2023 RWC Buildup, Squads, Fixtures 'etc'

Pudsy33

It also completely undermines the new TMO bunker and the referees. They had 10 mins and, apparently, still got it wrong. Whats the point?

KrustyUCC

Mad verdict

Farrell has more lives than a cat with his poor tackle technique

The universal, swift and widespread condemnation of this decision may have an impact on WR.

I hate to drift into conspiracy thinking but this decision for me indicates that Farrell is too big a name to be left out of the RWC and WR have potentially opened a massive can of worms to facilitate him playing.

fitz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981906#Comment_120981906

I'd like to see the WRU put some pressure on WR here.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981906#Comment_120981906

I think its far, far more likely that some Australians just took a more SH tinted view of the head contact rules. It is not being properly reffed down there.

TomsOnTheRoof

I really struggle to understand the logic behind this. With all the litigation in the works surrounding CTE and traumatic brain injuries you'd think that WR and the Unions would be doing everything they can to illustrate their concern for player welfare. Instead it seems they've adopted the opposite approach. You can be sure that any legal counsel worth their salt will be highlighting this (as well as the boatload of other inconsistent decisions made by citing commissions over the past few years) as a prime example of negligence with regard to player's safety. This kind of thing could lead to the bankruptcy of Unions in the future.

KH25

There’s zero defending him, in the replays you can see he’s never going to wrap and even throws the shoulder in. It’s impossible not to think that if it was a lower profile player, they would be banned. It makes a mockery of the bunker system and the supposed focus on player welfare from head injuries.

fitz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981935#Comment_120981935

This is exactly why WR should be appealling this. They can't leave this as a precedent. It's going to be so easy for this to be used as evidence of negligence.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982027#Comment_120982027

In the next couple of weeks when the new season starts all players outside the professional levels in England and outside of AIL in Ireland will be playing under new rules with the tackle height lowered to below the sternum , because tackles above that level are considered a safety risk.

What message does this send to everyone about how seriously they are taking this whole thing?

A clearly high tackle that gets completely exonerated , just nonsense.

Shehal

I'm genuinely speechless about that decision and cant think of anything constructive to say about it...how the f*k could you look at that tackle and come to the conclusion that it wasnt worthy of a red.

My honest gut feeling is the panel didn't want Farrell to miss the RWC and the only way they could ensure that is deny it was a red at all as if they accepted it was they'd have to throw the book at him. I honestly cant see any other logic.

Paul Smeenus

Beyond ludicrous.

TomsOnTheRoof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981981#Comment_120981981

George Moala has received a 10 week ban as of today for a tip tackle against Canada. This is a terrible look for WR.

Hoop66

It wasn't even a "high tackle" it was a shoulder charge to the head ffs!

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982203#Comment_120982203

Video of the tackle here - It's not great and definitely worth a ban , but Moala has a clean record and the entry level for this offense is 6 weeks.

phog

Hard to believe Farrell got off without a ban.

bilston

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981516#Comment_120981516

I've seen or two comments trying to bring Sexton into it. Completely ignoring the fact that Sexton was actually banned. Very frustrating, but also best to ignore.

bilston

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120981798#Comment_120981798

Well, interesting you say that, because the feeling on WhatsApp groups that I'm part of on Saturday was that just that. A Farrell ban might actually benefit England.

bilston

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982203#Comment_120982203

I've just watched that on Twitter/X and to be fair it was an awful tackle and a potential neck breaker. Two wrongs don't make a right.

TomsOnTheRoof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982364#Comment_120982364

I don't have any issue with Moala being issued a red for the tackle or for him receiving a ban. What concerns me is the blatant lack of consistency. Moala's tackle is dangerous but I'd argue that there isn't much of a difference in the level of danger exhibited by his tackle and Farrell's. If anything Farrell's is slightly worse in my opinion. It's baffling to me, then, how Moala, a player with a clean record, can receive a 10 week ban whilst Farrell, who has previous, has gotten off scot free. It makes a joke of the whole citing process and is just another example of the staggering lack of consistency applied in these cases.

bilston

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982438#Comment_120982438

Yes, fair enough the lack of consistency is a puzzler alright.

I hope Farrell isn't t getting special treatment and it is just a cultural difference with an Australian panel. That said there shouldn't be a cultural difference on these matters, otherwise it all comes down to the make up of a panel as to whether a player gets banned or not.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982438#Comment_120982438

That's exactly it - The Entry point for Moalas offence is 6 weeks so given his clean record and the usual reductions for "good behaviour" etc. that means that they decided it was at the absolute upper end of the scale to allow them to end up at 10 weeks after they did all the additions and subtractions.

On Balance is the Moala offence a truly "top end" highly dangerous tackle offence and Farrells only a yellow card?

fitz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982481#Comment_120982481

They're different tackles for sure, but it's blatantly clear that the process is not resulting in balanced decisions. The Moala ban shows what a ridiculous decision the panel made in Farrell's case.

Quin_Dub

Just as a reference , This is the result from another "Tip Tackle" disciplinary review

So given that we know that Moala has a clean record , to land on 10 weeks it means that they started out at the very "Top-End" for that tackle.

This is Farrells last High tackle outcome

Check the boxes and explain how they decided this latest one didn't even reach red card standard...

aloooof

Can’t believe Farrell’s was overturned. It’s nothing short of farcical and reckless tbh.

All_in_Flynn

Like, I've tried to read the ruling report with an open mind but no matter how many times I read it, I still can't understand how they've come to the conclusion that it wasn't worthy of a red card.

It's a completely indefensible decision and if not appealed and subsequently overturned, then it will make a mockery of all of the efforts the game has gone through to convince the world they are trying to make the game safe.

Shehal

The main point when you look at the rules regarding a red card, which this panel seems to have conveniently side stepped, is when you are either always illegal or deliberately trying to hut the opponent then the mitigation factor isnt considered and its a red card if it meets the criteria for a red to begin with. Like I said previously if they came to the conclusion that this was a red they would have had no choice but to throw the book at him based on his previous record which means he would have missed a significant portion of the RWC if not all of it, the only way this wouldn't have happened is if they just denied it was a red card at all which seems to be what's happened. It's actually farcical, when I saw the post originally I genuinely thought it was someone trolling, I was then shocked to find out it was the actual decision. If World Rugby want any credibility restored they need to appeal this decision otherwise it will look really bad on them.

TomsOnTheRoof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982477#Comment_120982477

Maybe it is a cultural bias but that's a generous read of the situation imo. It's not even like they could afford to give Farrell the benefit of the doubt given his history but yeah, the lack of consistency is a massive issue and really not a good look with lawsuits pending.

TomsOnTheRoof

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120982481#Comment_120982481

Yeah I can't get my head around it either. Farrell is coming at force, with a tucked arm, and makes contact to the head. Even allowing for the nonsense excuse of George affecting the contact zone there's no way that it wasn't foul play and not a hope in hell that it was less dangerous than Moala's.

aloooof

A potential red-card incident will almost inevitably happen to England’s opposition during this World Cup too.

A game Farrell will now likely be playing it.

If it results in a red, and has an impact on the game, you’d forgive the players and coaches of the opposition to feel pretty aggrieved.

Pete_Cavan

I wonder if Borthwick is secretly cursing this decision, losing his captain a couple of weeks before the tournament would be a nice excuse if they perform badly (and he could even spin it that he lost his first choice half back pairing at short notice).

It brings a lot of extra unwanted attention on England which no doubt adds to the pressure. I'm sure they'll also get extra scrutiny from referees now, borderline high tackles in particular they may not get much benefit of the doubt.

It could yet get even worse for England, Farrell could end up being banned and they have to deal with the media circus. A ban and everyone accepting it and moving on surely would have been preferable.