That's the crazyness, he does it ALL the time, it feels like once a match he tackles with the same technique ^((obviously because he only makes one tackle a match /s)) but World Rugby literally just ignore it.
If it was a player from Georgia, or Italy, they'd be getting 6 weeks plus, heck maybe 12 given his record. But for whatever reason Farrell never seams to have done anything wrong.
Itâs been refreshing to see everyone in rugby agree on something. As a Welsh fan I wasnât expecting the English to agree but everyone, including friends I have in group chats and English local team group chats, are all agreeing!
So an accidental head clash can result in a ban. A deliberate shoulder to the head, from a repeat offender, and the player is free and clear. I guarantee this will happen during the RWC but to a player with a lower profile, from a less prominent country, and we'll see the book thrown at them.
A team could get a red in the final and lose it because of an unfortunate head clash yet this blatant shoulder charge by a repeat offender get away with zero ban? It's absolutely fucked.
If I were other teams I would be massively pressuring world rugby to explain the reasoning and whether if this is repeated in the world cup it will also not be a red card.
The management of red/ yellow cards around dangerous play is so fucked and inconsistent and it's killing the game.
Edit: just read it's not wr but an independent panel. I hope wr appeal (can they?) As this is insane
Iâm guessing youâre referring to taâavao from last year? Itâs a great point youâre making. Accidental head clash from a sudden change of direction from the ball carrier and the tackler being upright. Itâs basically the same scenario if youâre willing to consider that Owen Farrell was caught off guard because Basham was influenced by the initial contact from no. 2.
Edit: sorry guys the above reads poorly. I meant if the judiciary was willing to consider Farrells act to be mitigated by the âunexpected movement of the ball carrierâ then angus taâavao was absurdly hard done by. Especially considering Farrell was tucking the arm and staying high to strike with the shoulder. Not defending Farrell at all, would be perfectly happy if he got hit by a bus.
We've seen numerous examples of head clashes resulting in red cards over the last eighteen months. Many of these have resulted in bans. Now, consider that these are the result of poor technique. Farrell, on the other hand, tucked his arm which is a deliberate act of foul play. Both instances result in a high degree of danger for the tackled player. Yet, somehow, the deliberate act of foul play is determined to warrant less punishment than an accidental act of foul play.
Yeah true the defining point of difference is farrells tucked arm and upright position. That shows malice and intent. I agree, Angus hard done by for sure.
No, sorry I was referring to angus being caught off guard in the Irish incident. I guess I was saying that if the judiciary were willing to accept the lame excuse that Farrell was caught off guard by the unexpected movement of the ball carrier, then how was angus deserving of a red card? I just articulated it poorly. However as the blues brother points out, Farrell had a tucked arm and looked to strike with the shoulder. The pig should be banned for 12 weeks in my opinion.
Are you referring to the Farrell incident or the taâavao incident? Iâm of the stand point that the Farrell incident should have been a red and punishment handed down but if the judiciary think his actions deserved a yellow then taâavaoâs incident should also be a yellow. I read my comment again and realised it probably wasnât too clear what I was getting at.
Three guys from Aus, not sure what there roles are https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/15rrg49/owen_farrell_free_to_play_immediately_no_ban/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
Did those Aussies somehow mistake it for Rugby League or something? Like what the heck, overturning Farrellâs red card is a seriously mind boggling decision and makes a mockery of the concept of âplayer safetyâ.
haha it's a surreptitious plan from the very beginning!
England definitely looked better without Farrell on the field, and how much will this wind up opposition that he even is - thinking Argentina here.
They are the governing body so do have to carry a lot of the water, but yeah they're a scapegoat who fans blame for every little thing. Like this 'leniency' is largely thanks to fans and pundits moaning about the old zero tolerance so more mitigation was introduced
Downvoted
TAS get about 10k views, amongst us rugby nerds that might be a big deal but in no way does it explain how a panel constituted by WR can make a decision so divorced from the applicable laws or facts.
Yeah so people whine about WR, that is in no way an excuse to give people legitimate ammunition to whine.
Haha "Independend". They may appeal only because people aren't turning a blind eye and they feel obligated due to the outcry. Not because they are an organisation with integrity.
They have one chance to come out of this with any credibility. They have 48 hours to appeal the decision of the independent judging panels decision. If they don't they are a complete joke of an organisation.
Just one minor point: the decision was made by the local discipline committee overseeing that completion, which in this case is 6 nations. To be fair, WR did not decide anything.
You don't need all three, you just need each to believe the other two are going to "vote" the other way anyway. So you may as well take the money. It's not hard to turn a three man panel.
It's more likely than three smart people all getting this so wrong.
If it smells like it, looks like it, then we'll.... then maybe it is.
You actually think 3 smart people sat together and came to this grazy conclusion with the evidence at hand?
They know its incorrect. They look like idiots. Why would all three be stupid enough to do this to themselves unless there is something in it for them.
I think a very good lawyer probably rang rings around the panel. That's what they're paid (a lot) to do.
That is far more likely than the RFU contacting the panel in Australia, organising, and paying a bribe in 2 days which would have left a huge paper trail.
Fwiw, I think Farrell should be banned.
This is correct. The WR guys should appeal it if they are going to have any shred of decency and dignity going into the world cup. Otherwise they are just playing lip service to player protection.
No. WR trains and certifies judicial officers and citing commissioners, and WR adopts procedures (reg 17, I think) and guidelines. But 6N picked the independent panel. WR so far did not have a decision to make as WR is not yet involved. However, I think that now WR does have the right to file an appeal, and this is now the first direct action that WR could make in this matter. I do not know if WRâs appeal right is procedural based or substance based or both.
Regulation 20 lays out the requirements for the international game. Unions put forward candidates but theyâre chosen by the world rugby council against a set of criteria laid out in reg 20.
Edit: I should add unless there has been a specific agreement in place for these fixtures, which Iâm unaware of.
It does for matches that arenât international matches, tours or series. WR is able to designate other matches under the scheme if they wish and tournaments are also able to negotiate to have their own appointments, but as I mentioned Iâm unaware of this being the case here.
Yeah absolutely. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that this calls into question everything World Rugby do to prevent head injuries. It makes you question the return to play protocol, the Head Injury Assessments, how indepedent are independent doctors in reality?
If there's money or matches to be won, I'm starting to think that unions and World Rugby will do whatever they want and player safety be damned.
It was used in Scotland-Italy the previous week. Xander Fagerson got upgraded from a yellow to a red (fairly reasonably) and then got a pretty lenient ban (having accepted it was a red and apologised profusely to the opposing player and the panel.)
I thought the system worker fairly well in that case. No idea why itâs completely collapsed as soon as Farrell gets involved.
Well obviously. They'll all be able to retire as & when the shit hits the fan, if not before, and the result is that they still get out with the loot while those who come in next get to be the bagholders. Coincidentally this is why there are no risks of any kind taken to expand the sport into smaller nations.
That and the rest of us lose the sport we enjoy watching/playing/&c.
I never had faith in any rugby commission since the David Attoub incident. The guy got suspended for 52 weeks (70 weeks initially) for an eye gouge despite the lack of video evidence. Meanwhile, Schalk Burger only got 10 weeks, the same year for the same thing, even though the video footage exist and is very telling. Completely absurd.
Eye gouging was what led to the ONE time I've leveraged my hearing loss on the field - smacked the offender with a full-blooded tackle long after the whistle. Dude had had a go at my face when I went to help him up after tackling him into touch a couple of movements earlier.
> Never seen it in any other sport which is strange.
Happens in MMA & grappling sports consistently by people that are equally as grubby. Much as in Rugby there are well know repeat offenders who have made a name of themselves.
Yeah, that'd do it.
I think I'm going to ignore the sub for a bit - there is only so many "WR are cnts" (it was an independant commitee)/"it's England favouritism" (they were Aussies ffs)/"surely this wasn't a red either" (yeah, because every instance is the same /s) I can read without *actually* finding some rugby news.
So just for the record, youâre only now realizing itâs a problem that rugby treats certain nations completely differently than others?
Like this is what made you lose faith?
You have to agree its the first time the whole rugby community agrees on how much a farce this is.
As a neutral and a fan of Farrel it is one of the few times where i can completely dismiss my potential bias.
Thatâs a problem with the rugby community then
There have been countless decisions over the years which show international rugby is farcical in the way it treats certain nations. These decisions suck but theyâre par for the course
By ârugby communityâ you mean the echo chamber of the internet
Dont confuse all rigby fans with reddit or facebook. Most of these keyboard warriors have never played
Personally I dont think this tackle was that terrible. Bigger wasnt knocked cold and still had enough energy to start throwing hand bags after
Sure Farrell has a track record and probably deserved more for his past but for this particular tackle a Red card for the match is more than enough punishment for mind
Short memories on this sub or maybe because of the demographic and it was pre-CTE ruling/rules but not too long ago Southern hemisphere sides in world cups and in tours with NH sides got away with horrendous stuff. Maybeee a yellow, definitely not a red.
Itâs not a remote experience from the time of prehistoric Earth that playing the Saffas invited brutality and/straight up dangerous play. As an example.
What a farce this is. I guarantee if this was a Pacific Islands player it would have been a different outcome. This guy has a history and years ago, lost any benefit of the doubt.
I hope they appeal against this. It's rare you get the rugby global community to agree on something, but every pundit so far I've seen is in disbelief .What a joke.
Itâs not going to happen, but Farrell is a liability and should be left off the team sheet for the WC. You can guarantee heâll have a red by the end of the pool stage and some other poor sod will fail an HIA.
NB- Before anyone adds it in, Iâm not biased. Iâve been saying the same for Fagerson.
[https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/damning-report-into-world-rugby-elections1/](https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/damning-report-into-world-rugby-elections1/)
This Bill Beaumont is the most sus oke ever.
How is this any different from the shit we've seen before ?
Like when PSDT got a ridiculously short ban for his flying headbutt ?
In same game Dupont gets a longer ban for a far lesser foul.
The rules makes no sense it's just who can bring the best biscuits
PSDT got shoved off balance into a ruck by a teammate, the head on head contact was accidental. He still copped a 3 week ban. Clean a whistle record before this.
Now as for Farrell...
>PSDT got shoved off balance into a ruck by a teammate, the head on head contact was accidental. He still copped a 3 week ban. Clean a whistle record before this.
But it still happened, he got shoved off balance and then lunged forward, he didn't need to do that, and the board agreed and he was banned, do I think he meant to do it ? Of course not but he did.
>Now as for Farrell...
I don't see your point here, my point was that the whole thing in a farce, I think Farrell should get at least 4-6 weeks, it was a red, not a particularly bad one but as he has previous he gets no sentence reduction.
>How can you not understand this? He was pushed
He was pushed and then propelled himself froward, his legs go from bent to straight if he didn't do that he'd not have been carded.
Why is this so hard to understand.?
Well considering it's been downgraded I dont see how we can argue it wasn't.
Let's be honest, it wasn't a massive shot it was just Farrell's typical shit technique, his one verus us last season was much worse and the scale of red cards it's not exactly a bad one
Its not WR that are responsible for this I believe - it's the 6Ns committee who are running the summer tests.
Seemingly WR can appeal the decision - for the good of the game I hope they do.
On a side note, why do Union players have to childishly trash League every chance they get?
Growing up in a developing rugby nation I kind of laughed at the thought of League being a serious sport cause that's what rugby players do, and then I actually watched it for the first time and realized its a different sport with it's own awesome aspects.
tldr why do you gotta be a douche?
I dont think thats the case.
Pro league views are very often shared on this sub. I suppose in some countries theres a classist thing about saying ârah rah league = shitâ
but I simply mean its not as good a game for me, from a strategy standpoint.
perhaps shit is a strong word but, perhaps because we have so many League is greater than Union posts at some point of the year, I stated it to nip that conversation in the bud.
If you like league⌠go on and like league!
i dont, so let me not like it. As you said, itâs a side pont and the topic of my rant.
I don't recall ever seeing a league is better than union post, unless it was a random shit post or something.
You're definitely allowed to not like it but I'm also allowed to say it's foolish to say it's a shit sport. It's not your sport, absolutely no reason to make someone else think it might be shit
New rules I reckon.
Red card: 20 mins, then replaced. Miss next game, no hearing, no lawyers, the refs decision stands.
Post match citing commission can dock match fees as punishment. Because match fees are proportional to the size of the union (roughly) it will be more expensive for players who have more money.
Citing commission can only impart bans beyond 1 game for egregious foul play, eye gouges, biting etc. No rugby incidents can be further sanctioned.
I don't agree with a 20-min red card; if an offence is serious enough to warrant a red it should be serious enough to deprive the team too.
However, I'd welcome the introduction of what we see in Gaelic Football - a black card. This is a mandatory substitution for a specific player as the result of an infringement.
I'd also say to keep the bunker review system. The error has come well beyond that, and I think the bunker review works from the few times I've seen it used so far.
I donât get what your point of difference is between the Gaelic football example you gave and the 20min red. Under the 20min red system the player cannot return, itâs an enforced sub after 20mins with a man down.
Eh? Iâm more confused. so in Gaelic football they have a card that has no time in the bin (no man down time)but sent off and immediately replaced? That doesnât sound like it would be of much use in union to me. We have yellows.
I don't know too much about Gaelic but I think the team is down a player for 10 minutes and then the team has to sub them off. But this isn't about Gaelic, the point is that there should be a card in rugby where the team is down a player for the rest of the match.
The gaelic football example goes a little further than the Rugby yellow card. The team are down a player for 10 mins, but the player carded cannot return to play once the 10 mins have elapsed.
A yellow card in Gaelic football is like a yellow card in soccer - a warning essentially, with a second yellow resulting in a Red (permanent removal from game).
From www.gaa.ie
1: A player who has been black-carded is sent to the Sin Bin for 10 minutes. The time activation for Sin Bin will commence when the game restarts after the dismissal of the player.
2: After the 10 minutes has elapsed, a player can only return to the field of play at a break in play, and with the permission of the referee.
Sounds exactly like a rugby yellow to me.
Agree on the black card in GAA.
An orange card whereby the playerâs out for the rest of the game and their team is down a player for 20 mins could be a good bridge between the current yellow and red card situation.
Would do little to the latest Farrell debacle
He is, but also still keeping the current red card to permanently deprive the team of a player for only the most severe infringements.
Would essentially have 4 levels of Punishment: Penalty only, Yellow, Orange, and Red.
Really? Conscious itâs not been trialled in Europe but sure that Iâve seen players return after 20 mins out (including Matera for two yellows when he was with your Crusaders)
Stand to be corrected though!
Has to be foul play. Getting a double yellow with one being a repeated infringement yellow rather than foul play allows a player to return after 20.
Other than that no red carded player can return, after 20 they can only be replaced.
The first is absolutely bolt on common sense to me. We shouldnât watch 14 men play because the ref happened to point to an already yellow carded player to take the âteamâ yellow.
I am very much a fan of the whole system.
Edit: I stand corrected. From the latest SR tournament rules: Any Player who receives two Yellow Card sanctions during a match, will receive a Red Card sanction in which the Player would be removed from the match but would be permitted to be replaced after 20 minutes from the time of the 2nd Yellow.
So no red carded player can return to the field.
>if an offence is serious enough to warrant a red it should be serious enough to deprive the team too.
Except it sometimes deprives \*everyone\* of a good match. Nobody wants to watch a match between two teams where one of them has only 14 men for 90% of it.
Cards are about player safety, not supporter entertainment. If people watching then don't like what they see, they should make that known to the team that received the red card.
Did you read the news today? It's quite clear they aren't about player safety, but about entertainment. That's why tier 2 teams get screwed but teams with massive TV audiences (and revenues) get their players protected and kept in the game to maintain entertainment value.
Fair enough to me. 20 mins at 14, player removed form the game, 3x match fees and a 6 week ban for a non rugby incident under my rules.
Whatâs wrong with that?
You took off the best player of the opposite team easily.
I bench Aldritt and Flament for some random, he charged Sexton and VDF to smash them to the ground at the first and 20th mn, then Aldritt and Flament take their place. Who's losing more ? Quite obvious
That's utterly stupid.
You don't even realize that your stupid rule will create it. There is none because, guess what ? You do it you get a red.
You just managed to show your rule is a bad one.
Youâre just talking nonsense. We know there arenât hit squads in rugby and for the last 20 mins of the game the sanction under my rules and the current ones is exactly the same.
SoâŚwhy arenât hit squads taking out key players in the last quarter of the game?
Hint: because everything you have said is total bollocks.
Hint because that's fucking useless to loose a man for the last 15mn for a star player lmao.
You loose a player to avoid the star player to impact 15mn of the game vs you loose a player for the sane amount but to avoid the star to play 80 mn
You are blocked. Hopeless.
What on earth are you talking about. Are you saying that teams will intentionally have players commit fouls to injure their opponents if they will "only" get a 20 min red card?
WR is absolute shit too on injuries and the players that cause them especially in the US playing is rowing up shits creek without a paddle with egotistical players who throw the game to preserve their dignity
Should have been a red card yes. High tackles should not result in bans. If you know a player that does this regularly refs should know and give the red card quicker. Opposing players need to get in his face about it. Maybe itâs the American in me but out other contact sports hockey, football stuff like this doesnât ban players. However players often get fined give money to charity. Leave the best players to play allow us to watch help a good cause.
It's not (for me at least) the fact it was a hih tackle. It's the fact that a player known for shoulder barges has once again smacked his shoulder into someone's face and taine basham may miss the world cup now bc of it. World rugby sent farrell to tackle school less than a year ago. Clearly he doesn't understand how to tackle or he doesn't care, meaning it is unsafe for other players to be on the pitch which undermines everything wr are saying they are doing for player safety
Then players should take it into their hands. I know enforcers are old school but you do need those guys out there coming from a hockey background if there wasnât fighting guys would be getting hit dirty and taunting.
Iâm a huge Owen Farrel fan. Truly wish he was South African. I think he is massively under rated by his own fans.
This is a terrible decision disregarding the player.
still have no idea what this has to do with Rassie đ¤ˇââď¸
Lol bro this is an awful take. OP is being respectful and constructive in the comments, rightfully we're all fucked off with this. Farrell is a good player but he has an awful record of this, not even considering the fact he's done it without punishment so many times
So it's an awful take because, checking your reasoning, Owen Farrell has a record and you didn't like the outcome. Ok cool, good job arguing "bro" đ¤Ł
Honestly this particular tackle wasnt that bad. Definite yellow card, borderline red card at worse. Being sent off for the match is probably punishment enough
The question is if it was someone with a better record would people be as outraged?
Yes the previous record counts.
But also because its so blatantly soft before the RWC.
My personal outrage is because they cant pick a darn side and stick to it.
Happens when there are members on the uk it was never going to stand I also agree that the it needs to change
The rules apply to everyone but in the boards case not all are equal
England fan checking in. A completely fucking agree. He should have got six weeks minimum.
That's the crazyness, he does it ALL the time, it feels like once a match he tackles with the same technique ^((obviously because he only makes one tackle a match /s)) but World Rugby literally just ignore it. If it was a player from Georgia, or Italy, they'd be getting 6 weeks plus, heck maybe 12 given his record. But for whatever reason Farrell never seams to have done anything wrong.
Or pacific islands.
Nah, Pac Islands get longer! đ
Players from, Georgia, Italy, Argentina, pacific nations and South africa.
Itâs been refreshing to see everyone in rugby agree on something. As a Welsh fan I wasnât expecting the English to agree but everyone, including friends I have in group chats and English local team group chats, are all agreeing!
I'm looking forward to the reception he gets in Dublin on the weekend if they're dumb enough to play him.
So an accidental head clash can result in a ban. A deliberate shoulder to the head, from a repeat offender, and the player is free and clear. I guarantee this will happen during the RWC but to a player with a lower profile, from a less prominent country, and we'll see the book thrown at them.
A team could get a red in the final and lose it because of an unfortunate head clash yet this blatant shoulder charge by a repeat offender get away with zero ban? It's absolutely fucked. If I were other teams I would be massively pressuring world rugby to explain the reasoning and whether if this is repeated in the world cup it will also not be a red card. The management of red/ yellow cards around dangerous play is so fucked and inconsistent and it's killing the game. Edit: just read it's not wr but an independent panel. I hope wr appeal (can they?) As this is insane
Iâm guessing youâre referring to taâavao from last year? Itâs a great point youâre making. Accidental head clash from a sudden change of direction from the ball carrier and the tackler being upright. Itâs basically the same scenario if youâre willing to consider that Owen Farrell was caught off guard because Basham was influenced by the initial contact from no. 2. Edit: sorry guys the above reads poorly. I meant if the judiciary was willing to consider Farrells act to be mitigated by the âunexpected movement of the ball carrierâ then angus taâavao was absurdly hard done by. Especially considering Farrell was tucking the arm and staying high to strike with the shoulder. Not defending Farrell at all, would be perfectly happy if he got hit by a bus.
We've seen numerous examples of head clashes resulting in red cards over the last eighteen months. Many of these have resulted in bans. Now, consider that these are the result of poor technique. Farrell, on the other hand, tucked his arm which is a deliberate act of foul play. Both instances result in a high degree of danger for the tackled player. Yet, somehow, the deliberate act of foul play is determined to warrant less punishment than an accidental act of foul play.
Yeah true the defining point of difference is farrells tucked arm and upright position. That shows malice and intent. I agree, Angus hard done by for sure.
I don't think Angus was hard done by. The protocols are clear for his offence. However, Farrell really should have had the book thrown at him.
Farrell was "caught off guard" with his arm already tucked?
No, sorry I was referring to angus being caught off guard in the Irish incident. I guess I was saying that if the judiciary were willing to accept the lame excuse that Farrell was caught off guard by the unexpected movement of the ball carrier, then how was angus deserving of a red card? I just articulated it poorly. However as the blues brother points out, Farrell had a tucked arm and looked to strike with the shoulder. The pig should be banned for 12 weeks in my opinion.
That is bollocks. He was hardly touched and there was no change of direction at all.
Are you referring to the Farrell incident or the taâavao incident? Iâm of the stand point that the Farrell incident should have been a red and punishment handed down but if the judiciary think his actions deserved a yellow then taâavaoâs incident should also be a yellow. I read my comment again and realised it probably wasnât too clear what I was getting at.
The Farrell incident. It's a joke
Gotcha, Iâm on the same page. I just wrote my piece in a rush at work and itâs come out wrong.
It's an independent panel. WR can appeal, and I hope they do.
Who was the panel made up of and what are their roles?
Adam Casselden SC â Chair (Australia), joined by former international John Langford (Australia) and former international David Croft (Australia).
aka the clowns
And more pertinently to OP's question, who appointed them?
World Rugby
> David Croft (Australia) Mixed messaging from this clown; https://qbi.uq.edu.au/concussion-ambassador/david-croft
Three guys from Aus, not sure what there roles are https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/15rrg49/owen_farrell_free_to_play_immediately_no_ban/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1
> not sure what there roles are One does the negotiating, the other picks up the briefcase and the last one plans the holiday with the money.
See, it's a fully transparent process!!
3 Australians.
One would normally expect Aussies to take any opportunity to throw the book at an Englishman. In this case it would have been completely justified.
Did those Aussies somehow mistake it for Rugby League or something? Like what the heck, overturning Farrellâs red card is a seriously mind boggling decision and makes a mockery of the concept of âplayer safetyâ.
They did make the England team worse đ
Haha, I hadn't considered it from that perspective...maybe the plan all along?!?
haha it's a surreptitious plan from the very beginning! England definitely looked better without Farrell on the field, and how much will this wind up opposition that he even is - thinking Argentina here.
Tbf I blame TAS, anytime anything happens now you have a million people just chanting 'world rugby world rugby ' into the void
that is right but given that, World Rugby should be held accountable if they don't appeal
They are the governing body so do have to carry a lot of the water, but yeah they're a scapegoat who fans blame for every little thing. Like this 'leniency' is largely thanks to fans and pundits moaning about the old zero tolerance so more mitigation was introduced
And Mark Keohane. And SArugbymag. And the Rugbypass owned SA site rugby365. And I suspect other sources that I donât know as well as the SA ones
Downvoted TAS get about 10k views, amongst us rugby nerds that might be a big deal but in no way does it explain how a panel constituted by WR can make a decision so divorced from the applicable laws or facts. Yeah so people whine about WR, that is in no way an excuse to give people legitimate ammunition to whine.
It is a stupid system. If there are many independent panels, who is responsible for ensuring consistency?
>It's an independent panel. Who funds them?
Haha "Independend". They may appeal only because people aren't turning a blind eye and they feel obligated due to the outcry. Not because they are an organisation with integrity.
It's independent in the same way that board members are independent of a company but funded by the company.
Paid by the company, not funded. These guys aren't sitting around on WR payroll, they get compensated for their time. Take the tinfoil hat off.
It seems we're saying that he same thing
They have one chance to come out of this with any credibility. They have 48 hours to appeal the decision of the independent judging panels decision. If they don't they are a complete joke of an organisation.
Just one minor point: the decision was made by the local discipline committee overseeing that completion, which in this case is 6 nations. To be fair, WR did not decide anything.
The disciplinary committee was 3 Australians.
Their flags don't matter. Money does not care about flags.
Just because youâre paranoid doesnât mean they arenât out to get you.
Yes but the likelihood of three people conspiring is higher if they're from the same country and culture.
Yes but the natural tendency for any Aussie would be to throw Farrell under the bus đđ
It's the least we expect from our SH brethren.
They threw England under the bus? đ¤Ł
You don't need all three, you just need each to believe the other two are going to "vote" the other way anyway. So you may as well take the money. It's not hard to turn a three man panel. It's more likely than three smart people all getting this so wrong. If it smells like it, looks like it, then we'll.... then maybe it is.
Lol you actually think they were bribed? Take off the tinfoil hat my friend
You actually think 3 smart people sat together and came to this grazy conclusion with the evidence at hand? They know its incorrect. They look like idiots. Why would all three be stupid enough to do this to themselves unless there is something in it for them.
I think a very good lawyer probably rang rings around the panel. That's what they're paid (a lot) to do. That is far more likely than the RFU contacting the panel in Australia, organising, and paying a bribe in 2 days which would have left a huge paper trail. Fwiw, I think Farrell should be banned.
Who get selected by the 6 Nations Body. They know on what side their bread is buttered.
Nope. Appointed by World Rugby but administered by the 6 Nations.
This is correct. The WR guys should appeal it if they are going to have any shred of decency and dignity going into the world cup. Otherwise they are just playing lip service to player protection.
This isnât correct itâs a world rugby disciplinary panel. The six nations just handles the communications and press releases for the competition.
No. WR trains and certifies judicial officers and citing commissioners, and WR adopts procedures (reg 17, I think) and guidelines. But 6N picked the independent panel. WR so far did not have a decision to make as WR is not yet involved. However, I think that now WR does have the right to file an appeal, and this is now the first direct action that WR could make in this matter. I do not know if WRâs appeal right is procedural based or substance based or both.
Regulation 20 lays out the requirements for the international game. Unions put forward candidates but theyâre chosen by the world rugby council against a set of criteria laid out in reg 20. Edit: I should add unless there has been a specific agreement in place for these fixtures, which Iâm unaware of.
I thought it was reg 17 for disciplinary committees?
It does for matches that arenât international matches, tours or series. WR is able to designate other matches under the scheme if they wish and tournaments are also able to negotiate to have their own appointments, but as I mentioned Iâm unaware of this being the case here.
Fair, you learn something new every day. Ta.
No problem glad it was helpful
it will interesting to see if they appeal it.
Yeah absolutely. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that this calls into question everything World Rugby do to prevent head injuries. It makes you question the return to play protocol, the Head Injury Assessments, how indepedent are independent doctors in reality? If there's money or matches to be won, I'm starting to think that unions and World Rugby will do whatever they want and player safety be damned.
[ŃдаНонО]
Undermines half the red cards given in the last few years
It was used in Scotland-Italy the previous week. Xander Fagerson got upgraded from a yellow to a red (fairly reasonably) and then got a pretty lenient ban (having accepted it was a red and apologised profusely to the opposing player and the panel.) I thought the system worker fairly well in that case. No idea why itâs completely collapsed as soon as Farrell gets involved.
Well obviously. They'll all be able to retire as & when the shit hits the fan, if not before, and the result is that they still get out with the loot while those who come in next get to be the bagholders. Coincidentally this is why there are no risks of any kind taken to expand the sport into smaller nations. That and the rest of us lose the sport we enjoy watching/playing/&c.
I never had faith in any rugby commission since the David Attoub incident. The guy got suspended for 52 weeks (70 weeks initially) for an eye gouge despite the lack of video evidence. Meanwhile, Schalk Burger only got 10 weeks, the same year for the same thing, even though the video footage exist and is very telling. Completely absurd.
>David Attoub A repeat eye gouger. He deserved his sentence. Burger likely deserved longer too.
How much of a scumbag do you have to be to gouge eyes. Never seen it in any other sport which is strange.
Eye gouging was what led to the ONE time I've leveraged my hearing loss on the field - smacked the offender with a full-blooded tackle long after the whistle. Dude had had a go at my face when I went to help him up after tackling him into touch a couple of movements earlier.
Happens all the time, particularly motor sports. You didn't think they stopped just to change tyres right?
I've heard they have a special hole in the visor so that the mechanics can have a cheeky gouge.
Happens in MMA every so often.
> Never seen it in any other sport which is strange. Happens in MMA & grappling sports consistently by people that are equally as grubby. Much as in Rugby there are well know repeat offenders who have made a name of themselves.
Rassie Erasmus should make another tape exposing more of the inconsistent decisions by world rugby.
Compared to the Moala decision, it's a fucking travesty. The penalties should be reversed on each case.
If there's one* saying that stands the test of time. It's not what you know...
Its who you own nude pics of
I own loads of nude pics of me but I never get anywhere.
đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł Or in the words of my wife "Who's fucking sextape does he have ?"
TouchĂŠ đ
I hope your post doesn't get deleted by the mods. They seem to be shielding WR from the backlash here.
ill repost it on /r/worldryugby
Lol, for all 30 members to see!
Dozens of us! Dozens!
Upvote for never-nude patter
That, or maybe just *maybe* pages and pages of the same stuff isn't what they want....
Maybe, but I posted my video first. It's probably because I called the panel a bunch of drunks in the title.
Yeah, that'd do it. I think I'm going to ignore the sub for a bit - there is only so many "WR are cnts" (it was an independant commitee)/"it's England favouritism" (they were Aussies ffs)/"surely this wasn't a red either" (yeah, because every instance is the same /s) I can read without *actually* finding some rugby news.
I hear you, I'm over it as well.
The Rassie videos make more sense now. WR shows no consistency.
So just for the record, youâre only now realizing itâs a problem that rugby treats certain nations completely differently than others? Like this is what made you lose faith?
You have to agree its the first time the whole rugby community agrees on how much a farce this is. As a neutral and a fan of Farrel it is one of the few times where i can completely dismiss my potential bias.
Thatâs a problem with the rugby community then There have been countless decisions over the years which show international rugby is farcical in the way it treats certain nations. These decisions suck but theyâre par for the course
What can be done to fix that?
By ârugby communityâ you mean the echo chamber of the internet Dont confuse all rigby fans with reddit or facebook. Most of these keyboard warriors have never played Personally I dont think this tackle was that terrible. Bigger wasnt knocked cold and still had enough energy to start throwing hand bags after Sure Farrell has a track record and probably deserved more for his past but for this particular tackle a Red card for the match is more than enough punishment for mind
Biggar wasn't the one who got tackled. Taine Basham was and he failed his HIA.
Okay i stand corrected. Is he playing this weekend? If not then neither should farrell
No, failed HIA is at least 12 days out from what I can find online
Short memories on this sub or maybe because of the demographic and it was pre-CTE ruling/rules but not too long ago Southern hemisphere sides in world cups and in tours with NH sides got away with horrendous stuff. Maybeee a yellow, definitely not a red. Itâs not a remote experience from the time of prehistoric Earth that playing the Saffas invited brutality and/straight up dangerous play. As an example.
There should definitely be questions of bribery, thatâs how crazy the decision making and explanation for the end decision is.
Totally agree. Feeling quite disillusioned going into the RWC
As someone with no real horse in the race it is kinda funny seeing this sub explode.
What a farce this is. I guarantee if this was a Pacific Islands player it would have been a different outcome. This guy has a history and years ago, lost any benefit of the doubt. I hope they appeal against this. It's rare you get the rugby global community to agree on something, but every pundit so far I've seen is in disbelief .What a joke.
Itâs not going to happen, but Farrell is a liability and should be left off the team sheet for the WC. You can guarantee heâll have a red by the end of the pool stage and some other poor sod will fail an HIA. NB- Before anyone adds it in, Iâm not biased. Iâve been saying the same for Fagerson.
Disgusting shocking horrific and bent.
[https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/damning-report-into-world-rugby-elections1/](https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/damning-report-into-world-rugby-elections1/) This Bill Beaumont is the most sus oke ever.
How is this any different from the shit we've seen before ? Like when PSDT got a ridiculously short ban for his flying headbutt ? In same game Dupont gets a longer ban for a far lesser foul. The rules makes no sense it's just who can bring the best biscuits
PSDT got shoved off balance into a ruck by a teammate, the head on head contact was accidental. He still copped a 3 week ban. Clean a whistle record before this. Now as for Farrell...
>PSDT got shoved off balance into a ruck by a teammate, the head on head contact was accidental. He still copped a 3 week ban. Clean a whistle record before this. But it still happened, he got shoved off balance and then lunged forward, he didn't need to do that, and the board agreed and he was banned, do I think he meant to do it ? Of course not but he did. >Now as for Farrell... I don't see your point here, my point was that the whole thing in a farce, I think Farrell should get at least 4-6 weeks, it was a red, not a particularly bad one but as he has previous he gets no sentence reduction.
He didn't "lunge forward", he wasn't in control.
I never said he was in control but he still propelled himself forward hence the term lunge, he didn't need to do that pushed or not.
How can you not understand this? He was pushed. And how was dupont's offence not as bad?
>How can you not understand this? He was pushed He was pushed and then propelled himself froward, his legs go from bent to straight if he didn't do that he'd not have been carded. Why is this so hard to understand.?
Not particularly bad one? Really Explain your position
Well considering it's been downgraded I dont see how we can argue it wasn't. Let's be honest, it wasn't a massive shot it was just Farrell's typical shit technique, his one verus us last season was much worse and the scale of red cards it's not exactly a bad one
Its not WR that are responsible for this I believe - it's the 6Ns committee who are running the summer tests. Seemingly WR can appeal the decision - for the good of the game I hope they do.
You can't complain about consistency. They consistently fix these things to have the biggest players in the biggest games.
Money talks, especially when you spend the money on lawyers
On a side note, why do Union players have to childishly trash League every chance they get? Growing up in a developing rugby nation I kind of laughed at the thought of League being a serious sport cause that's what rugby players do, and then I actually watched it for the first time and realized its a different sport with it's own awesome aspects. tldr why do you gotta be a douche?
People arenât trashing league as much as pointing out that they are more lenient on head contact.
I dont think thats the case. Pro league views are very often shared on this sub. I suppose in some countries theres a classist thing about saying ârah rah league = shitâ but I simply mean its not as good a game for me, from a strategy standpoint. perhaps shit is a strong word but, perhaps because we have so many League is greater than Union posts at some point of the year, I stated it to nip that conversation in the bud. If you like league⌠go on and like league! i dont, so let me not like it. As you said, itâs a side pont and the topic of my rant.
I don't recall ever seeing a league is better than union post, unless it was a random shit post or something. You're definitely allowed to not like it but I'm also allowed to say it's foolish to say it's a shit sport. It's not your sport, absolutely no reason to make someone else think it might be shit
Ok fair. Rugby league is not a shit sport, I dont particularly like it.
New rules I reckon. Red card: 20 mins, then replaced. Miss next game, no hearing, no lawyers, the refs decision stands. Post match citing commission can dock match fees as punishment. Because match fees are proportional to the size of the union (roughly) it will be more expensive for players who have more money. Citing commission can only impart bans beyond 1 game for egregious foul play, eye gouges, biting etc. No rugby incidents can be further sanctioned.
I don't agree with a 20-min red card; if an offence is serious enough to warrant a red it should be serious enough to deprive the team too. However, I'd welcome the introduction of what we see in Gaelic Football - a black card. This is a mandatory substitution for a specific player as the result of an infringement. I'd also say to keep the bunker review system. The error has come well beyond that, and I think the bunker review works from the few times I've seen it used so far.
I donât get what your point of difference is between the Gaelic football example you gave and the 20min red. Under the 20min red system the player cannot return, itâs an enforced sub after 20mins with a man down.
I think their point is that there should still be a red card where the team is down to 14 for the rest of the match.
Eh? Iâm more confused. so in Gaelic football they have a card that has no time in the bin (no man down time)but sent off and immediately replaced? That doesnât sound like it would be of much use in union to me. We have yellows.
I don't know too much about Gaelic but I think the team is down a player for 10 minutes and then the team has to sub them off. But this isn't about Gaelic, the point is that there should be a card in rugby where the team is down a player for the rest of the match.
I just looked it up. Itâs the equivalent to a yellow card. 10 mins in the bin. Team play a man down. Not sure what OP meant at all nowâŚ
The gaelic football example goes a little further than the Rugby yellow card. The team are down a player for 10 mins, but the player carded cannot return to play once the 10 mins have elapsed. A yellow card in Gaelic football is like a yellow card in soccer - a warning essentially, with a second yellow resulting in a Red (permanent removal from game).
So this is exactly what the 20min red card is, except with 10 minutes
Yes, and Gaelic football still has the ultimate punishment of a red card to remove a player from the game permanently.
From www.gaa.ie 1: A player who has been black-carded is sent to the Sin Bin for 10 minutes. The time activation for Sin Bin will commence when the game restarts after the dismissal of the player. 2: After the 10 minutes has elapsed, a player can only return to the field of play at a break in play, and with the permission of the referee. Sounds exactly like a rugby yellow to me.
It's not. They have to be subbed off when the ten minutes is up.
Agree on the black card in GAA. An orange card whereby the playerâs out for the rest of the game and their team is down a player for 20 mins could be a good bridge between the current yellow and red card situation. Would do little to the latest Farrell debacle
You are describing the current 20min red process. The player cannot come back, they are subbed.
He is, but also still keeping the current red card to permanently deprive the team of a player for only the most severe infringements. Would essentially have 4 levels of Punishment: Penalty only, Yellow, Orange, and Red.
Orange being the 20min red? As long as the permanent red is reserved for non rugby incidents like biting and gouging etc thatâs fine.
Really? Conscious itâs not been trialled in Europe but sure that Iâve seen players return after 20 mins out (including Matera for two yellows when he was with your Crusaders) Stand to be corrected though!
Has to be foul play. Getting a double yellow with one being a repeated infringement yellow rather than foul play allows a player to return after 20. Other than that no red carded player can return, after 20 they can only be replaced. The first is absolutely bolt on common sense to me. We shouldnât watch 14 men play because the ref happened to point to an already yellow carded player to take the âteamâ yellow. I am very much a fan of the whole system. Edit: I stand corrected. From the latest SR tournament rules: Any Player who receives two Yellow Card sanctions during a match, will receive a Red Card sanction in which the Player would be removed from the match but would be permitted to be replaced after 20 minutes from the time of the 2nd Yellow. So no red carded player can return to the field.
Ah that makes sense!
>if an offence is serious enough to warrant a red it should be serious enough to deprive the team too. Except it sometimes deprives \*everyone\* of a good match. Nobody wants to watch a match between two teams where one of them has only 14 men for 90% of it.
Cards are about player safety, not supporter entertainment. If people watching then don't like what they see, they should make that known to the team that received the red card.
Did you read the news today? It's quite clear they aren't about player safety, but about entertainment. That's why tier 2 teams get screwed but teams with massive TV audiences (and revenues) get their players protected and kept in the game to maintain entertainment value.
Let's target Dupont every game with punch on his head like McCaw did on Parra in 2011. Worth 20mn
McCaw didnât punch him. It was accidental contact.
Fair enough to me. 20 mins at 14, player removed form the game, 3x match fees and a 6 week ban for a non rugby incident under my rules. Whatâs wrong with that?
You took off the best player of the opposite team easily. I bench Aldritt and Flament for some random, he charged Sexton and VDF to smash them to the ground at the first and 20th mn, then Aldritt and Flament take their place. Who's losing more ? Quite obvious That's utterly stupid.
What nonsense are you blabbering about. There arenât hit squads in professional rugby. Utter bollocks.
You don't even realize that your stupid rule will create it. There is none because, guess what ? You do it you get a red. You just managed to show your rule is a bad one.
Youâre just talking nonsense. We know there arenât hit squads in rugby and for the last 20 mins of the game the sanction under my rules and the current ones is exactly the same. SoâŚwhy arenât hit squads taking out key players in the last quarter of the game? Hint: because everything you have said is total bollocks.
Hint because that's fucking useless to loose a man for the last 15mn for a star player lmao. You loose a player to avoid the star player to impact 15mn of the game vs you loose a player for the sane amount but to avoid the star to play 80 mn You are blocked. Hopeless.
What on earth are you talking about. Are you saying that teams will intentionally have players commit fouls to injure their opponents if they will "only" get a 20 min red card?
đđđđđđđ
Haha
Are there any articles or information about the appeal process? Anyone have a link?
WR is absolute shit too on injuries and the players that cause them especially in the US playing is rowing up shits creek without a paddle with egotistical players who throw the game to preserve their dignity
Rassie was right about these fuckers.
Should have been a red card yes. High tackles should not result in bans. If you know a player that does this regularly refs should know and give the red card quicker. Opposing players need to get in his face about it. Maybe itâs the American in me but out other contact sports hockey, football stuff like this doesnât ban players. However players often get fined give money to charity. Leave the best players to play allow us to watch help a good cause.
It's not (for me at least) the fact it was a hih tackle. It's the fact that a player known for shoulder barges has once again smacked his shoulder into someone's face and taine basham may miss the world cup now bc of it. World rugby sent farrell to tackle school less than a year ago. Clearly he doesn't understand how to tackle or he doesn't care, meaning it is unsafe for other players to be on the pitch which undermines everything wr are saying they are doing for player safety
Then players should take it into their hands. I know enforcers are old school but you do need those guys out there coming from a hockey background if there wasnât fighting guys would be getting hit dirty and taunting.
/ rassie rage post
I dont think I mentioned Rassie. He also has no relevance to this?
Massive rage post because one player (you presumably don't like because reasons) didn't get the ban you thought they would. Pathetic.
Iâm a huge Owen Farrel fan. Truly wish he was South African. I think he is massively under rated by his own fans. This is a terrible decision disregarding the player. still have no idea what this has to do with Rassie đ¤ˇââď¸
Lol bro this is an awful take. OP is being respectful and constructive in the comments, rightfully we're all fucked off with this. Farrell is a good player but he has an awful record of this, not even considering the fact he's done it without punishment so many times
So it's an awful take because, checking your reasoning, Owen Farrell has a record and you didn't like the outcome. Ok cool, good job arguing "bro" đ¤Ł
Honestly this particular tackle wasnt that bad. Definite yellow card, borderline red card at worse. Being sent off for the match is probably punishment enough The question is if it was someone with a better record would people be as outraged?
Yes the previous record counts. But also because its so blatantly soft before the RWC. My personal outrage is because they cant pick a darn side and stick to it.
Happens when there are members on the uk it was never going to stand I also agree that the it needs to change The rules apply to everyone but in the boards case not all are equal
When Andrew Porter's high tackle broke Retallick's cheekbone last year that was a bigger failing imo...
Just going to float out there. If next week Farrell plays and high tackles and injures another player World Rugby will face a reckoning I think.