RWC warmup - England v Wales
-
And, what's worse, they are counting the match he missed against Ireland as one of the matches that count toward his suspension. Quite bizarre how this can happen when he missed selection for that game despite being completely free from suspension and available for selection at the time the game took place.
@Higgins I think this is standard practice, so I'm less annoyed by the backdating than the fact that another panel has managed to pull some imaginary mitigation out of their arses.
Entry level is 6 weeks - if anything it should have gone up from there, due to "bad character" (plenty of previous), lack of remorse and pleading innocent.
Let's just say I'm sure that a Tongan, Namibian or Chilean wouldn't have got away with 4.
-
@Higgins I think this is standard practice, so I'm less annoyed by the backdating than the fact that another panel has managed to pull some imaginary mitigation out of their arses.
Entry level is 6 weeks - if anything it should have gone up from there, due to "bad character" (plenty of previous), lack of remorse and pleading innocent.
Let's just say I'm sure that a Tongan, Namibian or Chilean wouldn't have got away with 4.
@GibbonRib said in RWC warmup - England v Wales:
Let's just say I'm sure that a Tongan, Namibian or Chilean wouldn't have got away with 4.
Moala got mitigated down to 5 weeks from 10 weeks entry point (which he is now appealing)
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC warmup - England v Wales:
Let's just say I'm sure that a Tongan, Namibian or Chilean wouldn't have got away with 4.
Moala got mitigated down to 5 weeks from 10 weeks entry point (which he is now appealing)
-
@KiwiMurph have to admit I haven't seen that one, I should go look it up.
Not sure if you're saying this in agreement or disagreement with my comment?
@GibbonRib said in RWC warmup - England v Wales:
@KiwiMurph have to admit I haven't seen that one, I should go look it up.
Not sure if you're saying this in agreement or disagreement with my comment?
Disagreement. Moala got 50% mitigation reduction.
Farrell got 33% mitigation reduction (due to his prior record so not eligible for tackle school).
-
@GibbonRib said in RWC warmup - England v Wales:
@KiwiMurph have to admit I haven't seen that one, I should go look it up.
Not sure if you're saying this in agreement or disagreement with my comment?
Disagreement. Moala got 50% mitigation reduction.
Farrell got 33% mitigation reduction (due to his prior record so not eligible for tackle school).
@KiwiMurph correction: Farrell got a 100% reduction - he was, astoundingly, found to have not committed a red card offence.
It took a big backlash from the global rugby community, including plenty of English press and former players, and an appeal from WR for him to actually receive any sanction, and even then he got a 33% reduction.
-
Farrell was initially given a six-match ban, reduced to four due to his “acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character”.
At least the two games missed are England's toughest, Argentina and Japan
@Machpants I hope you're right that they're the toughest, as that would mean England not making it to the quarters
-
There are two unsavoury issues here; firstly the Farrell tackle. As has been said, plenty of previous, been to tackle school (failed the exam surely) and no acceptance of guilt. To me, that is all quite clear and ok if he wants to fight the accusation then that’s his prerogative and he takes the consequences. The secondary issue of the handling of this is to me a much bigger issue and reeks of either incompetence or arrogant corruption followed by a quick realisation that the optics aren’t good , so we’ll get the proverbial wet bus ticket out. Now, none of that secondary issue is down to Farrell and he should not get stick for the way it was handled.
In the end he got off a bit lightly, but that’s not without precedence. How he got there is and has shown up the judiciary, WR and the whole idea of player welfare in a terrible light.
And all that just as the legal claims are gaining traction…
-
There are two unsavoury issues here; firstly the Farrell tackle. As has been said, plenty of previous, been to tackle school (failed the exam surely) and no acceptance of guilt. To me, that is all quite clear and ok if he wants to fight the accusation then that’s his prerogative and he takes the consequences. The secondary issue of the handling of this is to me a much bigger issue and reeks of either incompetence or arrogant corruption followed by a quick realisation that the optics aren’t good , so we’ll get the proverbial wet bus ticket out. Now, none of that secondary issue is down to Farrell and he should not get stick for the way it was handled.
In the end he got off a bit lightly, but that’s not without precedence. How he got there is and has shown up the judiciary, WR and the whole idea of player welfare in a terrible light.
And all that just as the legal claims are gaining traction…
@Catogrande said in RWC warmup - England v Wales:
In the end he got off a bit lightly, but that’s not without precedence. How he got there is and has shown up the judiciary, WR and the whole idea of player welfare in a terrible light.
And all that just as the legal claims are gaining traction…
Can't help thinking the only way around this is to ban tackling above the waist/chest, WR and everyone else knows it but they can't quite bite the bullet - big hits being a bit of a gladiatorial spectacle
-
@Catogrande said in RWC warmup - England v Wales:
In the end he got off a bit lightly, but that’s not without precedence. How he got there is and has shown up the judiciary, WR and the whole idea of player welfare in a terrible light.
And all that just as the legal claims are gaining traction…
Can't help thinking the only way around this is to ban tackling above the waist/chest, WR and everyone else knows it but they can't quite bite the bullet - big hits being a bit of a gladiatorial spectacle
@Victor-Meldrew said in RWC warmup - England v Wales:
@Catogrande said in RWC warmup - England v Wales:
In the end he got off a bit lightly, but that’s not without precedence. How he got there is and has shown up the judiciary, WR and the whole idea of player welfare in a terrible light.
And all that just as the legal claims are gaining traction…
Can't help thinking the only way around this is to ban tackling above the waist/chest, WR and everyone else knows it but they can't quite bite the bullet - big hits being a bit of a gladiatorial spectacle
Please god no
It's a simple fix
On field decision, bunker review
If it's red it goes to disciplinary hearing where it's a 6 match ban no reductions for admitting guilt or good behaviour
Back in front of the panel for the same offence, 6 plus 2 matches for every previous visit
If those had been in place then Farrell - a repeat offender who hasn't changed his tackle technique or attitude - would have received 6 weeks back in January and 8 weeks this time
If that doesn't force change, then nothing will
-
The previous panel were fucking incompetent, it was always a shoulder charge, not tackle. Therefore no mitigation allowed, useless Ozzie fluffybunnies
@Machpants said in RWC warmup - England v Wales:
The previous panel were fucking incompetent, it was always a shoulder charge, not tackle. Therefore no mitigation allowed, useless Ozzie fluffybunnies
Agreed. It seems to me that as a matter of consequence the three witless muppets constituting the panel should never be involved in rugby judicial processes again. Clearly couldn't understand what everyone else could read and understand regarding the law and process flowchart, and see with their own eyes when watching the footage. To have been hoodwinked into rescinding the card demonstrates they aren't fit for the role. Utterly, incomprehensibly, fucking useless.
Almost as bad is the appeal panel tying themselves in knots to let Farrell the Fuckstick an avenue into the RWC. Amateurs running (and ruining) a professional game.
