England - the build-up and winning the World Cup at a canter

First topic message reminder :

Here we go again.....

Far too cogent there, Jimbo!  This is still just a Rugby board and you bring in philosophy, politics, parenting, jurisprudence, and character.  That's a lot for me, it's only 6:00 in the morn.....

If Farrell doesn't go to the RWC I won't mind. I don't think I am alone in thinking that either.

Well its Ireland next so i guess we'll see how the others show their leadership without Mr Farrell.

I tend to think of rugby disciplinary panels like quantum mechanics. They underpin everything, but if anyone says they actually understand it, then they obviously don't (to paraphrase someone famous).

Farrell will get anywhere from 3 nanoseconds to the lifetime of the universe.

Coming in with a slightly more cynical view... World Rugby have already seen one of their box office stars go down this week and won't be wanting to lose another big name from their big event. I expect his ban to be coming in at the lighter end of the scale so that he can still play a role in the tournament. Whether or not WR will have been having a quiet word with the panel behind the scenes to make this happen, I wouldn't possibly like to suggest such a thing!

Perhaps, however, if Farrell does get banned for the RWC I feel it might be to England's advantage because George Ford is streets ahead of everyone else at fly half and yet such is Farrell's personality, capital in the bank and leadership value no coach will drop him.

I think Farrell likely will be banned and Ford will step up and England will look far more cohesive in attack as a result.

TheMildlyFranticLlama wrote:Coming in with a slightly more cynical view... World Rugby have already seen one of their box office stars go down this week and won't be wanting to lose another big name from their big event. I expect his ban to be coming in at the lighter end of the scale so that he can still play a role in the tournament. Whether or not WR will have been having a quiet word with the panel behind the scenes to make this happen, I wouldn't possibly like to suggest such a thing!

Is Farrell a box office star globally? If say DuPont was looking at a ban or Kolisi maybe but anyway I sincerely hope and trust a players popularity/fame/infamy/whatever has absolutely no bearing but maybe I'm being naive.

Politics wins out?  Or good call?

Owen Farrell cleared and has red card overturned

Surprised, to say the least.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/08/15/owen-farrell-cleared-red-card-overturned-england-world-cup/

Hhahahaha

I tell you what, rugby has got a real problem if they don't see a tackle like that as foul play!

Unbelievable decision!

Collapse2005 wrote:Perhaps, however, if Farrell does get banned for the RWC I feel it might be to England's advantage because George Ford is streets ahead of everyone else at fly half and yet such is Farrell's personality, capital in the bank and leadership value no coach will drop him.

I think Farrell likely will be banned and Ford will step up and England will look far more cohesive in attack as a result.

So back to only seeing Ford at FH with Farrell killing every move at 12

Wasn't expecting this outcome!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66512745

He's been cleared to play, red overturned!!

Even as a diehard Eng fan I think that is wrong call.

The only consistency is the inconsistencies

I did not have "red card overturned" on the menu of options.

Unlike some I didn't want Farrell out of the world cup completely, but this outcome seems to be an insult to the many ex-players now struggling to remember the names of close family members. I'm really really disappointed.

doctor_grey wrote:Politics wins out?  Or good call?

Owen Farrell cleared and has red card overturned

Surprised, to say the least.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2023/08/15/owen-farrell-cleared-red-card-overturned-england-world-cup/

I did not see that coming - it's a bit of an indictment for the bunker system!

Bet Slade is gutted.

What a bizarre decision. On closer inspection is this a case of the massive disparity as to how we view these challenges in the NH vs SH? 3 panel members from Australia in complete contradiction with the laws and interpretation.

Well I can safely predict if there is a HYS opened on BBC for this it will explode. The abuse and accusations of bias/bribes/whatever will be never ending.
Our little Irish chum will write same post around 20 times I'd think.

mountain man wrote:Well I can safely predict if there is a HYS opened on BBC for this it will explode. The abuse and accusations of bias/bribes/whatever will be never ending.
Our little Irish chum will write same post around 20 times I'd think.

And the only guy to defend it will be the pretend ref. Truly an awful decision!

Can't see how that can be defended, it wasn't intentional I'm sure but there was head contact. Bashem went off for HIA etc.

Nonsense decision. The panel said the involvement of England's Jamie George in the tackle caused Basham to change direction. Jamie George barely touches Basham at all and even if he did to any meaningful degree Farrell is still high and reckless. The disciplinary panel really have dropped the ball here.

mountain man wrote:Can't see how that can be defended, it wasn't intentional I'm sure but there was head contact. Bashem went off for HIA etc.

Sit back and watch. He'll then point back to the correct red card in the womens WC final to justify another of his mistakes. virtual tenner.

Been saying for a while but WR really need to have a much more proactive approach to ensuing that random unions can't go off the beaten track in terms of dishing out or rescinding on their own wants rather than the rules.

Aren’t they changing the tackle laws in amateur rugby? No point now. Terrible decision.

Collapse2005 wrote:Nonsense decision. The panel said the involvement of England's Jamie George in the tackle caused Basham to change direction. Jamie George barely touches Basham at all and even if he did to any meaningful degree Farrell is still high and reckless. The disciplinary panel really have dropped the ball here.

That is a scenario which definitely happens from time to time. I don't believe it is what happened here. Maybe they just want to handicap England at the RWC because they know that Farrell will be played every minute.

Collapse2005 wrote:Nonsense decision. The panel said the involvement of England's Jamie George in the tackle caused Basham to change direction. Jamie George barely touches Basham at all and even if he did to any meaningful degree Farrell is still high and reckless. The disciplinary panel really have dropped the ball here.

Completely agree. Watched it back in slow mo after seeing the reasoning - he doesn't really dip at all, and Farrell is going up into the tackle. If George hadn't shoved him a bit towards Farrell surely he would have hit him even higher. This is messed up.

I'm not sure he said the red for Thompson shouldn't have been more a case of NZ player should have been red carded for later tackle.
On that I agree.

However, maybe he does think Thompson wasn't red, I can't remember.

Farrell has a knack for getting off scott free. He's done it again! Send out the wrong message, as usual.

Anyone giving odds on Farrell getting a red v Ireland for the exact same thing?

Better against Ireland and ban to actually follow than a few weeks later against Argentina (from a rugby point of view, no offence meant to the Irish folks).

Oh boy!

With this decision and Sexton's light treatment that actually suited Ireland well I have come to the conclusion that the panels are made up of one man.
Andy Farrell

Ah here now, that is a priceless decision if I have ever seen one.

History of bad tackles
History of intentional shots
History of tackling school to reduce ban

All mean nothing, Its Jamie George's fault that Farrell hit like that...

Absolute joke and stinks of brown envelopes...

Pete330v2 wrote:With this decision and Sexton's light treatment that actually suited Ireland well I have come to the conclusion that the panels are made up of one man.
Andy Farrell

eirebilly_01 wrote:Ah here now, that is a priceless decision if I have ever seen one.

History of bad tackles
History of intentional shots
History of tackling school to reduce ban

All mean nothing, Its Jamie George's fault that Farrell hit like that...

Absolute joke and stinks of brown envelopes...

I mean to be fair, the first 3 points do make no difference in terms of judging this tackle and never do.

I don't think I have ever hesrd this forum quite so united on any one issue before.

I have not seen or heard anyone condoning the decision, even on twitter!

'The IJC added that the foul play review officer should not be criticised for making the decision.

"The committee believes it is important to record that no criticism is made of the foul play review officer nor, would any be warranted," its statement continued.

"Unlike the foul play review officer, the committee had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the head contact process."'


This just seems absolutely staggering. Don't criticise the team of people (not just the one it states here) as this panel had more time (to get the wrong decision themselves) though they had 10 mins (in private too).

Collapse2005 wrote:Anyone giving odds on Farrell getting a red v Ireland for the exact same thing?

Well there's certainly no incentive for Farrell to modify his technique now after this ruling. It's laughable.

BigGee wrote:I don't think I have ever hesrd this forum quite so united on any one issue before.

I have not seen or heard anyone condoning the decision, even on twitter!

Surely I've seen us all agree Karl Dickson is awful?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Ah here now, that is a priceless decision if I have ever seen one.

History of bad tackles
History of intentional shots
History of tackling school to reduce ban

All mean nothing, Its Jamie George's fault that Farrell hit like that...

Absolute joke and stinks of brown envelopes...

I mean to be fair, the first 3 points do make no difference in terms of judging this tackle and never do.

Pretty sure they do somewhat. Maybe I am totally mistaken?

Do they not reduce bans based on previous records?
Do they not reduce bans on admittance of guilt?
Do they not reduce bans upon acceptance of tackle school attendance?

eirebilly_01 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Ah here now, that is a priceless decision if I have ever seen one.

History of bad tackles
History of intentional shots
History of tackling school to reduce ban

All mean nothing, Its Jamie George's fault that Farrell hit like that...

Absolute joke and stinks of brown envelopes...

I mean to be fair, the first 3 points do make no difference in terms of judging this tackle and never do.

Pretty sure they do somewhat. Maybe I am totally mistaken?

Do they not reduce bans based on previous records?
Do they not reduce bans on admittance of guilt?
Do they not reduce bans upon acceptance of tackle school attendance?

Yes, yes and yes. But not considered at all when assessing the tackle.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Ah here now, that is a priceless decision if I have ever seen one.

History of bad tackles
History of intentional shots
History of tackling school to reduce ban

All mean nothing, Its Jamie George's fault that Farrell hit like that...

Absolute joke and stinks of brown envelopes...

I mean to be fair, the first 3 points do make no difference in terms of judging this tackle and never do.

Pretty sure they do somewhat. Maybe I am totally mistaken?

Do they not reduce bans based on previous records?
Do they not reduce bans on admittance of guilt?
Do they not reduce bans upon acceptance of tackle school attendance?

Yes, yes and yes. But not considered at all when assessing the tackle.

Ok, then I stand corrected, thanks

Just does not seem a correct decision for me.

I though Doc had posted a joke link at first ... difficult to see how they came to this decision ...

eirebilly_01 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

eirebilly_01 wrote:Ah here now, that is a priceless decision if I have ever seen one.

History of bad tackles
History of intentional shots
History of tackling school to reduce ban

All mean nothing, Its Jamie George's fault that Farrell hit like that...

Absolute joke and stinks of brown envelopes...

I mean to be fair, the first 3 points do make no difference in terms of judging this tackle and never do.

Pretty sure they do somewhat. Maybe I am totally mistaken?

Do they not reduce bans based on previous records?
Do they not reduce bans on admittance of guilt?
Do they not reduce bans upon acceptance of tackle school attendance?

Yes, yes and yes. But not considered at all when assessing the tackle.

Ok, then I stand corrected, thanks

Just does not seem a correct decision for me.

Absolute shocking decision!

doctor_grey wrote:Far too cogent there, Jimbo!  This is still just a Rugby board and you bring in philosophy, politics, parenting, jurisprudence, and character.  That's a lot for me, it's only 6:00 in the morn.....

I never had you down as a prop, doc.

I have watch the incident again.
I can't see at full speed or slow motion any significant difference George made to Farrell's shoulder charge
It's just totally bizarre.
It's a decision straight from the "just let the boys play" brigade

When i first saw the replay and slow mo, I thought that George caused him to drop a little, but having seen it a few times after there is no mitigation at all.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:When i first saw the replay and slow mo, I thought that George caused him to drop a little, but having seen it a few times after there is no mitigation at all.

As I've seen pointed out too, no mitigation can actually be applied to it as due to a tucked arm he was never in a position to make a tackle. Panel was inept to be brutally honest.

Big wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Nonsense decision. The panel said the involvement of England's Jamie George in the tackle caused Basham to change direction. Jamie George barely touches Basham at all and even if he did to any meaningful degree Farrell is still high and reckless. The disciplinary panel really have dropped the ball here.

Completely agree.  Watched it back in slow mo after seeing the reasoning - he doesn't really dip at all, and Farrell is going up into the tackle.  If George hadn't shoved him a bit towards Farrell surely he would have hit him even higher.  This is messed up.

There is a drop in height but it's not by much and under the IRB framework you can't get mitigation if the act is always foul play. Dropping your shoulder and tucking your arm makes it always foul play so the drop in height really should be irrelevant.

This has really torpedoed England's chances of getting out of the group.

Farrell tucks his arm, so it should be seen as an intentional act of foul play, as he makes no attempt to make a legal tackle, so it's a red card regardless.

It's just utterly mad