Probably to be expected... I guess his past transgressions didn't come into it? Which seems odd...
Decision in full
A Six Nations statement reads: "Following an initial Disciplinary Committee hearing for England number 10 Owen Farrell, who received a red card during the Summer Nations Series match between England and Wales on Saturday 12th August, World Rugby lodged a formal appeal against the Committees’ decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow, appealing for the red card to be upheld.
“The Appeal Committee met on Tuesday 22nd August and unanimously determined that in the original hearing the Disciplinary Committee should have considered the attempt of the player to wrap his opponent in the tackle. This point did not feature in the original decision.
“The failure to attempt to wrap was judged to be an important element of the Foul Play Review Officer’s (FPRO) report and had led to an upgrading of the referee’s yellow card to a red card during the match.
“As this element did not feature in the original decision, the Appeal Committee decided it was in the interests of justice to hear the case afresh on that key point alone, which included hearing from the player.
“Following the review by the Appeal Committee of this key element, it was determined that the FPRO was correct in his decision leading to the red card. The Appeal Committee subsequently determined that the tackle was ‘always illegal’.
“When applying the terms of World Rugby’s Head Contact Process, no mitigation can be applied to a tackle that is ‘always illegal’.
“The Appeal Committee therefore considered that the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow card had been manifestly wrong, which led to the Disciplinary Committee’s decision being overturned, the appeal brought by World Rugby being allowed, and the red card upheld.
“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.
“The Appeal Committee accepted submissions on behalf of the player that the Ireland v England match on 19 August 2023, for which the player was voluntarily stood down would be included as part of the sanction. Therefore, the suspension applies to the following matches:
Ireland v England 19 August 2023
England v Fiji 26 August 2023
England v Argentina 9 September 2023
England v Japan 17 September 2023
Probably to be expected... I guess his past transgressions didn't come into it? Which seems odd...
Decision in full
A Six Nations statement reads: "Following an initial Disciplinary Committee hearing for England number 10 Owen Farrell, who received a red card during the Summer Nations Series match between England and Wales on Saturday 12th August, World Rugby lodged a formal appeal against the Committees’ decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow, appealing for the red card to be upheld.
“The Appeal Committee met on Tuesday 22nd August and unanimously determined that in the original hearing the Disciplinary Committee should have considered the attempt of the player to wrap his opponent in the tackle. This point did not feature in the original decision.
“The failure to attempt to wrap was judged to be an important element of the Foul Play Review Officer’s (FPRO) report and had led to an upgrading of the referee’s yellow card to a red card during the match.
“As this element did not feature in the original decision, the Appeal Committee decided it was in the interests of justice to hear the case afresh on that key point alone, which included hearing from the player.
“Following the review by the Appeal Committee of this key element, it was determined that the FPRO was correct in his decision leading to the red card. The Appeal Committee subsequently determined that the tackle was ‘always illegal’.
“When applying the terms of World Rugby’s Head Contact Process, no mitigation can be applied to a tackle that is ‘always illegal’.
“The Appeal Committee therefore considered that the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow card had been manifestly wrong, which led to the Disciplinary Committee’s decision being overturned, the appeal brought by World Rugby being allowed, and the red card upheld.
“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.
“The Appeal Committee accepted submissions on behalf of the player that the Ireland v England match on 19 August 2023, for which the player was voluntarily stood down would be included as part of the sanction. Therefore, the suspension applies to the following matches:
Ireland v England 19 August 2023
England v Fiji 26 August 2023
England v Argentina 9 September 2023
England v Japan 17 September 2023
Hang on, he gets 2 weeks off for 'acceptance of foul play' plus biscuits etc
But
Surely if he had accepted it was foul play, the red card should have always stood? And not been overturned? Or did he only accept that it was foul, but not foul enough for a red? In which case that surely shouldn't be enough contrition to allow the ban to be reduced by 2 games. Trying to understand the mental gymnastics here.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:00 pm
by Insane_Homer
ASMO wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 7:56 pm
That is a complete cop out
Agreed and fully expected.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:02 pm
by Ymx
This part is a lie isn’t it
minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character,
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
by Paddington Bear
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:05 pm
by Grandpa
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:02 pm
This part is a lie isn’t it
minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character,
What do they consider bad character?
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:06 pm
by inactionman
That satisfies just about no-one. Good work all.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:07 pm
by ASMO
This is world rugby trying to please everyone and ultimately pleasing no one
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:02 pm
This part is a lie isn’t it
minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character,
What do they consider bad character?
Well he didn’t kill any babies. Is that good enough?
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:14 pm
by Slick
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.
I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:15 pm
by ASMO
Tokenism at its best, they shit the bed on this one and it will come back to back them on the arse
Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:02 pm
This part is a lie isn’t it
minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character,
What do they consider bad character?
He's the England captain. As if we'd appoint a wanker or an obstructive type to lead us.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.
I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks
Spot on. I’m neither a Farrell lover or Farrell hater and just hope there’s not another pile on
World Rugby need to get their shit sorted on the whole process
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 pm
by inactionman
What's the bettings he high-shots someone in his first game back?
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.
I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks
The bit that concerns me is, didn't he get a four match ban in Feb for the very same thing?
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.
I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks
The bit that concerns me is, didn't he get a four match ban in Feb for the very same thing?
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
No. That’s not true at all. It is not ever reduced if they accept it as just a yellow card. It’s only reduced if they accept the red card. It’s not rocket science as to why this would be the case.
Maybe he did in this hearing however, unlike the other one.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought as well.
I’m OK with this to be honest, shame we had to go through all this bollocks
The bit that concerns me is, didn't he get a four match ban in Feb for the very same thing?
Yep. No deterrent involved for someone’s fourth ban for the same offence.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
No. That’s not true at all. It is not ever reduced if they accept it as just a yellow card. It’s only reduced if they accept the red card. It’s not rocket science as to why this would be the case.
Maybe he did in this hearing however, unlike the other one.
However, showing remorse. He picked a fight.
Good character
World Rugby changed the guidance / regs. It used to be if you didn't accept it was a red card and contested you couldn't get the mitigation for admitting guilt (eg Zander Fagerson's first ban he got a week longer as he argued the red).
Now acceptance of guilt only requires admitting committing an act of foul play - players don't have to accept that that act of foul play met the red card threshold. Gives a free pass to dispute the red and try and get it down to a yellow so I think we will see more and more contested red cards and citings.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:44 pm
by Slick
inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 pm
What's the bettings he high-shots someone in his first game back?
Particularly as it’s against those wee Japanese guys
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
No. That’s not true at all. It is not ever reduced if they accept it as just a yellow card. It’s only reduced if they accept the red card. It’s not rocket science as to why this would be the case.
Maybe he did in this hearing however, unlike the other one.
However, showing remorse. He picked a fight.
Good character
Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the committee agreed a four-match suspension.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:48 pm
by topofthemoon
Feels a wee bit fudgy. A player with 3 previous bans not getting any increase in their ban for aggravating factors.
So, for example, Grant Gilchrist gets the first red of his 12 year, 248-match career and gets a 3-week ban and a 4th time offender only gets 1 week longer.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:48 pm
by _Os_
inactionman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:19 pm
What's the bettings he high-shots someone in his first game back?
Exactly, he's a liability.
I have not looked through the Bok route beyond the quarters. But anyone meeting England will want Farrell to start, refs will be watching him closely, there's a non-zero chance he gets carded and makes everything easier. Pumas would've preferred him starting I bet.
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:03 pm
He accepted it was foul play, he didn’t accept it was a red, this is clear and obvious and let’s not pretend it isn’t
No. That’s not true at all. It is not ever reduced if they accept it as just a yellow card. It’s only reduced if they accept the red card. It’s not rocket science as to why this would be the case.
Maybe he did in this hearing however, unlike the other one.
However, showing remorse. He picked a fight.
Good character
World Rugby changed the guidance / regs. It used to be if you didn't accept it was a red card and contested you couldn't get the mitigation for admitting guilt (eg Zander Fagerson's first ban he got a week longer as he argued the red).
Now acceptance of guilt only requires admitting committing an act of foul play - players don't have to accept that that act of foul play met the red card threshold. Gives a free pass to dispute the red and try and get it down to a yellow so I think we will see more and more contested red cards and citings.
That makes absolutely zero sense, given anything adjudged a yellow results in zero ban.
Are you absolutely certain? You have any links to this?
The phrase foul play is used in both yellow and red card situations.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 8:56 pm
by Ymx
Found an interesting link on the ban/sanctions, based on type of foul play
Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:01 pm
Two weeks off for good character. Was he telling jokes or something? Took his chariddy work into account?
Really good lawyer
As I furiously threw some dirty underpants into the wash basket on hearing the news, it occurred to me that these good character judgements are made in the context of an appeal room setting... not the real world. Rugby could do with copping onto its public image over these cases, not what some beak argues from within his perfumed coiffure.
Re: Law question- Farrell tackle
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:12 pm
by Sandstorm
EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 9:09 pm
As good as normal men like me could have expected with you fucking losers on the mike
Your hysteria this quarter is probably why the IRB is taking the side of these dangerous players and letting them off each time.
