Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

What Owen Farrell said at his hearing and how the judiciary reacted

(Photo by Dan Mullan/The RFU Collection via Getty Images)

England talisman Owen Farrell has revealed that it was only on the Saracens team bus trip home from Gloucester last Friday night that he first realised that his shoulder has made contact with the chin of Jack Clement at Kingsholm.

ADVERTISEMENT

Footage of the late-game collision sparked a lively debate on BT Sport, who had broadcast the game live on UK television, but Farrell, who stayed on the pitch unsanctioned to land the match-winning drop goal with the final kick, wasn’t aware of the furore he tackle had ignited.

The written ten-page judgment issued on Wednesday following his Tuesday evening disciplinary hearing reported: “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.”

Video Spacer
Video Spacer

Farrell was slapped with a four-game ban by the judicial committee but if selected by England next Monday when Steve Borthwick announces his Guinness Six Nations squad, the talisman out-half won’t miss any Test matches.

The disciplinary hearing verdict stipulated that Farrell could apply for the World Rugby coaching intervention programme which, if successfully completed, would scratch the final game of the four-match suspension.

Related

With Saracens having three matches scheduled over the coming weekends, tackle school would see the Farell suspension expire before the end of January and free him for England duty for the start of the Six Nations. The written judgment confirmed that Farrell is definitely applying for tackle school. “The player indicated his intention to apply to World Rugby to take part in the coaching intervention process. The panel agreed that he is eligible to take part.”

Describing his view of his tackle on Clement, Farrell told the disciplinary hearing: “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 believed 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.

“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 the rest of the game.”

In its findings of fact, the judicial panel stated: “The panel accepts the player believed he had primarily struck his opponent’s chest. The footage, in our view, demonstrates he was wrong.”

ADVERTISEMENT

It later added: “The panel saw no evidence that the player’s conduct in making contact with the head was intentional. It was a reckless act brought about by a misjudgment of the appropriate tackle height required in the circumstances.”

The foul tackle was given a six-week entry point and the full 50 per cent mitigation wasn’t applied in this instance. “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.

“The player has one previous matter on record from September 2020, for which he served a five-match ban for dangerous tackling, and another old matter which occurred in 2016. Given the date of the first matter, the panel concluded the player is not a repeat offender whose status warrants an increase in sanction for this reason.”

  • Click here to read the ten-page written judgment from the Owen Farrell disciplinary hearing
ADVERTISEMENT

Boks Office | Episode 37 | Six Nations Round 4 Review

Cape Town | Leg 2 | Day 2 | HSBC Challenger Series 2025 | Full Day Replay

Gloucester-Hartpury vs Bristol Bears | PWR 2024/25 | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 36 | Six Nations Round 3 Review

Why did Scotland's Finn Russell take the crucial kick from the wrong place? | Whistle Watch

England A vs Ireland A | Full Match Replay

Kubota Spears vs Shizuoka BlueRevs | JRLO 2024/2025 | Full Match Replay

Watch now: Lomu - The Lost Tapes

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

5 Comments
P
Poe 804 days ago

And the ref said. Let's not review, play on. I'm more interested in that performance review really.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

r
reginaldgarcia 1 hour ago
Crusaders rookie earns 'other than Dupont' praise from All Blacks star

My father, a retired schoolteacher, has always been cautious with his money. He worked hard his entire life to build a modest retirement fund and trusted that it would support him in his golden years. So, when he told me about an “exclusive” investment opportunity in cryptocurrency that promised high returns, I was immediately suspicious. But he was convinced it was legitimate—after all, the website looked professional, and the salesperson had been so persuasive over the phone. Despite my warnings, he invested 15,000 USD of his savings. At first, everything seemed fine. He received regular updates and saw “profits” reflected in his online account. But when he tried to withdraw some money, the website suddenly went offline, and the phone number was disconnected. My father was devastated. He had been scammed, and his hard-earned savings were gone. I knew I had to act quickly. I reached out to TECH CYBER FORCE RECOVERY, a company I had read about online that specialized in tracing online fraud. I explained the situation, providing them with all the details: the fake website, the transaction records, and even the emails from the scammer. The team at TECH CYBER FORCE RECOVERY was incredibly understanding and assured me they would do everything possible to help. Using their expertise in digital forensics, they traced the scammer’s digital footprint and identified the offshore account where the money had been transferred. They worked tirelessly with international authorities to freeze the account and recover the funds. Within a few weeks, they successfully returned the 15,000 USD to my father. The relief on his face was indescribable. Not only had TECH CYBER FORCE RECOVERY restored his savings, but they had also given him peace of mind. They even took the time to educate him on how to spot investment scams in the future, empowering him to protect himself. This brought our family closer together. My father now understands the importance of skepticism and due diligence, and I’m grateful to TECH CYBER FORCE RECOVERY for their incredible work. They didn’t just recover money, they restored my father’s faith in justice and gave him a second chance to enjoy his retirement.EMAIL..Techcybersforcerecovery(@)cyberservices(.)comWHATSAPP... + 1.5.6.1.7.2.6.3.6.9.7

8 Go to comments
J
JW 2 hours ago
Kyren Taumoefolau All Blacks stance splits opinions on eligibility

MP are a NZ side through and through, NZ is even having to pay for it.

Yes they caved to public demand, I bet it accomplished a lot of internal goals. They could have left it to the other groups, but I’m of the belief that they weren’t showing the capability to make it work as being a good reason for NZR to jump in and do it. I think it’s actually funded 50/50 between NZR and WR though.

(when nothing was stopping a pi player playing for any side in Super Rugby)

Neither is that fact true. Only 3 non NZ players are allowed in each squad.


I see you also need to learn what the term poach means - take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way. - Moana have more slots for non eligible players (and you have seen many return to an NZ franchise) so players are largely making their own choice without any outside coercion ala Julian Savea.

Not one of these Kiwis and Aussies would go live in the Islands to satisfy any criteria, and I’d say most of them have hardly ever set foot in the islands, outside of a holiday.

Another inaccurate statement. Take Mo’unga’s nephew Armstrong-Ravula, if he is not eligible via ancestry in a couple of generations time, he will be eligible because he plays his rugby there (even if he’s only their for rugby and not living there), that is a recent change made by World Rugby to better reflect examples like Fabian Holland and Fakatava.

It’s becoming the jump-ship/zero loyalty joke that international League is.

Look I understand you’re reason to cry and make an example at any opportunity, but you don’t really need to anymore, other recent changes made by WR are basically going to stop the Ireland situation, and time (perhaps no more than a decade) will fix the rest.

26 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Vermeulen to join Premiership rivals despite interest around the world Vermeulen to join Premiership rivals despite interest around the world
Search