty much this. I am quite glad that it was entered as a top end offence though.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:10 am

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:12 am

Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:43 pm

I thought reins are things you use to steer a horse.

Anyway, 5 games is ridiculous - reckon it should've been at least 6 months.

5 games is a joke; & continues to show the bias towards, Tier-1 Nations.

If this was a Fijian, or Georgian, they'd be looking at 75% of the full tariff, regardless of how much contrition they showed.

This was easily a 10-12 game ban worthy offense; & given his previous, he deserved zero off that.

That... isn't really true. If players with bad records show contrition it's not enough.

Look, the injustice here is that he's never really been punished for his previous transgressions, which means he has a pretty clean record for this one. It was inevitable that the 50% reduction would come in. Which is one of the reasons why I thoroughly dislike the idea of such a big reduction being default in the first place.

Yes, this is right.

In saying that I didn’t realise 7 of his 8 yellows for Saracens were for dodgy tackles, that’s quite a trail

Yup. At least a few of those should have been reds. Ditto for England.

Let me guess, this ban, will mean he'll be available for all the test matches?

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:01 am Let me guess, this ban, will mean he'll be available for all the test matches?

Of course.

He'll miss the rest of the domestic season and whatever Champions Cup matches Saracens end up playing (if they get further than Leinster, he might play one or two more Premiership matches)

I know it's really easy for people to claim conspiracy but it's really not that complicated: it has nothing to do with the internationals and everything to do with the stupid reductions that get applied in every case for a non-recidivist, and the previous failures to punish his transgressions.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:21 am He'll miss the rest of the domestic season and whatever Champions Cup matches Saracens end up playing (if they get further than Leinster, he might play one or two more Premiership matches)

I know it's really easy for people to claim conspiracy but it's really not that complicated: it has nothing to do with the internationals and everything to do with the stupid reductions that get applied in every case for a non-recidivist, and the previous failures to punish his transgressions.

Yes. I think you are right, particularly about the extent to which Faz has avoided previous citings.

A better system would be to have a sensible tariff with no reductions for a “clean” record. Instead, add graduated increases to the base tariff for recidivists.

I like that they've added character references to the list of nonsense that can buy you the full 50% reduction. Sits nicely alongside conduct at the hearing.

As if either's relevant for ending someone's season early with a headshot.

Un Pilier wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:48 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:21 am He'll miss the rest of the domestic season and whatever Champions Cup matches Saracens end up playing (if they get further than Leinster, he might play one or two more Premiership matches)

I know it's really easy for people to claim conspiracy but it's really not that complicated: it has nothing to do with the internationals and everything to do with the stupid reductions that get applied in every case for a non-recidivist, and the previous failures to punish his transgressions.

Yes. I think you are right, particularly about the extent to which Faz has avoided previous citings.

A better system would be to have a sensible tariff with no reductions for a “clean” record. Instead, add graduated increases to the base tariff for recidivists.

This, plus being polite and the player's employers saying he's a decent bloke shouldn't count towards reductions. However, being a dick, showing no contrition and eating all the biscuits should definitely come with increased penalties.

I keep seeing people elsewhere saying words to the effect of his previous good record.

Is it good? Players with a red card to their name are actually pretty rare. Players who pick up a second are basically a statistical insignificance.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:25 pm I keep seeing people elsewhere saying words to the effect of his previous good record.

Is it good? Players with a red card to their name are actually pretty rare. Players who pick up a second are basically a statistical insignificance.

Players with multiple bans aren't rare, though (which tells you how often refs miss things or make the wrong call).

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:27 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:25 pm I keep seeing people elsewhere saying words to the effect of his previous good record.

Is it good? Players with a red card to their name are actually pretty rare. Players who pick up a second are basically a statistical insignificance.

Players with multiple bans aren't rare, though (which tells you how often refs miss things or make the wrong call).

Out of the hundreds who play pro rugby in the Prem, Pro14, Top 14 and Super Rugby? I'd say rare still applies even to those with multiple bans rather than cards.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:43 am

stemoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:13 am 5 games lol, thinks about this for a change, what if Owen was ..... black? ... whole year i bet.

Dickhead

this isn't a ban dumbass, its a REST before the rugby internationals in October.

Sooner this cynical thug is permanently no longer playing (one way or another) the better. Poor technique my @rse, he deliberately goes out to injure other players. Should be in jail, kind of thing you see on Saturday night when some scumbag runs in to blindside an innocent bystander and pretend to be 'hard' in front of his mates.

Wonder if a civil prosecution would be possible.

stemoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:49 pm

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:43 am

stemoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:13 am 5 games lol, thinks about this for a change, what if Owen was ..... black? ... whole year i bet.

Dickhead

this isn't a ban dumbass, its a REST before the rugby internationals in October.

Hmm yes rested from the Champions Cup, good one

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:32 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:27 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:25 pm I keep seeing people elsewhere saying words to the effect of his previous good record.

Is it good? Players with a red card to their name are actually pretty rare. Players who pick up a second are basically a statistical insignificance.

Players with multiple bans aren't rare, though (which tells you how often refs miss things or make the wrong call).

Out of the hundreds who play pro rugby in the Prem, Pro14, Top 14 and Super Rugby? I'd say rare still applies even to those with multiple bans rather than cards.

Not as rare as to be a statistical insignificance, no. Bans aren't uncommon, especially when law focus changes as it did in the last 4-5 years.

edit: I would say that outside backs with multiple bans must be a real rarity, though.

dkm57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:52 pm Sooner this cynical thug is permanently no longer playing (one way or another) the better. Poor technique my @rse, he deliberately goes out to injure other players. Should be in jail, kind of thing you see on Saturday night when some scumbag runs in to blindside an innocent bystander and pretend to be 'hard' in front of his mates.

Wonder if a civil prosecution would be possible.

Go on then, try it.

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:06 pm

dkm57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:52 pm Sooner this cynical thug is permanently no longer playing (one way or another) the better. Poor technique my @rse, he deliberately goes out to injure other players. Should be in jail, kind of thing you see on Saturday night when some scumbag runs in to blindside an innocent bystander and pretend to be 'hard' in front of his mates.

Wonder if a civil prosecution would be possible.

Go on then, try it.

No horse in the race but I would have thought the player he clotheslined might have a case.

dkm57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:13 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:06 pm

dkm57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:52 pm Sooner this cynical thug is permanently no longer playing (one way or another) the better. Poor technique my @rse, he deliberately goes out to injure other players. Should be in jail, kind of thing you see on Saturday night when some scumbag runs in to blindside an innocent bystander and pretend to be 'hard' in front of his mates.

Wonder if a civil prosecution would be possible.

Go on then, try it.

No horse in the race but I would have thought the player he clotheslined might have a case.

Why would he?

dkm57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:13 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:06 pm

dkm57 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:52 pm Sooner this cynical thug is permanently no longer playing (one way or another) the better. Poor technique my @rse, he deliberately goes out to injure other players. Should be in jail, kind of thing you see on Saturday night when some scumbag runs in to blindside an innocent bystander and pretend to be 'hard' in front of his mates.

Wonder if a civil prosecution would be possible.

Go on then, try it.

No horse in the race but I would have thought the player he clotheslined might have a case.

You know you're being very silly, right?