Owen Farrell is out of England’s first two World Cup pool games after World Rugby successfully appealed against the controversial decision to overturn his red card.
The England captain received a four-game ban for his red card against Wales 12. The ban includes last week’s match against Ireland – he wasn’t selected – and this week’s game against Fiji which means he will miss group games against Argentina and Japan.
Farrell’s red card was overturned by an all-Australian independent judicial committee, which was then overruled on WR appeal.
The Appeal Committee said the tackle was “always illegal”.
Farrell became the first England player to receive a red card from rugby’s ‘bunker’ review system when he made a high tackle on Taine Basham during England’s 19-17 win over Wales.
The Appeal Committee found that, in their original hearing, the Disciplinary Committee should have considered Farrell’s attempt to wrap his opponent in the tackle.
(Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)
Therefore the Appeal Committee determined that no mitigation could be made for the tackle, and that the original decision to overturn the red card was an error, which led them to ban Farrell.
Farrell captain appeared at an appeal hearing, via video link, in front of an independent judicial panel of chair Nigel Hampton KC (New Zealand), along with Shao-ing Wang from Singapore and Donal Courtney from Ireland.
It was reported Farrell’s hearing began at 6.30am UK time and some 13 hours later, there was an announcement from the Six Nations – who oversee the process in this case.
The full Six Nations statement
“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.
“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’.
“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).”
Tooly
Roar Rookie
How about another fortnight to review the decision made by the review committee ? This is a WC and we want to see the best players . Certainly not from WR who came up with the ludicrous draw and pools .
Tooly
Roar Rookie
You tell Crofty mate ! Before you do look at some old clips of Phil Waugh after Crofty bred him .
AgainAgain
Roar Rookie
Great so you have chosen to ignore all the points of the post and simply say it was a mistake any right minded professional could have made. The fact you make such a suggestion to excuse a basic mistake suggests you also think it is fundamental and ypu are really only looking to excuse a poor decision that everybody else can see. It’s not omnipotence, I work in a world where fundamental mistakes like this are regarded poorly, not opportunities to learn and more often than not sees contracts foreshortened. Must be nice to live in a world where things like accountability, responsibility and competency don’t exist.
Otago Man
Roar Rookie
He was a fine lock but in 1991 in the promising category. I think even the next year he was rated well down the order but a tight win against Ireland at Carisbrook ordered a rethink by Mains and his selectors. Brooke came and formed a really good partnership with Jones.
Perthstayer
Roar Rookie
I get that, it was more the insuation england can directly tell the panel whzt to do. England could be better off without him if they let Smith do what he's good at.
Ismack
Roar Rookie
Yeah mate it could definitely be streamlined, though perhaps the Brook example above is a bit too streamline ha ha ha. On a side note what a cool story shows how much rugby has changed. I love them anecdotes from the old days of rugby, and Robin Brook no less the man was a legend.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
Yes I made a suggestion. That is, I started the entire post with two words, "I think". That means, "In my opinion" which in turn means "on what I understand of the situation". In other words, it's a best guess. You however, have likely the same facts that I have but have decided these people are incompetent because they made a mistake. Were you in the room when the hearing was conducted? Have you read the verbatim transcripts of the evidence presented or read the verbatim transcripts of their deliberations? If not, you have exactly the same as me - no idea what they considered to come to their conclusions. You can only offer an opinion and this is not an opinion. You've decided your 100% right. Must be nice being omnipotent
Rugbytrylover
Roar Rookie
Good result. World Rugby acted and reversed a bloody ridiculous outcome of a serial poor tackling offender.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Mmm ..This is where it gets tricky .. Farrell faced sanction under the HCP guidelines which allows for mitigation . I suspect not getting his arms up in time was factored into the equation , namely that the change of direction surprised Farrell ..I don't know but I'm simply trying to see it from thee perspective of the panel ...How did they get to that ruling in the first place? ..Either you can suggest as many have here that its about undue influence from above or let's assume they are upright guys , what caused them to come to this conclusion ..I mean obviously from my own perspective a no arms , head high tackle is never again going to be OK in rugby ..So many questions ...Also and this must come into it .., despite the Farrell cancel culture out there , possibly the panel didn't want to participate in a media driven witchhunt ..Even I might add , just being a Nuisance of course ...Erring on the side of caution , particularly being Australian with a genuine possibility of England coming up against Aus in the WC ...But mostly I don't buy that they've been corrupted etc . I think its just social media insanity that has impacted on this entire process including the appeal and eventual banning ....Are we to get to the point that nobody ever again wishes to be a match official..From refs to TMOs to citing commissioners and adjudicators ..That is already happening and is as serious a threat to the sdpory as dangerous tackles are ..maybe even more so!
Loosey
Roar Rookie
Johnny Wilkinson always looked like he was taking a dump.
Aiden
Roar Rookie
How about Dan Bigger, twitching like a maniac. He’s probably worse, but still more likable overall
Rolando
Roar Rookie
So, a lack of an attempt to wrap the arms rendered "a late change in dynamics due to Jamie George’s involvement in the contact area bringing a sudden and significant change in direction from the ball carrier” (according to the disciplinary committee), illegal as mitigation? Fair. Always gotta wrap. Over the last few decades I've watched too many gutless tacklers like Butch James, SBW and Nonu not even attempt to tackle. A ball-carrier was utterly defensless having been lined up and then subjected to a last second turn of the body and shoulder charge into their head to shoulder area. I view it as the tackler not being game enough to attempt a 'ball and all' or midriff or leg tackle.
ScrumStability
Roar Rookie
Yes!! I can't stand the use of "learnings"
ScrumStability
Roar Rookie
But not roast turkeys :silly:
Kane
Roar Guru
*Not Guilty your honour, and I'm a nice guy gets you 2 weeks less suspension.
Paul
Roar Rookie
Kiwi fruit which are Chinese Gooseberries.
Kane
Roar Guru
I have no issues with that. He wasn't selected in case they needed to use that towards the ban. If there was no appeal he would have been selected that week,
ThugbyFan
Roar Guru
Just a Nuisance, I suspect the panel was so in awe of the presentation from the King's Ransom QC that they completely forgot that Farrell leading with his shoulder with no intention of arms wrap was sorta illegal. I wonder if the Aussie panel will be asked to adjudicate on any Poms during the RWC. I can see the excuses coming up now, "Oh the dog/cow/wife got bitten by a snake and the vet is 1000 km away. Sorry I can't attend". :laughing:
Kane
Roar Guru
The good character comes about as they've clearly got to know Owen quite well over all his previous trips to the judiciary panel. The remorse one is the one I find hard to believe. He pled not guilty and didn't believe it was worthy of a red card...
Cannonball
Roar Rookie
It is a surprise that nobody on the appeal panel had a wait…what moment. Too many big words?