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

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 09 Aug 2023, 5:05 am

First topic message reminder :

Here we go again.....

by formerly known as Sam Tue 15 Aug 2023, 3:11 pm

The tackle framework just for reference here.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/26

by Big Tue 15 Aug 2023, 3:14 pm

Seems pretty clear to me formerly known as Sam, but what do we know Headscratch

by doctor_grey Tue 15 Aug 2023, 3:30 pm

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

I am in and out of the OR today. Took a sneak peek at the sport section of the Telegraph and I swore I must have caught a whiff of nitrous oxide......

UFB. How a sport loses all credibility in a matter of moments.

by Heaf Tue 15 Aug 2023, 3:40 pm

It must be the Aussies' way of trying to ruin England's chances ...

by mountain man Tue 15 Aug 2023, 4:02 pm

In a way I'm disappointed, not that I want Farrell banned although how that was deemed not a red card only the panel know but it means he'll now play so we won't find out how team would be with say Ford at 10, Manu 12, Lawrence/Marchant 13. We still might but Farrell obviously casts a long shadow rightly or wrongly over every Eng squad so game will be dictated by him as much as Borthwick etc.

by Yoda Tue 15 Aug 2023, 4:42 pm

Oh boy this will only redouble efforts of ABEs to be more unpleasant. Stonewall red in my mind, went for a rugby league hello and smashed a guy in the chops. No mitigation what's so ever. This is as bad as umaga dropping BOD on his head and walking away without sanction. This whole thing will ensure we will no longer be under the radar but now have a massive target on our backs.

On a separate note is taine basham alright? Has he been ruled out of the world cup?

by Unclear Tue 15 Aug 2023, 4:59 pm

Big wrote:Seems pretty clear to me formerly known as Sam, but what do we know

I tell you, it's just like quantum mechanics - despite what everyone else saw it just never happened.

by doctor_grey Tue 15 Aug 2023, 5:06 pm

doctor_grey wrote: All of this is before the politics of Farrell enter the fray...

In an odd way, I actually predicted the Farrell situation would take a weird turn. Never expected this, however.

by Dollar Bill Tue 15 Aug 2023, 5:25 pm

Reckon Argentina players should all turn up for the anthems wearing massive crash helmets with Farrell’s name on them.

by doctor_grey Tue 15 Aug 2023, 5:33 pm

I really wonder what must be going on at World Rugby HQ, wherever that is. Assuming they are not completely tone deaf, they might have heard that most of the Rugby world is shocked, embarrassed, and/or angry. They got this one wrong, and to save face, save credibility, they are going to need to do something. I don't think they can brass this out.

by mountain man Tue 15 Aug 2023, 5:42 pm

doctor_grey wrote:I really wonder what must be going on at World Rugby HQ, wherever that is. Assuming they are not completely tone deaf, they might have heard that most of the Rugby world is shocked, embarrassed, and/or angry. They got this one wrong, and to save face, save credibility, they are going to need to do something. I don't think they can brass this out.

That is probably correct however it shouldn't be Farrell who gets grief for this - for red card yes - but having card overturned is not his fault. Any vitriol should be directed at those who cleared him not Farrell himself although of course he is everyones favourite panto villan.

by doctor_grey Tue 15 Aug 2023, 5:50 pm

mountain man wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:I really wonder what must be going on at World Rugby HQ, wherever that is. Assuming they are not completely tone deaf, they might have heard that most of the Rugby world is shocked, embarrassed, and/or angry. They got this one wrong, and to save face, save credibility, they are going to need to do something. I don't think they can brass this out.

That is probably correct however it shouldn't be Farrell who gets grief for this - for red card yes - but having card overturned is not his fault. Any vitriol should be directed at those who cleared him not Farrell himself although of course he is everyones favourite panto villan.

I agree. Farrell screwed up and should have the ban. My point was directed at World Rugby, they are the ones who are compounding Farrell's error with another error, arguably worse.

And, with the RWC around the corner and Rugby under pressure due to repeated head trauma issues, this is a horrible look for the sport at its showcase event. People at World Rugby really just don't seem to get it. This is very bad and we can lose a generation of potential Rugby players only because of what I believe is a willful head in the sand approach.

by Dollar Bill Tue 15 Aug 2023, 6:37 pm

If I were Brian MacNeice, the TMO on Saturday, I think I’d resign, and would expect the IRFU and the referees association to back me up. He’s been thrown under the bus to save Farrell’s neck.. it’s actually beyond parody now

by TAFKA The Oracle Tue 15 Aug 2023, 6:43 pm

Yoda wrote:Oh boy this will only redouble efforts of ABEs to be more unpleasant. Stonewall red in my mind, went for a rugby league hello and smashed a guy in the chops. No mitigation what's so ever. This is as bad as umaga dropping BOD on his head and walking away without sanction. This whole thing will ensure we will no longer be under the radar but now have a massive target on our backs.

On a separate note is taine basham alright? Has he been ruled out of the world cup?

Think he failed a HIA and had to leave the field. So out for 2 weeks I presume? Although I read something odd from Gatland saying that the testing conditions where not great with music blaring or something, so it was difficult for him to answer the questions!

by Collapse2005 Tue 15 Aug 2023, 7:08 pm

Gatland said he failed his HIA because the tv was on Headscratch

by TheMildlyFranticLlama Tue 15 Aug 2023, 7:13 pm

mountain man wrote:
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.

Someone clearly thinks he is, to the extent of burning the sports credibility to shoehorn him into the tournament. Astonishing decision, I expected leniency but this is a wind up

by doctor_grey Tue 15 Aug 2023, 7:27 pm

Anonymous Fly Half wrote:I can get away with anything I want! He He He.

England - the build-up and winning the World Cup at a canter - Page 10 TELEMMGLPICT000345847520_16921147229970_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8

by hugehandoff Tue 15 Aug 2023, 7:38 pm

Shaun Edwards says justice has been done with Farrell - no red card for him. A lone voice!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-12409835/SHAUN-EDWARDS-Justice-served-Owen-Farrell-RIGHT-cleared-play-course-player-safety-paramount-reality-collision-sport.html

by TAFKA The Oracle Tue 15 Aug 2023, 7:46 pm

Collapse2005 wrote:Gatland said he failed his HIA because the tv was on

Yeah, something odd like that! I’ve given up on trying to 2nd guess Gatland now!

by Mr Bounce Tue 15 Aug 2023, 8:43 pm

I've just seen this.

What an utter farce...

by Poorfour Tue 15 Aug 2023, 9:16 pm

I’m as surprised as anyone by the decision, but before crying foul or farce, we need to remind ourselves that we have not seen all the footage that the panel saw, or heard from the players involved. I’ve seen a couple of photos that suggest that Farrell was starting from a legal position. I can’t find it now but I have seen a shot from behind Basham that shows him with knees and waist bent, and looking at the shot above posted by AFH, it looks to me from the angle of Basham’s right leg that he has started to tip over - his right foot looks to be well to the left of his right hip and probably therefore his centre of gravity. That in itself might be enough to absolve Farrell if his initial position was deemed OK - we’ve seen similar calls in the past.

If Farrell had been given a stupidly short ban then it would have been a bad judgement call on the part of the panel - but to decide that the card itself was wrong when it looked so clear from the footage at the time suggests that they may have seen something that we haven’t.

by Kingshu Tue 15 Aug 2023, 10:25 pm

Poorfour wrote:I’m as surprised as anyone by the decision, but before crying foul or farce, we need to remind ourselves that we have not seen all the footage that the panel saw, or heard from the players involved. I’ve seen a couple of photos that suggest that Farrell was starting from a legal position. I can’t find it now but I have seen a shot from behind Basham that shows him with knees and waist bent, and looking at the shot above posted by AFH, it looks to me from the angle of Basham’s right leg that he has started to tip over - his right foot looks to be well to the left of his right hip and probably therefore his centre of gravity. That in itself might be enough to absolve Farrell if his initial position was deemed OK - we’ve seen similar calls in the past.

If Farrell had been given a stupidly short ban then it would have been a bad judgement call on the part of the panel - but to decide that the card itself was wrong when it looked so clear from the footage at the time suggests that they may have seen something that we haven’t.

I dont think its too surprising or that its due to unseen angles, its pretty simple and happens all the time before WC/6nations/Lions tours (even including Farrell again before this years 6 nations), world rugby whats all its biggest players playing it it biggest tournaments. They want to maximise revenue over fair process.

Farrell if found guilty would have been facing his 4th ban, and hence at least 5/8weeks, and most if not all the WC, the only option was to lool of a loophole and say that Georges tackle on Basham made a sudden and significant change in direction the warranted migration is really stretching it.

Scottish prop last week get a shorter ban than he previously was banned for, for a similar incident, just happens to finish up in time for WC.

Sexton ban just happens to finish in time for WC, we see it time and time again that big name or important players get very lenient bans that finish just in time for 6 Nations WC or Lions.

by Poorfour Tue 15 Aug 2023, 10:35 pm

Watching the game again with my rugby-playing daughter, who was out of the country for the game but wanted to see it.
The footage (which I hadn’t seen - the TMO replay in the stadium was much briefer) makes it pretty clear why the panel overturned the red. Basham moves signficantly as a result of George’s contact - he doesn’t drop that far, but he moves a foot or more sideways and is clearly falling at the point he makes contact. Equally clearly, Farrell’s contact would have been legal if Basham hadn’t been falling. The burden of surprise has shifted for me: how the heck did the TMO bunker see it as a red?

by Recwatcher16 Tue 15 Aug 2023, 10:50 pm

When I first looked at the Farrell tackle, I resisted the temptation to comment on here, in part because of the George tackle on Basham. Farrell's left arm did outstretch around the ball carrier but his right shoulder remained vertical. Farrell did not plant his feet and make a high hit as he was moving sideways at speed. Farrell has the mindset to make a positive tackle rather than take the hit and bring the ball carrier to ground over him and subsequent flankers can then attempt the turnover. That is his judgement call. Despite the hysteria I can understand the judgement. Farrell is lucky given previous precedents.

by doctor_grey Tue 15 Aug 2023, 10:54 pm

Kingshu wrote:
Poorfour wrote:I’m as surprised as anyone by the decision, but before crying foul or farce, we need to remind ourselves that we have not seen all the footage that the panel saw, or heard from the players involved. I’ve seen a couple of photos that suggest that Farrell was starting from a legal position. I can’t find it now but I have seen a shot from behind Basham that shows him with knees and waist bent, and looking at the shot above posted by AFH, it looks to me from the angle of Basham’s right leg that he has started to tip over - his right foot looks to be well to the left of his right hip and probably therefore his centre of gravity. That in itself might be enough to absolve Farrell if his initial position was deemed OK - we’ve seen similar calls in the past.

If Farrell had been given a stupidly short ban then it would have been a bad judgement call on the part of the panel - but to decide that the card itself was wrong when it looked so clear from the footage at the time suggests that they may have seen something that we haven’t.

I dont think its too surprising or that its due to unseen angles, its pretty simple and happens all the time before WC/6nations/Lions tours (even including Farrell again before this years 6 nations), world rugby whats all its biggest players playing it it biggest tournaments. They want to maximise revenue over fair process.

Farrell if found guilty would have been facing his 4th ban, and hence at least 5/8weeks, and most if not all the WC, the only option was to lool of a loophole and say that Georges tackle on Basham made a sudden and significant change in direction the warranted migration is really stretching it.

Scottish prop last week get a shorter ban than he previously was banned for, for a similar incident, just happens to finish up in time for WC.

Sexton ban just happens to finish in time for WC, we see it time and time again that big name or important players get very lenient bans that finish just in time for 6 Nations WC or Lions.

Mate, you may well be right. After the Sexton ban, quite a few people commented that his ban would likely have been longer, if not for the RWC and his impending retirement. Wouldn't surprise me the same thought process in the Farrell incident. Then again, there is the politics of Farrell which for some reason appears to me to make him a special child for reasons I can fathom.

It is so surprising to me however, that World Rugby has gone completely blind to the optics of this. And the optics of a repeat offender getting what many (most?) people think is an extraordinary lenient judgement. And a repeat offender who tackles high or simply doesn't wrap in a world where head trauma is a major issue. World Rugby is totally clueless, naïve is too weak, so willingly stupid or there are political factors at hand. And throughout the tournament they are going to have to spend capital defending the indefensible instead how talking about what a great sport we have.

Don't need a million angles, we saw a shoulder to the head and no attempt to wrap - how on earth does Jamie George touching the Welsh player impact whether Farrell wraps with his arms or not?

by Poorfour Tue 15 Aug 2023, 11:24 pm

There’s a massive difference between leniency and exoneration. Leniency would have been a short ban. Exoneration is saying that the contact did not meet the criteria for a red card.
Basham very clearly falls into the tackle as a result of late contact with George.

by Kingshu Wed 16 Aug 2023, 12:46 am

Poorfour wrote:There’s a massive difference between leniency and exoneration. Leniency would have been a short ban. Exoneration is saying that the contact did not meet the criteria for a red card.
Basham very clearly falls into the tackle as a result of late contact with George.

Contact with George is weak and doesnt create much movement, we have seen players red carded and banned where there is a clear arguement for migration due to another tackler, more than this case.
If this is the new standard then fine, but I am very confident that after the WC that amount of movement will once again not be considered enough to downgrade red to yellow.

Also the 3 members of the panel were all from Australia rugby, when have we ever seen 2 never mind all three being from the same Union before? Just makes it look like it was easier for World Rugby to influence the outcome, only having to get one Union to reach the outcome they desired. Even if that isnt the case, theres a reason for having the panel made up of members of different unions that didn't happen in this case.

What about Zander Fagerson, given a 3 (reduced to two for going to tackle School) and being clear to play in the WC. But for a very similar tackle 2 years before he was given a 4 week ban. How can a second ban for same offence be more lienient, and just so happen to leave a very important player for Scotland free to play in the WC. Maybe its just coincidence?

Japan’s Pieter Labuschagne red card against Fiji saw him receive a three-game ban, but again going to tackle School mean hes free to play in WC.

Its not Anti Farrell or England, or Scotland, it anti the displinary process, Sexton I mentioned is another, but this isnt new, you can go back years and years to players getting lienient bans before the 6 nations or bans that finish just in time for a Lions tour. This year before the 6 nation Farrel and Slade got treated lienienty to be free for 6 nations opener, I could keep going back but anyone following rugby will know that displinary hearings coming up to big tournaments have different outcomes to midseason ones, for all nations.

Its reached a point that they should just write it in the rules, that commercial decisions will be reflected in displinary outcomes.

Leading up to a big tournamnet, If you are a big name/important player that will bring in X in extra revenue, theres a 2 week deduction in a ban.

If you are a really big name/important player that will bring in Y in extra revenue, we will find a way that you wont miss any of the tournament.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 16 Aug 2023, 5:32 am

Poorfour wrote:Watching the game again with my rugby-playing daughter, who was out of the country for the game but wanted to see it.
The footage (which I hadn’t seen - the TMO replay in the stadium was much briefer) makes it pretty clear why the panel overturned the red. Basham moves signficantly as a result of George’s contact - he doesn’t drop that far, but he moves a foot or more sideways and is clearly falling at the point he makes contact. Equally clearly, Farrell’s contact would have been legal if Basham hadn’t been falling. The burden of surprise has shifted for me: how the heck did the TMO bunker see it as a red?

Farrell always had his right arm tucked so not sure how you could say it would have been legal even if you think there was a significant move from Basham.

by Sgt_Pooly Wed 16 Aug 2023, 6:53 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Poorfour wrote:Watching the game again with my rugby-playing daughter, who was out of the country for the game but wanted to see it.
The footage (which I hadn’t seen - the TMO replay in the stadium was much briefer) makes it pretty clear why the panel overturned the red. Basham moves signficantly as a result of George’s contact - he doesn’t drop that far, but he moves a foot or more sideways and is clearly falling at the point he makes contact. Equally clearly, Farrell’s contact would have been legal if Basham hadn’t been falling. The burden of surprise has shifted for me: how the heck did the TMO bunker see it as a red?

Farrell always had his right arm tucked so not sure how you could say it would have been legal even if you think there was a significant move from Basham.

Re-watching and re-watching, I can see the conclusion they've come to. SH panels on the whole, tend to eye on the side of leniency so you can see how we've got the outcome we have.

If there was zero contact with George (yes there's not a huge amount...but he could have been slightly off balance), it could be argued that Basham would have stayed a little more upright and Farrell wouldn't have made contact with the head. The contact is on the jawline so those few inches are enough to put doubt in the mind.

I was ok with Farrell getting a ban as I'm more than happy with Ford stepping in.....and I'm ok with him being cleared. I don't see what the massive drama is about tbh......talk of corruption etc is quite hilarious though. I'm quite enjoying the "outrage" from the other fans.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 16 Aug 2023, 7:06 am

There's a school of thought that this is a World Rugby conspiracy, and I couldn't disagree more.

In case I come across as mealy-mouthed, Farrell deserved a red card.

One of the key parts here is that Farrell challenged the decision. This seemed like a big risk, as admitting guilt gets mitigation. Chris Jones explained on the BBC podcast, he was already looking at a ban which would see him miss Argentina and Japan. A failed challenge, and longer ban, would only have added the Chile game, so it was something of a shot to nothing.

Consequently, there's no point in comparing the Farrell incident with tackles where a player admitted guilt. It's a terrible look for rugby, when you can show two similar incidents, with different disciplinary outcomes. However, the panel has no brief to review a red card decision when the player says "fair cop".

Maybe this will encourage more players to challenge decisions in the future...

Another point raised by the BBC is that the panel of Australians is formally under the Six Nations, not World Rugby. That's why World Rugby has the option to challenge the decision.

World Rugby ought to bring an appeal, if only to get more clarity. It's possible they won't but this still wouldn't rise to the level of conspiracy. Conspiracies require far more organization and competency than World Rugby can manage.

What this affair does highlight, is how the laws of sport can look muddled when subjected to a strong formal legal challenge.

by Collapse2005 Wed 16 Aug 2023, 7:37 am

doctor_grey wrote:
Kingshu wrote:
Poorfour wrote:I’m as surprised as anyone by the decision, but before crying foul or farce, we need to remind ourselves that we have not seen all the footage that the panel saw, or heard from the players involved. I’ve seen a couple of photos that suggest that Farrell was starting from a legal position. I can’t find it now but I have seen a shot from behind Basham that shows him with knees and waist bent, and looking at the shot above posted by AFH, it looks to me from the angle of Basham’s right leg that he has started to tip over - his right foot looks to be well to the left of his right hip and probably therefore his centre of gravity. That in itself might be enough to absolve Farrell if his initial position was deemed OK - we’ve seen similar calls in the past.

If Farrell had been given a stupidly short ban then it would have been a bad judgement call on the part of the panel - but to decide that the card itself was wrong when it looked so clear from the footage at the time suggests that they may have seen something that we haven’t.

I dont think its too surprising or that its due to unseen angles, its pretty simple and happens all the time before WC/6nations/Lions tours (even including Farrell again before this years 6 nations), world rugby whats all its biggest players playing it it biggest tournaments. They want to maximise revenue over fair process.

Farrell if found guilty would have been facing his 4th ban, and hence at least 5/8weeks, and most if not all the WC, the only option was to lool of a loophole and say that Georges tackle on Basham made a sudden and significant change in direction the warranted migration is really stretching it.

Scottish prop last week get a shorter ban than he previously was banned for, for a similar incident, just happens to finish up in time for WC.

Sexton ban just happens to finish in time for WC, we see it time and time again that big name or important players get very lenient bans that finish just in time for 6 Nations WC or Lions.
Mate, you may well be right. After the Sexton ban, quite a few people commented that his ban would likely have been longer, if not for the RWC and his impending retirement. Wouldn't surprise me the same thought process in the Farrell incident. Then again, there is the politics of Farrell which for some reason appears to me to make him a special child for reasons I can fathom.

It is so surprising to me however, that World Rugby has gone completely blind to the optics of this. And the optics of a repeat offender getting what many (most?) people think is an extraordinary lenient judgement. And a repeat offender who tackles high or simply doesn't wrap in a world where head trauma is a major issue. World Rugby is totally clueless, naïve is too weak, so willingly stupid or there are political factors at hand. And throughout the tournament they are going to have to spend capital defending the indefensible instead how talking about what a great sport we have.

Don't need a million angles, we saw a shoulder to the head and no attempt to wrap - how on earth does Jamie George touching the Welsh player impact whether Farrell wraps with his arms or not?

Sextons ban was deserved and in line with similar bans and he has no history whatsoever of bans so it’s fairly standard for a reduction based on good behaviour. Five weeks reduced to three is not an insignificant ban for a first time offence, he also admitted responsibility and apologised. Many people who expected it to be longer tended not to like him in the first place or be comparing his ban to people with long rap sheets like Dylan Hartley or fairly different much more public cases such as Rassies.

Why not compare Sextons ban to the incident where in 2015 pre RWC Michael Cheika stormed into the refs room to confront Jaco Peyper to have it out with him over scrum decisions? Cheika had just served a 10 weeks ban for abusing a camera man but got no ban for his actions and was free to go to the RWC despite it being against laws to enter the refs room. Don’t get why Sextons case is compared to Farrells. Sextons hearing took months to schedule days to decide and resulted in a ban, Farrells took days to arrange, minutes to decide and no ban at all despite having previous bans for similar offences and no admission of guilt. Not seeing much similarity in treatment.

With Farrell himself I actually didn’t think it was one of his worse red cards as he didn’t contribute as much force as he sometimes does but still a red and expected a shorter ban of 5/6 weeks.

by mountain man Wed 16 Aug 2023, 8:09 am

Anyone have a link to all these new angles that weren't shown during actual match?

by Geordie Wed 16 Aug 2023, 8:14 am

Anyway...its all done...move on. Farrell is free to play.

Im curious to see if SB wants Ford or Farrell at 10. Farrell didnt excel in my opinion and then Ford came on and controlled the game.

Personally im a Ford man all day long.

by TAFKA The Oracle Wed 16 Aug 2023, 8:18 am

As long as it’s consistent and future decisions follow the same lines, then I think people will accept it. If we see the same incidents being treated differently and more harshly, especially in the World Cup which is the premier tournament for the sport world wide, then I think fans and players will rightly feel aggrieved.

We just want consistency.

Over to you, World Rugby. The world is watching Smile

by No 7&1/2 Wed 16 Aug 2023, 8:31 am

Geordie wrote:Anyway...its all done...move on. Farrell is free to play.

Im curious to see if SB wants Ford or Farrell at 10. Farrell didnt excel in my opinion and then Ford came on and controlled the game.

Personally im a Ford man all day long.

Not quite done as yet. WR could (and frankly should) appeal the decision.

by mountain man Wed 16 Aug 2023, 9:10 am

Will Greenwood has an interesting take on it and a sensible one. Basically he thinks it's red.

Hard to argue with no wrap, his arm was by side how that isn't a shoulder charge. Even if Jamie George altered Bashem movement it doesn't account for that.

Don't suppose we've heard last of this.

by Geordie Wed 16 Aug 2023, 9:20 am

i hope we have...im bored with it already.

by **RiscaGame** Wed 16 Aug 2023, 9:23 am

Alex Lowe’s X wrote: Just to drain confidence in rugby a little further, Six Nations (which runs the disciplinary process) says it will not publish the full Owen Farrell judgement, leaving many questions unanswered.

Yep, nothing to see here. Definitely time to move on laughing

by **BigGee** Wed 16 Aug 2023, 9:30 am

If they think this is just going to fade away, they are having a laugh.

The pundits are going to be all over this at this weekends game and are going to have to nail their colours to the mast.

The next player caught out making a head shot, is then going to roll out the same mitigation as an excuse.

Difficult to deal with when there is an obvious precedent.

If this was a proper legal case, there would definitely be an appeal over it!

by mountain man Wed 16 Aug 2023, 9:42 am

Issue is though as I mentioned earlier, England and Farrell will get blamed for this. Yes he was at fault for tackle and I believe it was a red but it subsequently being overturned the focus will not only be on panel who did it but they are faceless to majority of people, it will be Farrell who cops all the grief.

He should get some stick for his inability to alter tackle technique but not for the card being overturned.

by Geordie Wed 16 Aug 2023, 9:42 am

Move on next....

by No 7&1/2 Wed 16 Aug 2023, 9:59 am

Geordie wrote:Move on next....

I mean it's an almighty co## up, no ones moving on until WR make a comment at least. And then the second that the next high shot comes in it's back on the agenda.

by Geordie Wed 16 Aug 2023, 10:08 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Geordie wrote:Move on next....

I mean it's an almighty co## up, no ones moving on until WR make a comment at least. And then the second that the next high shot comes in it's back on the agenda.

How is it?
Red was given...World Rugby have viewed all aspects and its overturned. Next move on.

As an England fan im dissapointed as i dont want him as part of the team.

by **BigGee** Wed 16 Aug 2023, 10:14 am

Geordie wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
Geordie wrote:Move on next....

I mean it's an almighty co## up, no ones moving on until WR make a comment at least. And then the second that the next high shot comes in it's back on the agenda.

How is it?
Red was given...World Rugby have viewed all aspects and its overturned. Next move on.

As an England fan im dissapointed as i dont want him as part of the team.

It is because of the precedent it sets and the messaging it gives!

by doctor_grey Wed 16 Aug 2023, 10:32 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Geordie wrote:Move on next....

I mean it's an almighty co## up, no ones moving on until WR make a comment at least. And then the second that the next high shot comes in it's back on the agenda.

I agree with you - no matter what happens I think this will follow England through their World Cup. World Rugby has to try to get closure with this, but I don't think they are able now. So many people have seen the incident and think it is a red, as I do. I also think this might become bigger than Farrell.

Shame because no one wants to see Basham hurt and because a smooth and entertaining World Cup is what Rugby needs. Would like to move past this, it's just I doubt we will be able to.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 16 Aug 2023, 10:34 am

doctor_grey wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
Geordie wrote:Move on next....

I mean it's an almighty co## up, no ones moving on until WR make a comment at least. And then the second that the next high shot comes in it's back on the agenda.
I agree with you - no matter what happens I think this will follow England through their World Cup. World Rugby has to try to get closure with this, but I don't think they are able now. So many people have seen the incident and think it is a red, as I do. I also think this might become bigger than Farrell.

Shame because no one wants to see Basham hurt and because a smooth and entertaining World Cup is what Rugby needs. Would like to move past this, it's just I doubt we will be able to.

Well there is precedent for WR to appeal a 6Ns panel's decision, and win.

by mountain man Wed 16 Aug 2023, 10:41 am

I wonder if Farrell starts on Saturday.
If he's in team I think the odd boo might be heard whenever he touches ball....

by Collapse2005 Wed 16 Aug 2023, 10:46 am

mountain man wrote:I wonder if Farrell starts on Saturday.
If he's in team I think the odd boo might be heard whenever he touches ball....

Im sure he will be, I hope some of the Ireland players have a bit of fun with it. The odd "wasnt expecting to see you" or "can you recommend a good lawyer" sort of comment.

Good chance if he is picked he will get a yellow or red again so I dont really care if he does play.

by **BigGee** Wed 16 Aug 2023, 10:49 am

Collapse2005 wrote:
mountain man wrote:I wonder if Farrell starts on Saturday.
If he's in team I think the odd boo might be heard whenever he touches ball....

Im sure he will be, I hope some of the Ireland players have a bit of fun with it. The odd "wasnt expecting to see you" or "can you recommend a good lawyer" sort of comment.

Good chance if he is picked he will get a yellow or red again so I dont really care if he does play.

There is a fabulous meme on twitter with a picture of Donald Trump on the phone, with the caption, 'get me Owen Farrell's legal team'!

Just hilarious!

by mountain man Wed 16 Aug 2023, 10:50 am

I wouldn't say if he plays he's liable for a card. If anything he should be even more careful.
He will get stick though for sure.

Also Ireland have one or two not unaccustomed to getting carded.

Anyway overall I'm disappointed. I was looking forward to seeing Ford start with Smith on bench.

by Sponsored content