1
World Rugby officially appeal Owen Farrell disciplinary decision
By Ian Cameron
World Rugby have officially appealed the decision to downgrade Owen Farrell’s red card following a Six Nations disciplinary hearing held on Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
During England’s 19-17 victory over Wales at Twickenham, the England fly-half received a yellow card for a shoulder-to-head tackle on Taine Basham, which was later upgraded to red following a TMO bunker review.
This then led to a 3.5-hour video hearing on Tuesday where an anticipated six-match ban, possibly ruling him out of the World Cup opener against Argentina, was impending.
However, despite past suspensions for similar incidents, he was cleared by an all-Australian judicial committee that ruled the tackle deserved only a yellow card, disputing the bunker’s red decision upgrade.
The verdict considered England hooker Jamie George’s attempted tackle on Basham, asserting it caused the Welshman to alter direction before Farrell’s challenge and influenced the outcome.
The decision was met with widespread criticism, much of it levelled at World Rugby despite the hearing falling under Six Nations’ oversight and not the sport’s governing body. Now World Rugby have officially appealed the decision.
A statement read: “World Rugby has today [Thursday] confirmed to the Rugby Football Union and Six Nations Rugby that it will exercise its right to appeal in regard to the Owen Farrell disciplinary decision following a careful review of the independent judicial committee’s full written decision received on August 16.
ADVERTISEMENT
“World Rugby fully supports the important role that an independent disciplinary process plays in upholding the integrity and values of the sport, particularly regarding foul play involving head contact.
“Player welfare is the sport’s number one priority, and the head contact process is central to that mission at the elite level of the sport. Having considered the full written decision, World Rugby considers an appeal to be warranted.
“In line with provisions set out under regulation 17, an independent appeal committee will be appointed to determine the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.
“Further details regarding the hearing, including appointments and date, will be confirmed by Six Nations Rugby.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Andrew
This reversal of the red makes a mockery of all the good efforts being made to make the game safer. It's a red for sure and World Rugby needs to set an example here.
Been getting away with it to long see why he's called shoulder boy he thinks he's untouchable
Only someone who has never tackled someone would think that was not an intentional shoulder shot aimed at the upper body, and quite possibly the head. Farrell has a history of it frankly if Moala got 10 weeks so should he or more. This BS from him should stop and he must be punished for the judicial process to have any cred.
Well, all the dithering about Ref decisions and interpretations for the past few years was supposed to be sorted by the Bunker System. Now look - farcical joke of a citting committee , a knee jerk appeal, the wider rugby community scratching its head. Well Done World Rugby- only you could have pulled of this mess!
The problem now is that whichever outcome it will be a mess: Give him (correctly) 6 weeks? The rugby board succumbed to social media pressure! Keep things as now? Is a joke showing how rugby board is bent towards RFU.
Not to mention that anyhow the bunker credibility is gone.
The damage is done.
The bunker did nothing wrong. The ref said minimum yellow - refer to bunker (correct). The bunker said worthy of upgrade to red (correct), the judicial panel said mitigating movement and downgrade (not correct) and World Rugby said that is a bunch of old cobblers we're appealing (correct). This isn't a start to finish farce, its one bad judicial decision in amongst a series of sensible actions and actors. If the appeal succeeds the system has worked, albeit I agree its a bad look for the sport generally.
Let's hope the review panel consists of a Tongan, a Samoan and a South African. People who understand that when you land a head shot, you know you're going to get serious time.
Very few players actually intend to inflick serious injury to other players. This is about stamping out dangerous play and if the IRB is serious about it this ruling should be overturned-or are they going to allow all future rulings to refer back to this one. Then forget about cleaning out rigby and lets see who can get the smartest lawayer. Farrel should know by now that you cannot tackle or prepare for a tackle in the upright position- the risk is too high. Look at his record-he is a dangerous player and steps should be taken to make him change the way he plays the game- the same as for everybody else
Good. Give him a 6 week ban. That's fair.
This is beyond farcical now.
There comes a point where the attention and narrative surrounding an individual starts to overshadow the team as a whole.
This whole charade is sucking any/all of the positive energy from the England camp.
It's a shambles.
He brings the narrative upon himself with his serial head hunting and Teflon treatment. If A, he didn't do it or B, he wasn't given the Teflon treatment and exonerated, we wouldn't be talking about it. Pretty simple.
simple: leave Farrell home. Decide it as RFU, citing he is a liability. It doesn't take much.
True, but Farrel to blame for all of this.
Important to remember this is an appeal against the original decision NOT a retrial. So, for the appeal to stand, the appellants must show clear negligence and fault by the disciplinary panel in their original decision.
That'll be simple to prove as the Welsh player never changes direction.
Let's face it, world rugby has simply chosen to march in step with the current social media narrative surrounding the original decision.
Like many large organisations, companies and indeed gvts it has seen in which direction the social media wind is blowing and set sail accordingly.
This is not subject to criminal or civil court procedures. The appeal only has to show balance of probability to succeed. The relevant rule is Section 20.