Rugby World Cup general discussion
-
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
I say this in all seriousness.
I’d prefer you as the judge than the muppets they have milking the system now.
-
I slowed down the landing of the Canadian player and I've changed my mind: the Canadian player did land on (the side of) his neck/head. It was dangerous and I think the mid-range starting point is correct.
This is a fraction of a second after the landing; lower part of his body still off the ground, clear contact of neck/head with ground.
-
So many other people have got lengthy bans for tackles and offenses less than Farrell's (which they've always justified with "player safety is the most important thing") yet he gets away with this scott-free.
Not even a red card when these days your shoulder just needs to pass air next to someone's head to get a red card.
Angus T knocked himself out unintentionally in high tackle and got red carded and suspended.
Literally unbelievable...
-
I slowed down the landing of the Canadian player and I've changed my mind: the Canadian player did land on (the side of) his neck/head. It was dangerous and I think the mid-range starting point is correct.
This is a fraction of a second after the landing; lower part of his body still off the ground, clear contact of neck/head with ground.
@Stargazer i think you were right the first time personally
arm and shoulder fit first, yes above horizontal etc so needs some punishment but didn't land straight on the head, i mean if the head is never allowed to touch the ground then we're in real trouble
-
The Rugby Football Union insists it is listening, reiterating just this week a commitment to lower tackle height, with the intention of eliminating up to 4,000 head injuries a year. And yet it has just enlisted a barrister to argue, successfully, that Farrell should be exonerated for smashing into Basham’s head with such force that the Welsh back-rower failed a concussion protocol. What, pray, is the aim here? Is it truly to champion the cause of player welfare? Or is it simply to make sure that good old Owen makes it to Marseille on time?
-
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
-
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
And if not on places like the Fern, where else? Ridiculous
-
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
Easier to just move on.
If everyone had that mentality, nothing would ever change. The stupidity and injustice of decisions like these should be discussed everywhere.
Yep, I not arguing about people discussing it ,why we come into forums. When I said it easier to move on, I meant in my world. Remember when the Tom Banks head clash was overturned last year, was (in my opinion) as unfair as this one, Just I put it down to a crazy decision and moved on is all I meant.
I have read it's all because he plays for England( by an all Aussie panel), it's racist, someone on take etc. Which are almost as crazy as the decision.I actually watching the match as I posting this, and will say again, I don't see how it was not upheld though.
-
someone just reminded me Angus Ta'avao got three weeks for an accident head clash, just negligence compared to OF's deliberate shoulder charge
-
someone just reminded me Angus Ta'avao got three weeks for an accident head clash, just negligence compared to OF's deliberate shoulder charge
@Kiwiwomble said in Rugby World Cup news:
someone just reminded me Angus Ta'avao got three weeks for an accident head clash, just negligence compared to OF's deliberate shoulder charge
it only took 7 days for that decision to be ignored completely
-
I would even suggest as a multiple repeated offence that would even get a ban in league, not his first rodeo
-
They have set a dangerous precedent now for the world cup just around the corner,
Any high tackles and people will be expecting leniency using this as the most recent example ,
Can of worms
-
George Moala got given a ten week ban.
https://x.com/rugbyinsideline/status/1691447849089908738?s=46
-
-
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
@Chris-B said in Rugby World Cup news:
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
He could have been the next OJ
-
@Chris-B said in Rugby World Cup news:
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
He could have been the next OJ
@Nevorian said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Chris-B said in Rugby World Cup news:
Pays to have good lawyers.
I googled Owen and discovered Andy Farrell is a humourless and selfish bastard.
He could've called his son Owen John and left things wide open, but noooo - Owen Andrew.
He could have been the next OJ
It's very disappointing!
There could have been a parade of white broncos through Paris!
-
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
@Dan54 said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Stargazer said in Rugby World Cup news:
@Dan54 Yep, two judiciary panels and two different offences.
Farrell - dangerous tackle - Law 9.13 - mid-range: suspension of 6 games if guilty
Moala - tip tackle - Law 9.18 - mid-range: suspension of 10 games if guiltyThe thing is, Farrell by all means looked guillty and because of the head contact, should have a mid-range starting point, but what Moala did probably didn't warrant a mid-range starting point, because the Canadian player didn't land dangerously (as far as I can see) and they should have applied a low-range starting point of 6 games. I can't remember Moala being a repeat offender, so he'd ended up with a 3-week ban. Farrell is a repeat offender but gets off the hook every damn time, so they'll probably consider him having a blank sheet, too.
Result would and should have (at least) been 3 weeks suspension for both, but we end up with Moala getting 5 and Farrell zero.
Mate I not arguing about what I thought was right or wrong, made it clear I thought he should go for at least 6 weeks. Merely saying all the teeth gnashing a waste of time, it is not a WR cock up, I think it a judiciary one. And even comparing Moal's sentence and Farrell is like hitting yourself, one was found guilty and one was found not guilty, probably because (like in a lot of law courts) he had a good lawyer. Easier to just move on.
Who elects / assembles the disciplinary panel?
The Government of the country in which the incident took place?
Or World Rugby?
