Owen Farrell: Does England captain’s ban reprieve set new tackle precedent for rugby as World Cup approaches? | Rugby Union News

Shock has reverberated all over the world of rugby after England captain Owen Farrell acquired no ban for a excessive tackle towards Wales and had his crimson card overturned.

Farrell was despatched off throughout England’s 19-17 victory at Twickenham on Saturday for a excessive tackle which noticed his shoulder catch Taine Basham within the head.

He appeared earlier than a video disciplinary listening to on Tuesday morning the place he had the cardboard overturned as a result of mitigating issue that Jamie George had pushed Basham earlier than he was hit inflicting a “late change in dynamics” that “brought about a sudden and significant change in direction from the ball carrier”.

This mitigation led the all-Australian panel to a call that Farrell, who was anticipated to face a 4 to six-week suspension, ought to have acquired solely a yellow card.

The response to the choice by the panel was speedy, with the final sentiment being that the choice went towards the precedent set on punishments for such tackles.

So, what new precedent has this choice now set? Let’s have a look….

How the panel reached the choice

The full judgement for Farrell’s case is but to be launched however the next is the Head Contact Process as set out by World Rugby.

Many believed the contact from Farrell may very well be classed as a shoulder cost, but when we observe the method, that can’t be the case.

World Rugby Head Contact Process as of 9 March 2023

1. Has head contact occurred?

Yes – transfer onto query 2

No – course of is exterior of Head Contact Process

2. Was there any foul play?

Yes, participant at fault – transfer onto query 3

No – play on

3. What was the diploma of hazard?

Low – penalty kick

Medium – yellow card, transfer onto query 4

High – crimson card, transfer onto query 4

4. Is there any mitigation?

Yes – yellow card turns into penalty kick OR crimson card can turn into yellow

However, mitigation won’t apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play

Farrell can have answered sure to questions one and two however from there, disagreed with classifying the tackle as having a “high degree of danger” on account of a mitigating issue, on this case George’s involvement within the tackle altering Basham’s height.

In the ruling, it states: “The player acknowledged that whilst he had committed an act of foul play, he denied that the act was worthy of a red card.”

Therefore, the panel then determined that Farrell’s tackle may very well be mitigated and was not an “intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play” such as a shoulder cost, leaving many pondering what his act is then being classed as.

Harsh sanctions for others with no prior type

While Farrell was feeling aid that he was now accessible to captain England all through the World Cup, Tonga centre George Moala was experiencing the precise reverse feeling as he was being handed a 10-week ban for a tip tackle on Canada’s Ben LeSage, ruling him out of everything of the World Cup.

While it was very a lot agreed the tackle by former All Black Moala was worthy of a ban, the tough sanction within the context of the Farrell choice left a foul style in lots of gamers’ and followers’ mouths judging by the reactions on social media.

“No ban? What a joke,” mentioned former New Zealand participant Steven Luatua.

“Take away for everybody taking part in within the UK group, watching the professional recreation – ‘if they’ll do it , you possibly can!’, mentioned Newcastle participant Cooper Vuna.

“Tier 2 groups actually do get handled in another way”, mentioned Scarlets participant Sam Louisi.

It additionally feels extra controversial within the context of each gamers’ prior data. The tackle by Moala, albeit a foul one, is his first offence, whereas Farrell would have been dealing with his fourth ban for a excessive tackle and was unable to shave off per week as he did earlier this yr by enterprise World Rugby’s tackle faculty programme.

In January, he acquired a four-game ban after his shoulder made contact with the top of Gloucester substitute Jack Clement, a punishment then decreased to a few.

He additionally has bans from 2018 and 2020 on his report, of two and 5 video games respectively.

Is participant welfare being thought of?

Both codes of rugby have over the previous few years elevated their deal with participant welfare, particularly on lowering the variety of tackles that trigger concussions through harsher sanctions on the tackler.

Indeed, any clear contact to the top by a tackler is now punished with a card and the new bunker evaluation system, replays, upgraded Farrell from a yellow to a crimson card.

With head contacts persistently being mentioned, the choice is being seen by many as the antithesis of the coverage World Rugby intends to advertise of placing “the player first and to rely on an evidence-based approach for all decisions”.

This “player first” technique, for many, seems to be to have been ignored on this case, resulting in outcry from these within the medical occupation such as Dr Willie Stewart, a neuropathologist who advises World Rugby.

He posted on social media: “Given @worldrugby stated position that ‘player welfare is the number one priority in the game’ I presume an appeal is pending?”

Six Nations, which oversees the warm-up fixtures, and World Rugby have the ability to attraction a verdict which has additionally led to Progressive Rugby, a participant welfare foyer group, calling for the game’s international governing physique to intervene.

“World Rugby must emerge from its corporate bubble of stakeholder management and delegated responsibility to bare its teeth,” Progressive Rugby mentioned on social media.

“For it to demonstrate it WON’T stand still on player welfare, that it IS the game’s number one priority and that they won’t tolerate being undermined.”

Former England girls flanker Maggie Alphonsi has additionally known as out the choice amid fears that rescinding the crimson card undermines the bunker evaluation system which is at present being trialled and has but to be confirmed for the World Cup.

“Baffled by this discussion. It undermines the Review Process and does not do rugby any favours in trying to stamp out dangerous tackles & protecting players,” Alphonsi posted on social media.

“This outcome is only going to blur the lines between red & yellow card decisions and lose trust in the judiciary process.”

When contacted by Sky Sports concerning a possible attraction, World Rugby mentioned: “We will not be commenting on the outcome of independent process at present.”

The different view: Edwards backs Farrell

Despite a powerful response to Farrell’s crimson card being rescinded, there are those that consider it’s the appropriate name – together with France assistant coach Shaun Edwards – in an indication that there are clear variations of opinion throughout the rugby sphere.

In his Daily Mail column, Edwards mentioned: “Justice has been served for Owen Farrell. I used to be one of many few individuals who thought his crimson card was fallacious. It’s proper that he is been cleared to play.

“We’re dwelling in a world of slow-motion replays. These frame-by-frame photos are so totally different to what gamers see on the pitch.

“Things occur in a break up second. If the ball service modifications path late – as we noticed with Taine Basham – it is virtually unattainable for the tackler to react.

“People have got to start realising that. The post-match disciplinary system has worked and now I wish good luck to Owen moving forwards.”

The debate will rumble on and all eyes will probably be on the World Cup to see how related tackles are handled…