Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Owen Farrell cops a bans but tackle school can free him for England

(Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

Owen Farrell has been banned following his citing for foul play with Saracens – but he won’t miss the start of the upcoming Guinness Nations with England provided he successfully completes the World Rugby coaching intervention programme which would scratch the final match of his four-game suspension.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 74:22 minutes gone on the Gallagher Premiership clock last Friday when the right shoulder of recent England skipper Farrell collided with the head of the ball-carrying Jack Clement on the Gloucester ten-metre line.

After play eventually halted six phases later with the clock now on 76:18, referee Karl Dickson refused to review the footage with his TMO and it led to Farrell getting cited on Monday by the RFU and asked to attend an independent disciplinary hearing that began on Tuesday at 6:30pm.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

The verdict has now been delivered following that hearing and the outcome was a four-game ban that can be reduced to three games provided Farrell completes tackle school. An RFU statement read: “The case of Owen Farrell, Saracens, was heard last night by an independent disciplinary panel chaired by Philip Evans with Becky Essex and Mitch Read.

“Farrell was cited following the game against Gloucester Rugby on Friday, January 6, for dangerous tackling, contrary to World Rugby law 9.13.

Related

“Farrell accepted foul play but challenged that it met the red card threshold. However, the panel upheld the charge and Farrell received a four-match ban. This will be reduced to a three-week ban if the player completes the World Rugby coaching intervention programme.

“Farrell will miss the following games: 14/01 vs Lyon, 22/01 vs Edinburgh, 28/01 vs Bristol, 19/02 vs Leicester Tigers.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The England matches versus Scotland on February 4 and Italy on February 12 weren’t included in this projected ban timetable as the Test squad won’t be announced until next Monday, January 16, by Steve Borthwick, hence the inclusion instead of the mid-February Saracens match versus Leicester in the suspension schedule.

However, if Farrell successfully completes tackle school, his ban will be completed by late January, freeing him to play for England at the start if February if selected.

In his evidence at the hearing, Farrell told the panel he had played approximately 340 professional games and in regards to the tackle at Gloucester, he acknowledged it was his responsibility to tackle safely.

“He said he was expecting his opponent to run over him so he dropped his height to where he felt the tackle would be properly executed. He hinged both at the hips and at the knees. He said in hindsight he would have liked to have been a couple of inches lower.

ADVERTISEMENT

“He said a number of times that he felt he had made primary contact through the chest area and that he had made a fair tackle. He said he believes all his force went through the chest area. He said he thought it would have felt different had he put the force through the chin.

“It was only when he got on the team bus to come home that he watched the clips and realised contact was made with the chin. When he realised he contacted his opponent to apologise. He denied the suggestion made by the RFU that he had caused the chin to be pinned backwards by his contact.

“The player helpfully talked the panel through the footage and as he did so he explained why he felt the force went through the chest area rather than the chin. He felt that the contact with the chin was not significant. It was described as fleeting. He said his opponent continued to contest the ball following the tackle and then continued to play in the rest of the game.”

The judicial committee believed that the Farrell offence was in the mid-range of seriousness and in applying mitigation to the six-week entry point, it concluded: “Given the player’s previous offending he is not eligible to receive the 50 per cent reduction for mitigation which would otherwise be available to him.

“However, given the player’s timely acknowledgment of his offending and considering his behaviour following the incident, during the hearing and leading up to the hearing, sitting alongside other mitigation available to him the panel does feel able to reduce the sanction by a period of two weeks.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

3 Comments
N
Northandsouth 710 days ago

In the south last year a couple of bans were handed down against a date rather than a number of weeks. Seems to me a better way to go to avoid the game playing of pretending they would have played X or Y game. The Aussies did the same, naming Swain for an Aus A tour of Japan he was never going to play in so as to get his ban over ahead of the autumn. Not sure which bodies are allowed to do bans the specific date way, but I'm all for it.

f
finn 710 days ago

I guess he has a difficult decision to make now. Does he go to the tackle school, or does he just take the full ban?

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

145 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search