NPR

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:10 pm**

Is there a match thread yet?

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:13 pm**

And 1 guest wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:06 pm If Farrell cops a ban in the appeal would it include this weekend's game or not?

That would depend on the timing of any new finding, wouldn’t it? If the appeal is heard next week, for instance and a suspension was handed down then wouldn’t that suspension begin after its announcement?

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:14 pm**

Ymx wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:10 pm Is there a match thread yet?

Done

https://notplanetrugby.com/viewtopic.php?t=2604

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:19 pm**

Some barrister dude posted this on Reddit, it's interesting...

The procedure of the hearing is really interesting.

20.8.6 says that, except for "de novo" hearings (heard completely from fresh, as if the panel is hearing it for the first time), the appeal shall be conducted on the basis that

a) any discretion of the previous panel shall not be overturned unless it was manifestly wrong,

b) the evidential assessment shall not be overturned except where they applied the wrong principles, and

c) no new evidence - unless it was absolutely not available in the previous hearing.

If it proceeds on that basis, then I do not see it being overturned. Being "manifestly wrong" is similar to the English law test of being "Wednesbury unreasonable" - so unreasonable that no reasonable panel could ever have reached that decision. I do not see them meeting that test, and there's no suggestion that they exercised discretion incorrectly, as they made a factual finding, not a discretion finding.

But here's where it gets fun. I mentioned "de novo" hearings above. Reg 20.8.3 gives the appeal committee the power to order a completely fresh hearing, hearing all the evidence again, and free to come to whatever conclusion they want, completely unbound by the previous panel, so the rules above don't matter.

It says that they should only order a de novo hearing "where it is established that it is in the interests of justice that a re-hearing of the case in whole or in part is necessary". I imagine the first, and major argument, will be between the RFU and WR about which set of rules to adopt - should they apply the rules in 20.8.6 or should they have a completely fresh hearing under 20.8.3?

So much of this will come down to that early procedural decision - because if the appeal panel is convinced that a de novo hearing is in the interests of justice, it suggests that the hearing itself is prejudged - as they can only say it's in the interests of justice (realistically) if they think there was a problem with the first decision.

If they proceed under 20.8.6, they will have to show that the finding was in error of fact or law (absolute error, they have got a fact wrong, not the interpretation of a fact) or that it is in the "interests of justice" for the decision to be overturned. Again, if they don't disagree legally or factually with the decision, it's hard to see them saying that it's in the interests of justice to overthrow it.

https://www.world.rugby/organisation/go ... ons/reg-20

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:39 pm**

There is a fundamental failure by the panel to consider Farrell's failure to wrap in the tackle and the positioning of his right arm leading into the hit.

The failure to wrap is mentioned in the foul play review officer's statement but isn't countered either by Farrell's evidence or the panel's own review of the video footage.

They state that they consider that Farrell was in a position to make a legal tackle and his hips and knees were bent (incidentally, how does this become the player 'made a dangerous upright tackle' in their decision when applying the HCP?) but there is no mention of the tucked position of his arm and the fact that he is only ever in position to make a shoulder charge, not a legal wrapping tackle.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:45 pm**

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:13 pm
And 1 guest wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:06 pm If Farrell cops a ban in the appeal would it include this weekend's game or not?
That would depend on the timing of any new finding, wouldn’t it? If the appeal is heard next week, for instance and a suspension was handed down then wouldn’t that suspension begin after its announcement?

We've seen precedents of a player being deliberately stood down in a match they could have reasonably been expected to play in, and for that to count in a late/appealed (can't remember exactly which) ban. Don't ask me when as I've not slept in 36 hours or so, but it's definitely happened, and it's not unreasonable for Farrell to have been expected to take part in this match.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:54 pm**

Hearing will be next week...

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:11 pm**

Strongly suspect that this weekends game will be taken into consideration as part of any ban then. It simply wouldn't be fair otherwise.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:16 pm**

Forgive me if already covered. But have WR done this before? And what was the outcome?

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:30 pm**

And 1 guest wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:06 pm If Farrell cops a ban in the appeal would it include this weekend's game or not?

I would expect it to.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:30 pm**

It is interesting that two of the coaches (edwards and sinfield) who vocally backed Farrell are both from league and will have taught players to tackle higher increasing the risk of headshots. This makes a joke out of tackle school if two international defence coaches see no issue.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:37 pm**

Ymx wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:16 pm Forgive me if already covered. But have WR done this before? And what was the outcome?

They appealed the length of Adam Thomson's ban for stamping in 2012 and got it extended.

They appealed James Horwill not getting banned for stamping in 2013 - appeal failed.

They overrode the decision not to charge Joe Marler for calling Samson Lee "Gypsy boy" in 2016 and Marler got a ban.

Not sure if there have been any others.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:52 pm**

topofthemoon wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:37 pm
Ymx wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:16 pm Forgive me if already covered. But have WR done this before? And what was the outcome?
They appealed the length of Adam Thomson's ban for stamping in 2012 and got it extended.

They appealed James Horwill not getting banned for stamping in 2013 - appeal failed.

They overrode the decision not to charge Joe Marler for calling Samson Lee "Gypsy boy" in 2016 and Marler got a ban.

Not sure if there have been any others.

Thanks. So there would appear some precedent to overturn.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:05 pm**

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:19 pm Some barrister dude posted this on Reddit, it's interesting...

The procedure of the hearing is really interesting.

20.8.6 says that, except for "de novo" hearings (heard completely from fresh, as if the panel is hearing it for the first time), the appeal shall be conducted on the basis that

a) any discretion of the previous panel shall not be overturned unless it was manifestly wrong,

b) the evidential assessment shall not be overturned except where they applied the wrong principles, and

c) no new evidence - unless it was absolutely not available in the previous hearing.

If it proceeds on that basis, then I do not see it being overturned. Being "manifestly wrong" is similar to the English law test of being "Wednesbury unreasonable" - so unreasonable that no reasonable panel could ever have reached that decision. I do not see them meeting that test, and there's no suggestion that they exercised discretion incorrectly, as they made a factual finding, not a discretion finding.

But here's where it gets fun. I mentioned "de novo" hearings above. Reg 20.8.3 gives the appeal committee the power to order a completely fresh hearing, hearing all the evidence again, and free to come to whatever conclusion they want, completely unbound by the previous panel, so the rules above don't matter.

It says that they should only order a de novo hearing "where it is established that it is in the interests of justice that a re-hearing of the case in whole or in part is necessary". I imagine the first, and major argument, will be between the RFU and WR about which set of rules to adopt - should they apply the rules in 20.8.6 or should they have a completely fresh hearing under 20.8.3?

So much of this will come down to that early procedural decision - because if the appeal panel is convinced that a de novo hearing is in the interests of justice, it suggests that the hearing itself is prejudged - as they can only say it's in the interests of justice (realistically) if they think there was a problem with the first decision.

If they proceed under 20.8.6, they will have to show that the finding was in error of fact or law (absolute error, they have got a fact wrong, not the interpretation of a fact) or that it is in the "interests of justice" for the decision to be overturned. Again, if they don't disagree legally or factually with the decision, it's hard to see them saying that it's in the interests of justice to overthrow it.

https://www.world.rugby/organisation/go ... ons/reg-20

The idea that the tackle was legal at any stage is fairly easily argued as being manifestly wrong, ditto that the change in direction caused the tackle to be illegal.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 8:39 pm**

petej wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:30 pm It is interesting that two of the coaches (edwards and sinfield) who vocally backed Farrell are both from league and will have taught players to tackle higher increasing the risk of headshots. This makes a joke out of tackle school if two international defence coaches see no issue.

Edwards is one of Andy's oldest mates and has known Owen since the day he was born. So no conflict there.

Sinfield, great human being, is an England coach so no conflict there either.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:20 pm**

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:19 pm Some barrister dude posted this on Reddit, it's interesting...

The procedure of the hearing is really interesting.

20.8.6 says that, except for "de novo" hearings (heard completely from fresh, as if the panel is hearing it for the first time), the appeal shall be conducted on the basis that

a) any discretion of the previous panel shall not be overturned unless it was manifestly wrong,

b) the evidential assessment shall not be overturned except where they applied the wrong principles, and

c) no new evidence - unless it was absolutely not available in the previous hearing.

If it proceeds on that basis, then I do not see it being overturned. Being "manifestly wrong" is similar to the English law test of being "Wednesbury unreasonable" - so unreasonable that no reasonable panel could ever have reached that decision. I do not see them meeting that test, and there's no suggestion that they exercised discretion incorrectly, as they made a factual finding, not a discretion finding.

But here's where it gets fun. I mentioned "de novo" hearings above. Reg 20.8.3 gives the appeal committee the power to order a completely fresh hearing, hearing all the evidence again, and free to come to whatever conclusion they want, completely unbound by the previous panel, so the rules above don't matter.

It says that they should only order a de novo hearing "where it is established that it is in the interests of justice that a re-hearing of the case in whole or in part is necessary". I imagine the first, and major argument, will be between the RFU and WR about which set of rules to adopt - should they apply the rules in 20.8.6 or should they have a completely fresh hearing under 20.8.3?

So much of this will come down to that early procedural decision - because if the appeal panel is convinced that a de novo hearing is in the interests of justice, it suggests that the hearing itself is prejudged - as they can only say it's in the interests of justice (realistically) if they think there was a problem with the first decision.

If they proceed under 20.8.6, they will have to show that the finding was in error of fact or law (absolute error, they have got a fact wrong, not the interpretation of a fact) or that it is in the "interests of justice" for the decision to be overturned. Again, if they don't disagree legally or factually with the decision, it's hard to see them saying that it's in the interests of justice to overthrow it.

https://www.world.rugby/organisation/go ... ons/reg-20

I hadn't considered going de novo, whether in Acapulco or not. Normally I wouldn't expect them to touch that with a barge pole, but seeing as the panel was being led by a legal mind and then having 2 ex rugby players/coaches or what have you alongside to gain extra 'rugby empathy' I wonder if that might encourage them to consider the one legal mind overly swayed the thinking, and thus they might be happier starting afresh

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:40 pm**

Full judgement now available.

What’s painfully obvious is there no mention of a discussion around whether the player made a tackle or a hit. It says at the start that the FPRO considered there was no attempt to wrap the arm, but that is not mentioned at any other point in the written judgement. That’s a clear mis application of the laws and current interpretations.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:46 pm**

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:40 pm Full judgement now available.

What’s painfully obvious is there no mention of a discussion around whether the player made a tackle or a hit. It says at the start that the FPRO considered there was no attempt to wrap the arm, but that is not mentioned at any other point in the written judgement. That’s a clear mis application of the laws and current interpretations.

It was a total fudge. They bent the laws and left out important facts to get Farrell off. Shameful really.

Posted: **Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:24 pm**

petej wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 6:30 pm It is interesting that two of the coaches (edwards and sinfield) who vocally backed Farrell are both from league and will have taught players to tackle higher increasing the risk of headshots. This makes a joke out of tackle school if two international defence coaches see no issue.

And furthers my doubts that it's anything but PR. If not in this thread, elsewhere I ranted that pro players all know how to tackle, even if some aren't that good at it. I can't imagine anything in 'tackle school' is new to them. And with all the League or -inspired defence coaches about now, I imagine a few are passively or actively discouraging them from around the waist or lower tackles. High shots are to dislodge or strip the ball, prevent offloads, finish low wraps, or (among a few nuts) hit them so hard as to 'make them think' next time if not actually hurt them.

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:04 am**

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:46 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:40 pm Full judgement now available.

What’s painfully obvious is there no mention of a discussion around whether the player made a tackle or a hit. It says at the start that the FPRO considered there was no attempt to wrap the arm, but that is not mentioned at any other point in the written judgement. That’s a clear mis application of the laws and current interpretations.
It was a total fudge. They bent the laws and left out important facts to get Farrell off. Shameful really.

Got a link to the report?

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:15 am**

https://resources.worldrugby-rims.pulse ... -final.pdf

should work

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:53 am**

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:46 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:40 pm Full judgement now available.

What’s painfully obvious is there no mention of a discussion around whether the player made a tackle or a hit. It says at the start that the FPRO considered there was no attempt to wrap the arm, but that is not mentioned at any other point in the written judgement. That’s a clear mis application of the laws and current interpretations.
It was a total fudge. They bent the laws and left out important facts to get Farrell off. Shameful really.

Why on earth would an international panel comprised of non-Englishmen do that?

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:56 am**

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:53 am
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:46 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:40 pm Full judgement now available.

What’s painfully obvious is there no mention of a discussion around whether the player made a tackle or a hit. It says at the start that the FPRO considered there was no attempt to wrap the arm, but that is not mentioned at any other point in the written judgement. That’s a clear mis application of the laws and current interpretations.
It was a total fudge. They bent the laws and left out important facts to get Farrell off. Shameful really.
Why on earth would an international panel comprised of non-Englishmen do that?

I want to see their WhatsApp group chat.

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:01 am**

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:56 am
SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:53 am
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:46 pm

It was a total fudge. They bent the laws and left out important facts to get Farrell off. Shameful really.
Why on earth would an international panel comprised of non-Englishmen do that?
I want to see their WhatsApp group chat.

"I've gone through all of the State of Origin footage I could find and there's no evidence of this Owen Farrell guy hitting anyone in the head, I reckon this is a fair dinkum stitch up"

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:40 am**

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:01 am
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:56 am
SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:53 am
Why on earth would an international panel comprised of non-Englishmen do that?
I want to see their WhatsApp group chat.
"I've gone through all of the State of Origin footage I could find and there's no evidence of this Owen Farrell guy hitting anyone in the head, I reckon this is a fair dinkum stitch up"

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:04 am**

I genuinely think this is because the Aussies are so far behind the northern hemisphere on the topic of player safety.

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:10 am**

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:40 am
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:01 am
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:56 am

I want to see their WhatsApp group chat.
"I've gone through all of the State of Origin footage I could find and there's no evidence of this Owen Farrell guy hitting anyone in the head, I reckon this is a fair dinkum stitch up"

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:57 am**

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:50 am**

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:57 am

"Probably say..." "....absolutely disgusting...!"

Imagine what he'll definitely say!

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 11:43 am**

Note the utter horror with which the pearl clutchers responded to that absolute banger of a tweet. Wankers.

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 12:06 pm**

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:04 am I genuinely think this is because the Aussies are so far behind the northern hemisphere on the topic of player safety.

I also think there is a bit of this.

From the few Super Rugby games I watched, I couldn't believe the high shots that refs were letting go.

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 1:19 pm**

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 11:43 am Note the utter horror with which the pearl clutchers responded to that absolute banger of a tweet. Wankers.

I genuinely hadn't noticed that

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 1:29 pm**

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 1:19 pm
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 11:43 am Note the utter horror with which the pearl clutchers responded to that absolute banger of a tweet. Wankers.
I genuinely hadn't noticed that

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 1:36 pm**

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:50 am
Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:57 am

"Probably say..." "....absolutely disgusting...!"

Imagine what he'll definitely say!

To be fair to him, if you read the whole thing, he is not commenting much on the rights or wrongs of the tackle just the shitshow that has gone on since.

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 2:36 pm**

Yes, I see that now. Fucking social media wankers winding everyone up with their selective quoting. I blame Fox News.

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 5:44 pm**

If Borthwick is genuinely 'bemused' by World Rugby appealing against the ruling, he has no place coaching in the modern game.

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:31 pm**

assfly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 12:06 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:04 am I genuinely think this is because the Aussies are so far behind the northern hemisphere on the topic of player safety.
I also think there is a bit of this.

From the few Super Rugby games I watched, I couldn't believe the high shots that refs were letting go.

From the many Supe games I watched, I don't believe that's remotely true.

Examples, please.

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:34 pm**

Blackmac wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 1:36 pm
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:50 am
Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:57 am

"Probably say..." "....absolutely disgusting...!"

Imagine what he'll definitely say!

To be fair to him, if you read the whole thing, he is not commenting much on the rights or wrongs of the tackle just the shitshow that has gone on since.

if only he'd brought him up to be honest this could have been avoided. and really Owen is either lying to us, or himself

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 11:38 pm**

Gumboot wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:31 pm
assfly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 12:06 pm
Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:04 am I genuinely think this is because the Aussies are so far behind the northern hemisphere on the topic of player safety.
I also think there is a bit of this.

From the few Super Rugby games I watched, I couldn't believe the high shots that refs were letting go.
From the many Supe games I watched, I don't believe that's remotely true.

Examples, please.

ALB in the Super Final... should have been a straight red...

Posted: **Fri Aug 18, 2023 11:49 pm**

Grandpa wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 11:38 pm
Gumboot wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:31 pm
assfly wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 12:06 pm

I also think there is a bit of this.

From the few Super Rugby games I watched, I couldn't believe the high shots that refs were letting go.
From the many Supe games I watched, I don't believe that's remotely true.

Examples, please.
ALB in the Super Final... should have been a straight red...

Agreed, but a YC and off-field review is hardly a good example of a ref letting it go.

NPR

Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle

Re: Law question- Farrell tackle