1
Six Nations statement: England's Owen Farrell banned after appeal
By Liam Heagney
England skipper Owen Farrell will miss two of his country’s games at next month’s Rugby World Cup in France. Steve Borthwick’s fly-half was originally cleared to play on with immediate effect on Tuesday of last week when the verdict from his independent disciplinary hearing emerged over his red card in the August 12 Summer Nations Series win over Wales.
ADVERTISEMENT
Farrell was initially yellow-carded at Twickenham for crashing his shoulder into the head of the ball-carrying Wales sub, Taine Basham.
That decision was soon upgraded to a red card on review by the TMO bunker, but the judiciary – which consisted an all-Australian panel of Adam Casselden (SC, chair) and two former Wallaby players, John Langford and David Croft – downgraded that sanction three days later to a yellow card, freeing Farrell to play on without a ban.
Video Player is loading.
However, World Rugby last Thursday decided to exercise its right of appeal and that resulted in the case getting re-heard on Tuesday by a different judicial committee consisting of Nigel Hampton KC (chair, New Zealand), joined by Shao-ing Wang (Singapore) and Donal Courtney (Ireland).
The verdict has since emerged and Farrell has been banned for four matches – the final two games of England’s Summer Nations Series versus Ireland and Fiji and the opening Rugby World Cup pool matches versus Argentina and Japan.
A Six Nations statement read: “Following an initial disciplinary committee hearing for England No10 Owen Farrell, who received a red card during the Summer Nations Series match between England and Wales on August 12, World Rugby lodged a formal appeal against the committee’s decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow, appealing for the red card to be upheld.
“The appeal committee met on Tuesday, August 22, and unanimously determined that in the original hearing the disciplinary committee should have considered the attempt of the player to wrap his opponent in the tackle. This point did not feature in the original decision.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The failure to attempt to wrap was judged to be an important element of the foul play review officer’s (FPRO) report and had led to an upgrading of the referee’s yellow card to a red card during the match.
“As this element did not feature in the original decision, the appeal committee decided it was in the interests of justice to hear the case afresh on that key point alone, which included hearing from the player.
“Following the review by the appeal committee of this key element, it was determined that the FPRO was correct in his decision leading to the red card. The appeal committee subsequently determined that the tackle was ‘always illegal’.
“When applying the terms of World Rugby’s head contact process, no mitigation can be applied to a tackle that is ‘always illegal’.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The appeal committee, therefore, considered that the disciplinary committee’s decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow card had been manifestly wrong, which led to the disciplinary committee’s decision being overturned, the appeal brought by World Rugby being allowed and the red card upheld.
“In considering sanction, the committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the committee agreed a four-match suspension.
“The appeal committee accepted submissions on behalf of the player that the Ireland vs England match on August 19, for which the player was voluntarily stood down, would be included as part of the sanction. Therefore, the suspension applies to the following matches:
- Ireland vs England (Aug 19); England vs Fiji (Aug 26); England vs Argentina (Sept 9); England vs Japan (Sept 17).”
Should have been a much longer ban.
He's been fouling deliberately for years and winking at teammates afterwards.
Obviously none around him, least of all his coaches, have criticised or corrected him.
Coaches are silent I note as referees seem to favour him and other "special" cases.
Good to see the Judicial Committee consisted of three separate nations. How three from the same nation were appointed to the original JC in the 1st place, is beyond belief. As for a 4 week ban, BULLSHIT.
And that’s how rugby’s spoiled brat gets special treatment again.
According to World Rugby’s own rules, it was supposed to be 6 weeks min. Then the shocking overturn to yellow came, creating the low expectation. That got appealed, and now we’re supposed to be glad, that “justice was served”. Only it wasn’t, because he effectively got a ban reduction.
So much drama, attention, focus, and energy expended on this charade only for this punk to once again maintain his privileged status.
Good, and good riddance to the King's Councils and all that shite. Now what about Moala? Does he get to play now for his 80s dump tackle where nobody got knocked out? Of course he doesn't. It should have been six weeks for that thug, Farrell.
Owen Farrell is a poor skipper lacking in leadership skills on and off the pitch. His ability to innovate is poor but this is true of all current England players which reflects more on the coaching than the team. His vertical tackling style will continue to pose a red card risk. All in all England will be better off without him - but who can skipper this lot successfully?
Zach Mercer
Good character? He may be a top bloke but six red cards (should have been more as Owens highlighted) suggests he is a dangerous liability on the field. Six weeks was the minimum. Surprised this was their starting point.
I blame Owen Farrells mother and father.
Well, they certainly are responsible for Owen Farrell’s existence…
I blame the charity he supports.
Exceedingly poor decision by World Rugby to overturn the legitimate outcome of a properly qualified independent review. At a single stroke they have managed to bring the game of rugby into international disrepute.
Legitimate for about five minutes before being over-ruled. They were trying out a new system of the bunker and it failed, miserably. The only person bringing the game into disrepute is here is Owen Farrell. On an international scale, yes, it is a mockery. An absolute farce.
Indeed, they have. They gave the privileged brat a 33% discount. It should have been 6 matches minimum, but now it’s 4, rather effectively 3, because the Ireland match counts.
World Rugby managed to create yet another loophole for this cynical repeat offender while making themselves look like they’ve rectified an egregious case of privileged treatment.
It’s almost as farcical as your comment.
Big nations always protected but for little nations… different.
World Rugby want to develop rugby in the world with discrimination ??😂😂😂
Players acceptance of foul play? How does taking a KC into your original hearing to argue your case constitute acceptance of foul play? Surely that would be an early guilty plea and take the ban in the first place?
I believe the technicality is that he accepted he had committed foul play, but disagreed that the foul play warranted a red card. He argued it was a yellow card offence.
Not that I like the fact that mitigation can be applied for that. But that is what they mean when they say that.
Rugby's version of "open wider and I'll put my other foot in as well" - Ludicrous reasoning.
Its complicated but necessary reasoning. Because it was an appeal they can't just say "we think they reached the wrong conclusion". That's illegal in law. They have to find that there was a mistake in the process by which the decision was reached, hence all the technical stuff in the rationale.
Seems reasonable after all the chaos.
Haters still gonna hate though.
Since when is chaos on the part of the judiciary a mitigating factor for the accused?
Do you not think repeat offenders should be punished more harshly? Seems a very odd stance.
Time to get rid of KCs, expensive lawyers for the defence and bring in ex referees and players to lead the judging panel. Then cut out mitigation it is either a hit to the head or not, wrapping or not and have a set of clear sanctions for each offence.
I agree it would be great to get rid of lawyers. However, I'm pretty sure that would be illegal under European law, so they won't cos they can't. Would love to find out otherwise.
just ex-refs would be fine... or mothers capable of deciphering the difference between someone smashing their shoulder into someone else's head or not. None of this has ever been legal in rugby, it's not about going soft, it's about people not knowing how to properly knock someone over on a rugby field.
Yeh, let's get rid of due process and the right to a fair trial.
Getting rid of the expensive lawyers would be a great step towards ensuring that the less resource-laden teams aren’t disadvantaged.
What a joke. 4 matches? As a repeat offender this should have been a MINIMUM of 10 matches. Another fudge.
Absolutely correct. A disgrace.
10? Why not 20? Matter of fact, why not 20 years?
Come to think of it, why not send him to prison for life?
This seems like a fair decision, but arrived at through a truly bizarre mechanism.
What seems most odd about this is that Farrell's defence - that Jamie George pushed Basham into him sooner than expected - doesn't excuse the height of his tackle, but does seem like a pretty good excuse for a failure to wrap!
And just like that, you believe you did away with the nr.1 complaint everyone has: Farrell doesn’t bother to wrap.
It makes zero sense. Human arms don’t travel at infinite speed. Any legal wrap must have been initiated by the time Basham was still a step or two away, so we would see at least an initiated wrap from the footage. No such thing is there. Farrell intended to hit with his shoulder. Now I’m willing to entertain the possibility, that Farrell didn’t intend to shoulder Basham’s head, and he just got the height wrong, but I laugh at any attempt to sanitize his intentional no-wraps.
But I love your advanced strategy. First you throw us some smoke screen in the form of condemning the tackle height in order to pretend you’re critical and unbiased, and then you deploy the main objective: that poor little Owen’s umpteenth no-wrap was actually a wrap. You clever little PR damage manager you.
You're gonna get fired if you carry on like this.
Watch the video again. It was a fantasy concocted by a slippery lawyer; a figment of his imagination. But it remains first class, gold plated, export quality bullshit.