Owen Farrell: given five-game ban

[Rossm]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54081068

From the BBC.

[Rossm]

And more details from Bobby Bridge (working late).

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/rugby/owen-farrell-disciplinary-hearing-result-18901431

[Neils]

Charity set up by NW perchance?

[HDAWG]

More than I expected, but I don't understand how it was reduced based on things outside the game? By that logic could increase the length of the ban because the recipient was an 18 year old lad freshly out of school in his 2nd senior squad appearance? Atkinson has had to take extra weeks off, arguably ending his season, as a result of this.

Also, the fact Sarries are already relegated surely means not being present for prem games is meaningless? And, the match ban length, will it take into account whether he wouldn't be able to play all those prem games back to back?

I dunno I think it is a fair ban, but under the circumstances we're in a fixtures present is rather meaningless.

[Heathen]

So that is the Euro 1/4, potentially Euro SF and 3 or 4 of the remaining GP fixtures - some of which he would have been rested for (and are meaningless anyway).

[WonkyWasp]

Congratulations  to Christophe Ridley for having the courage and professionalism  do the right thing and red card Farrell -  regardless of Farrell's  English Captaincy. Many lesser men and women would have baulked at such decisive  action.  Thank you.

[Neils]

Congratulations  to Christophe Ridley for having the courage and professionalism  do the right thing and red card Farrell -  regardless of Farrell's  English Captaincy. Many lesser men and women would have baulked at such decisive  action.  Thank you.

Agreed and very good point.

[Neils]

Can see in future disciplinary hearings being snowed under with representations from all and sundry saying how superb said person is. It won't be long before primary teachers and lollipop ladies are brought to the fore.
Outside matters should have NO bearing on punishment for acts on the field of play.

[JF]

What is the relevance of a character reference? His character wasn't the reason for his being up before the beak, it was his tackling. Surely the evidence of his previous "tackles" would be more enlightening?

And why is there the idea that showing remorse should be a mitigating factor? A basic level of decency would require remorse to be shown, it shouldn't be taken as being something special.

[RogerE]

What is the relevance of a character reference? His character wasn't the reason for his being up before the beak, it was his tackling. Surely the evidence of his previous "tackles" would be more enlightening?

And why is there the idea that showing remorse should be a mitigating factor? A basic level of decency would require remorse to be shown, it shouldn't be taken as being something special.

Thus has always been - not Farrell's fault, but something that has been allowed to happen over the years.

Even in (real) court cases judges take into account the convicted person's previous character and offences.

As for 5/10 matches, in normal circumstances this would have been weeks, which would equate to exactly the same number of matches as this ban. We have complained about previous bans where weeks overlaps non-playing weeks (e.g. quarter final weeks when the players Club is not playing), so in many respects matches is a better option.

...and I do think he got away lightly.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

The issue is that 'justice' is focused primarily on intent, not outcome. Whilst there are some 'offences' where outcome has more weight in English law, it is mainly intent. Also, in English law, mitigation is also established, but, remorse and character tend to have little weight, except where an early guilty plea is entered, which results in a 50% reduction. Thus, plenty of precedence for the way the RFU system is set up.

Whilst the hearing may have heard the 'good deeds' and letter from Eddie, I doubt that they made one scintilla of difference.

The failure lies in the inaction of other referees who have let Farrell get away with past misdeeds. That is not the fault of the panel.

It is what it is, an imperfect system.

[RogerE]

Also with regard to reduction for previous good record - I assume there is a time limit on how long previous convictions can be taken into account.

Farrell had a previous ban (2016) for a tackle. Surely this should have been taken into account.

If it was a first offence and there is a 50% reduction tarrif, then a single prior offence should have a 25% reduction applied (i.e. should have been a 7 or 8 match ban)

[DGP Wasp]

In terms of the real impact of the ban when it comes to games he might actually have featured in, that is nobody's fault.  Fekitoa received a one match ban for accumulation of yellow cards and simply sat out the Worcester game where he would almost certainly have been rested anyway.  I fail to see how anyone can legislate for that.  "You must miss x games that you would definitely have been selected for", "He was going to be selected for all games m'lud", "Oh, OK then.  If you say so."

The system is what it is.  Pat Lam laid into it pretty heavily last night with some justification after Siale P received the same 3 match ban for defending himself as his assailant did for punching him in the first place, making the point that as a player with some concussion history, Siale was quite entitled to react to being lamped in the head.  Fair comment.

Eddie's or McCall's opinion should have had no bearing on the verdict whatsoever.  Any head coach is going to want to have his player back available ASAP, so they are never going to give anything less than a glowing reference.  As for Eddie, if the process is to be fair and consistent, then we can't have special dispensation for key England players based on the England coach's character witness.  What if it had been Maitland?  Would Gregor Townsend have dropped the panel a note saying what a lovely chap he was?  I also believe that if this had been done by a big South Sea Islander rather than the England captain then the ban would have been longer.

At least it was found to be at the high end of offences.  The right verdict, but the process that followed is not really fit for purpose.  At the very least, they should stop referring to it as an "independent" panel!

[mike909]

Looks too much like one rule for the England Capt ....etc...

Poor effort from the RFU - its not like he does not have form (Robson and Watson spring to mind) and in this case it easily breached the rules to a point where the player committing the offence new that their action was likely to cause injury and as such was reckless - presuming (generously) that it wasn't deliberate

If behaviour of players across the Prem and beyond is to be changed - such assaults need to result in a long ban, not reduced because of outside factors.

[13thWarrior]

They've followed the standard protocol, and halved the initial "high end" sanction due to his good record, which officially he does have. You can't start accounting for other things like borderline tackles, the fact he may have got paid far too much, or that you don't like his face, as that would let in all sorts of nasty subjective factors. As for the character references, we'll have they made any difference? 10 became 5 due to his official disciplinary record not those notes.

IMO this is a fair as it was going to get and we should move on.