1
Revealed: The evidence Owen Farrell gave at his disciplinary hearing
By Liam Heagney
Thursday’s decision by World Rugby to appeal Tuesday’s Owen Farrell independent disciplinary hearing verdict was accompanied by the publication of the written decision from the case.
ADVERTISEMENT
England skipper Farrell had his Summer Nations Series red card versus Wales last Saturday rescinded to a yellow card offence, resulting in the all-Australian judicial committee of Adam Casselden (SC, chair), John Langford and David Croft freeing him to resume playing with immediate effect.
It was Wednesday, the day after the three-and-a-half-hour video hearing, when World Rugby received the full written decision and the game’s global governing body now believes an appeal is warranted.
The seven-page written decision contained a summary of the evidence presented at the hearing by Farrell. It read: “The player’s oral evidence was broadly consistent with the video footage.
“He said that after W20 [Taine Basham] turned E18 [Dan Cole] around with his dummy pass, he [Farrell] set himself for contact that would give himself enough space to his right to effect a good (legal) tackle on W20’s right-hand side.
“He [Farrell] did not anticipate or foresee that W20 and E2 [Jamie George] would get involved with each other whereby W20 would be propelled sideways (across/diagonally) and towards him. He said when W20 was propelled across and towards him he did not have enough time and space to try and get his head out of the way.
“He [Farrell] said the position of his head was a subconscious reaction to W20’s body being propelled across him. The player gave his evidence in a measured and thoughtful manner. He was a matter-of-fact witness. We [ the judicial committee] accept his account as it accords with our observations of the video footage.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The verdict section of the full written decision then explained the reasons why the Farrell red card was downgraded to a yellow card offence. “After careful analysis the judicial committee determined that there was, in this case, mitigating features present to reduce the degree of danger down to a point below the red card test.
“Contrary to the assessment by the foul play review officer we found, on balance, that there was mitigation present in this case. In our respectful opinion, the FPRO was in error by omitting to consider the late change in dynamics due to E2’s interactions in the contact area with W20 which, in our opinion, brought about a sudden and significant change in direction of W20 (the ball carrier).
“This late change in the dynamics denied the player [Farrell] both the time and space to adjust to avoid head contact with W20. In our opinion, it would be placing an unreasonable burden on the player to expect him to anticipate, foresee or predict, in the limited time available to him, this late change in dynamics.
“But for the interactions between W20 and E2 we are of the opinion that the player [Farrell] had enough time and space to execute a legal tackle on W20. This, in our opinion, is a sufficient mitigating feature in the player’s offending to bring the level of danger down to a point below the red card test.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The player’s act of foul play was not intentional or always illegal to deny him the benefit of this mitigation. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the evidence before us we are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the decision of the FPRO to upgrade the yellow card to a red card was wrong.
“Accordingly, the red card is dismissed and the player is free to resume playing rugby immediately. In reaching the above conclusion, it is important to record that no criticism is made of the FPRO nor, in our opinion, would any be warranted.
“Unlike the FPRO we had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the HCP. In contrast, the FPRO was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes without the benefit of all the relevant material including, importantly, hearing from the player and his legal representative.”
- Click here to read the full written decision from Tuesday’s Owen Farrell disciplinary hearing
Again, how different is OF' s reply to anyone else found GUILTY of the same action.
If World Rugby wants to make a rule, should it not apply to EVERYONE? Just asking for a friend, as she thinks it it very much hypocritical....by the way, her son may be the way forward when it comes to thight head props(#3)....I know, very few of you understand the latter statement....
So what is the principle? Players are responsible for outcomes.
Suppose you target a tackle as high on someone's chest as possible without it being illegal, and they move unexpectedly before you make contact. Are you OK because you didn't expect the movement, or are you liable because you took a chance, knowing that tackles like that often end up hitting the head?
There are parallels in rugby, like tackling someone in the air, or deliberate knock-ons. The rule is generally that if you take the chance and it does not come off then you are penalized. And if you want to be sure that you are not penalized then play more conservatively. In this case, for example, you could target the tackle at waist height (which may be less effective, but that's the trade off).
It makes sense to interpret things this way. How do you create incentives for players to play safely? You make them responsible for the outcomes, not for the intent. And if they take chances that result in bad outcomes (eg a shoulder to a head) then they should take the consequences.
In this case the player frequently chooses a high risk approach, and of course it sometimes goes wrong.
Well he wouldn't say that he was in the wrong would he,like any person at a trial always pleads not guilty
It seems this is what the disciplinary panel are counting on:
“ But for the interactions between W20 and E2 we are of the opinion that the player [Farrell] had enough time and space to execute a legal tackle on W20. This, in our opinion, is a sufficient mitigating feature”
So they thought Farrell would have been able to execute a legal tackle if it weren’t for George. Ignoring the fact that Farrell did not bend at the hip on his approach or show any attempt to make the hit passive following George’s involvement. To the contrary, he approached upright and at speed, aimed his shoulder directly to the head, drove himself forward and upwards as he made contact and made no attempt to wrap.
But sure, he could have made a legal tackle. He just chose not to.
Christ.
The panel have completely missed the point on this. It was an appalling hit. But regardless of everything else, there is this: Farrell’s intention was to make as big a hit as he could, as high as he could, on an opponent moving at speed. In doing so, Farrell favoured his desire to make an impactful tackle over the safety of the player he was tackling. He was willing to take a risk with the health of his opponent to benefit himself. That is the mentality that has to change. The onus is on Farrell as the tackler to make that situation as safe as is reasonably possible. He didn’t do that.