England’s World Cup winning coach Clive Woodward led a torrent of outrage at the “mind boggling decision” to clear Owen Farrell to lead England into the World Cup.
Farrell was sent off at Twickenham on Saturday when his yellow card for a dangerous tackle on Taine Basham was upgraded to a red by the ‘Bunker’ review system.
But a hearing decided that a “late change in dynamics” due to Jamie George’s involvement in the contact area “brought about a sudden and significant change in direction from the ball carrier”.
Using this mitigation it was decided by the all-Australian panel that Farrell – who was expected to face a mid-range sanction of a six-week suspension – should have been hit with a sin-binning only.
Owen Farrell. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Farrell appeared before the independent judicial committee (chair, Adam Casselden, a Sydney barrister, and former Wallabies John Langford and David Croft) via video link and admitted that his shoulder-led tackle to the head of Basham – who as a result failed an HIA – was illegal but worthy of 10 minutes in the sin-bin only.
After a review of the evidence, it was decided that the “foul play review officer was wrong, on the balance of probabilities, to upgrade the yellow card”.
In coming to its verdict, the panel said no criticism of the foul play review officer was being made given the time in which he had to review the incident and make a decision.
It means that Farrell, who was widely tipped to miss the World Cup opener against Argentina on September 9, is free to lead England against Ireland on Saturday.
England are possible quarter-final opponents for Australia.
The decision caused widespread concern, with a degree of outrage in rugby circles with claims of double standards.
Some pointed at a 10 week suspension recently handed down to Tonga’s George Moala as proof of double standards in the treatment of international players.
Tongan midfielder Pita Ahki was much more direct.
Rugby writer Nik Simon, in the Daily Mail, said it showed “England are one of the few countries who could have got away with this one.
“Money brings power and, unlike their rivals, the RFU can afford to have their own in-house counsel with 35 years’ experience at the bar,” he wrote.
“The laws of the game are flaky at the best of times so are we really surprised that Richard Smith, a member of the King’s Counsel, was able to unpick the legalities of a high tackle?
“Sadly, we live in an age of the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. The likes of Italy, Samoa or Fiji would never be able to afford such representation and their skipper would have had the book thrown at them.
“It is a terrible look for a sport suffering from an image crisis.”
The decision did have some supporters, notably France defence coach Shaun Edwards.
“Justice has been served for Owen Farrell. I was one of the few people who thought his red card was wrong. It’s right that he’s been cleared to play,” he wrote in the Daily Mail.
“We’re living in a world of slow-motion replays. These frame-by-frame pictures are so different to what players see on the pitch.
“Things happen in a split second. If the ball carrier changes direction late – as we saw with Taine Basham – it’s almost impossible for the tackler to react.”
He added: “Rugby’s in a funny place around player safety. Of course player safety is paramount but the reality is it’s a collision sport. When we talking about tackling lower around the legs, that comes with risks too.
“The chop tackle is great when you’re coming from the side of someone but if someone’s running directly at you and you hit your head on their knee then there’s a big chance you’ll get knocked out.”
For the World Cup, I’ve asked where the tackle target is if someone had a pick-and-go close to the try-line. The carrier’s head is the height of their hips so where are you supposed to hit? I’ve got no idea and I’ve still not had an answer.
“Rugby’s a game of rules. It’s not a game for thugs. You’re not allowed to hit people in the head but sometimes you mistime things and get it wrong. Owen’s a world class player and I’m sure he practises tackle technique with Saracens and England. Mistakes will happen when you only have a millisecond to react.”
There were plenty lining up on the other side though.
Former World Rugby vice chair and former Pumas halfback Agustin Pichot’s reaction was clear.
England’s 2003 World Cup winning Clive Woodward was astounded.
“The mindboggling decision to rescind Owen Farrell’s red card is yet another example of rugby shooting itself in the foot. It has made the game a complete and utter laughing stock,” wrote Woodward in the Daily Mail.
“When I first heard Farrell had been cleared to play with immediate effect, I was lost for words and just totally dumbfounded. My reaction was: ‘You have got to be joking?’
“Everyone I’ve spoken to in the game was expecting the England captain to face a long ban and miss at least the early stages of the World Cup after his high shot on Wales’ Taine Basham.
“Those same people, like me, were left completely shocked by Farrell’s exoneration. Personally, I’m flabbergasted. There is no bigger supporter of English rugby – and Farrell – than me.
“England will, of course, be very pleased Farrell is now available for the World Cup. But I have to say the decision on him has not done them or the game itself any favours.”
Daily Mail rugby writer Chris Foy agreed.
“The fact that it’s Owen Farrell in the eye of this global storm just polarises the debate. But strip it all back and it’s quite simple; someone tackled too high, dangerously, illegally, making contact with the head of an opponent. The head is supposed to be protected; that has been a modern-day rugby crusade, as a concussion-related crisis threatens to engulf the sport,” Foy wrote.
“As it was yet another reckless, high shot by Farrell, there is absolute up-roar, in these islands and far beyond. The vast majority of those who have any awareness of the incident and the aftermath are united in believing it was an open-and-shut case.
“A serial offender was expected to receive a hefty suspension, but even if someone with a clean record had slammed their shoulder into Taine Basham’s head, a sanction would have been expected.”
He added: “What a mess. The game has yet again managed to bring itself into disrepute. With the World Cup just three weeks away, rugby’s entire disciplinary system, its duty-of-care obligations to players and its so-called core values have all been reduced to dust.”
Oliver Brown, writing in the UK Telegraph, said the Rugby Football Union had lost sight of what is right.
“This will be remembered as quite the moment in the legal art of finding mitigation for an act that seems, even in slow motion, inexcusable. But it could yet go down as a bleak day for rugby. The sport is confronting a crisis over brain injuries so profound that Steve Thompson, the 45-year-old former England hooker who struggles to remember his own children’s names due to early-onset dementia, wishes he had never played,” Brown wrote.
“The Rugby Football Union insists it is listening, reiterating just this week a commitment to lower tackle height, with the intention of eliminating up to 4,000 head injuries a year. And yet it has just enlisted a barrister to argue, successfully, that Farrell should be exonerated for smashing into Basham’s head with such force that the Welsh back-rower failed a concussion protocol. What, pray, is the aim here? Is it truly to champion the cause of player welfare? Or is it simply to make sure that good old Owen makes it to Marseille on time?”
Robert Kitson, in the Guardian, worried for the policing of tackle height at the World Cup.
“Theoretically, rugby union is a sport doing everything it can to portray itself as safe and responsible. Except that, in reality, its entire disciplinary system now looks totally unfit for purpose,”wrote Kitson.
“In all sorts of ways Farrell’s lucky escape or otherwise is not the headline news item. Yes, it beggars belief that England’s captain has somehow escaped on a technicality when another ban for a reckless head-high charge seemed certain. Yes, it will be a major relief for both the player and his coaches. But the repercussions go far beyond that. Across the global game, the ripple effect of this verdict will be massive. And not in a good way.
“Because, with the highest-profile Rugby World Cup in history starting in barely three weeks, what price all those stern official messages about lowering tackle height and player welfare? How can the game even pretend to be effectively governed when the most important new innovation in years, the “bunker review” system, has already been crassly undermined?”
HenryHoneyBalls
Roar Rookie
Im sorry but you haven't convinced me, you haven't put forward a single coherent argument for the ban being too short. The outrage on forums began long before any report was released and any concrete information around the case confirmed. The referees report when released wouldn't confirm a single thing Sexton is meant to have said aside for the words he confirmed he said himself via his own admission of guilt and apology. I suggest that you form your opinions on fact and precedents rather than the theories of people on forums that are basically guessing. Im not ignoring the fact that Sexton wasnt in the squad you just haven’t articulated how that is any way relevant to your strong belief that he deserves a long ban. His on field and off field behaviour over 20 years is exemplary. The panel didn't find it particularly relevant that he wasnt in the 23 as they referenced he exemplary record as a reason to reduce the ban which is what they always do when reviewing a first time ban. Not sure why you feel he should be treated harsher than everyone else?
Good Game
Roar Rookie
Not ignoring the facts, just don’t agree with the inconsistency in application of the punishment. Johnny was right. Effing disgrace… Yes to the Chiefs and Cheika btw. What we have here, Henry, is a difference in opinion. Unfortunately for you, when you look on online forums discussing the issue not many agree with your position because no ones fooled. The fact that onfield records were considered is the primary reason no one is fooled. A false positive in other words. I’m beginning to think that you’re position comes from a place of emotion as you have continually ignored the fact that Sexton was only a squad member and in no way shape or form close to the 23 due to injury. Must be tough when not many agree with hey? Oh well, you’ll get over it (I hope). You’re welcome to your opinion. But need to except a great many don’t agree. And no, I’m not a Sexton hater. He has been at the forefront of everything that is good about Irish rugby in the last 10+ years and I admire him for that. Kinda beside the point though, isn’t it?
scrum
Roar Rookie
I repeat - the framework for head contact is global and available on WR website. In this case the question is whether the mitigation was sufficient to downgrade. I believe not and WR appears to agree with me.
soapit
Roar Guru
There may need to be some changes for it to become reality
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
Panel is part of the Summer Series which is run by 6Ns and picked by them. WR has the right to appeal any citing review not controlled by them. Yes WR can afford a Lawyer but they don't pay for panels of regional competitions. I am not sSureWR could afford to send a lawyer to every citing review for all test games and the top leagues.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
And yet how many times in SR did we hear that YC in SR would be RC in Europe so interpretation in regional.
Cassandra
Roar Rookie
I fear everyone has missed the big picture on this one. This is Owen Farrell! Why wasn't the Welsh player charged for leading with his head?
soapit
Roar Guru
I think the governing body would be able to find the money to represent themselves. I assume they pay the judiciary guys so it's just another fee on top of that
Todd
Roar Rookie
He has definitely got away with many, many marginal calls, that as you say are not his record
Todd
Roar Rookie
I noticed Borthwick and Farrell Snr going off about the appeal this morning, but what is really shocking is the complete disregard for the player who was smashed. It was all about poor, witch-hunted Owen and not a single mention of the concussed player. Start from that point, as world rugby say they are with the appeal, and then work backwards from there. Someone else mentioned on here about whether the injured player had representation at the hearing. Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea. Some players have had their careers destroyed by foul play (Quin Tupaia comes to mind after the Darcy Swain incident) so I think it would be great to have some sort victim impact statement at these hearings
Danny McGowan
Roar Rookie
Well Nik , just to update your question. The 6N appointed the 3 Aussie panel not WR, so my point stands about outrage at WR doen't it?
scrum
Roar Rookie
This was not a regional interpretation. Decisions are made on the head contact framework. The framework meant this had to be a Red Card but it can be mitigated down to YC. The argument here is whether the Judiciary panel correctly applied the mitigation. Personally I cannot see how the presence of the other England player provided mitigation. It to me is not a commonsense application of mitigation but highly technical/ legalistic application proposed by a highly paid lawyer. The head contact framework is global. The argument here is whether there was sufficient mitigation to downgrade the sanction. In my opinion and I would think in the eyes of many the Judiciary panel made a very poor decision. I repeat the framework applied is global. It’s the competency of the decision of the Judiciary panel that is under scrutiny. Your argument about the extent of injury is not applicable as to what the sanction should be, that decision is based solely on the actions of the offender. The judiciary may take that into consideration on the severity of the punishment i.e. the number of weeks of the suspension
HenryHoneyBalls
Roar Rookie
The panel stated in rationalising the reasons for the reduced ban "His disciplinary record is excellent. We do accept he feels what is properly characterised as remorse and not self-pity and that is it genuine." The also said by way of mitigation: "His early admission of Misconduct, without which there would be no proof of any of the words he used in Incident 1. His candour went some way towards establishing the extent of the Misconduct against him. That said, we found against him on Incident 2." None of the referees reports were able to recount anything Sexton said at all. As such you are not correct, you are not dealing in facts, the panel absolutely took his record into account as they do with all first time offenders. You seem to be advocating for Sexton to be treated harsher than anyone else who has had similar charges brought against them and your rationale for this seems to be your fixation with the fact that we wasn't playing. That's clearly irrelevant as the panel did take his exemplary record into account, and why wouldn't they? As mentioned before the only person who got a ban anything like the disproportionate ban you want was Hartley who did not admit guilt, did not have an exemplary record and did not show any remorse, that is why his ban was long. I assume you were advocating for similar 8 week ban for Cheika in 2015 when he broke super rugbys rules and entered the referees room to have it out with Jaco Peyper, or is your issue only with Sexton? Cheika got no ban despite serving a 10 week ban for abusing a cameraman.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Minimal hip bend too
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
But who pays for it and who is represented. I doubt a ref would pay for a QC but would feel hard done by if everyone else was lawyered up. Should the ref and bunker official have one QC each or between them. Should the other team or player (in this case Wales and TB) get a QC each or between them. Should people with a stake in the outcome have a QC, Argentina would be an example. Should the competition organizers be involved as they are the ones who give the interpretation. Should WR be there to defend the rules and also point out where the competition interpretation does not line up with WR. Any player cited (all red cards are auto cited) has to prove why the red was wrong. It is not on the Ref who gave the red card to explain their decision as they have already done that in their report.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
Or rugby is a contact game and people get hurt. We were told that Marika Koroibete was in the wrong for touching Jordie Barrett in the air when he had the ball and that MK should have got carded for tackling in the air. Rugby is a contact sport and people get injured all the time. We only need look at Menoncello who hurt himself tackling an irish player with the ball. In reality it was moving factors and it was determined by the panel that Farrel was at fault. Because he was at fault it would either be a penalty, yellow or red card offence. The Panel deemed it was a yellow card so he was deemed as being at fault. In the JB MK issue MK was deemed at fault.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
No because once you start giving punishments based on outcomes you are going to have even a worse outcome. Gats said that TB was not concussed but was distracted by the TV when doing the test. Should that mean less of a punishment. If a player is on the ground at a ruck and a tackled player falls on him and breaks his leg should that player who fell be punished because he put a player out for 2-3+ months. The problem is professional sport involves money and if Farrell being out costs the RFU £2m in lost income for whatever reason then they will pay £1m to get the decision reversed. Only need look at NFL for what WR need to do in terms of rules and WR need to make sure all professional leagues sign up to those rules and supporting framework. No more of this regional interpretation.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
But from the law we use hips. Yes legs are used as a justification to show the player lowed themselves but does not have to be. Aki's red card v Tuligai in a few years ago is a good example of this. Aki's right knee was about 6 inches off the ground while his left leg is at about a 45 degree angle. But he is straight at the hips so was upright in the tackle. Had nothing to do with what angle his legs are at or if they were bent. As I have said all over these comments, law and interpretation says bent at the hips but does not say a minimum amount one must be bent at the hips so until the fix that I can't see how one can say a player is not bent if at 89 degrees from the ground as bent 1 %. WR appeal can't bring new charges so we will see if WR can prove the QC wrong.
Brendan NH Fan
Roar Rookie
While the recent one did many do not. Not speaking English is a massive problem playing rugby at test level unlike other major sports.
Danny McGowan
Roar Rookie
Sorry Again, you know that’s not how it works, you can’t change a decision of field, but what could happen if someone disagrees with a judiciary decision, they would take it too court and no sanctions would be able to take place until after the court decision, so Farrell would still play in WC and probably for 6-9 months before getting an answer. I still think he should of got 6-8 weeks, but as he has been found not guilty (somehow) , there is no sanction can be given.