Farrell's Comments to Board

[Neils]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/written-judgment-reveals-what-owen-farrell-said-at-tuesdays-hearing-and-why-50-per-cent-mitigation-was-applied-england/

[wasps]

I know I'll be in a minority on here, but as I've said elsewhere, I genuinely believe that Farrell's testimony is correct.

I do think that he intended to tackle hard, take the guy down and dislodge the ball.
Essentially a momentum changing tackle.

I do not believe he went in to injure Atkinson - I think there's very few professional sportsmen who have it in them to intentionally seriously injure someone.



However, I also believe that Farrell goes into these tackles out of control, and therefore recklessly.
He's aware that top level rugby players will often step, changing direction or speed at a moment's notice and to a degree, he doesn't care.
He's fully committed to his actions, which is sometimes commendable... But not when a slight misjudgement can have such serious consequences.


The risk/reward balance of these types of tackles has moved considerably over the years and while the RFU are looking for precedence in their decision making, there's a strong argument for starting a new precedent

[Rossm]

I think there's very few professional sportsmen who have it in them to intentionally seriously injure someone.

Is there a Roy Keane in rugby?

[hookender]

Dylan Hartley by his own admission

[13thWarrior]

I think there's very few professional sportsmen who have it in them to intentionally seriously injure someone.

Is there a Roy Keane in rugby?

Callum Clark? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxfOcZrxuHU

[WonkyWasp]

Highly Recommended Reading - Turn to  D. W.s  and  find 'The Rugby Disciplinary Panel in Action'.  It gives a very believable and witty insight into how the Panel reached its conclusions.   

[Neils]

Interesting comments in two articles in TRP both querying the representations from people with a vested interest and a charity. However Jeff Probyn says we should be talking about Charlie Atkinson and how long he could suffer from an attack of such ferocity.

[mike909]

Interesting comments in two articles in TRP both querying the representations from people with a vested interest and a charity. However Jeff Probyn says we should be talking about Charlie Atkinson and how long he could suffer from an attack of such ferocity.

I agree with Jeff (well as prop I would...) and as I wrote elsewhere "Even as a hard player and one not scared of contact, I would not want to be responsible for such a challenge nor the potential outcome for another player"

Whilst Farrell might not have intended to hurt Charlie - he was approaching the tackle area from many many metres away, and for many seconds - lots of time to make a choice of what to do - this was no reaction tackle. And yet he decided to carry on high and recklessly. The disciplinary guidance puts such a challenge as one down from intentional.

He already knew his tackling "technique" came with consequences - Dan was knocked out and Watson (Bath)  laid out by not dissimilar reckless assaults. He made the choice of technique and he made the choice with lots of time to make that choice to assault Charlie.

I think he's lucky Charlie wasn't seriously injured and lucky with 5 weeks.

[DGP Wasp]

I've not read the full report, only the summary in the Rugby Pass article. Seems the mitigation was based on precedence from a case in France which would leave the panel with little choice but to follow precedent based on legal advice, whether or not they felt inclined to do otherwise.

This quote did catch my eye:
"Speaking in his defence at the hearing that was held virtually, the RFU’s written judgment – which was published on Friday – details how Farrell told the panel he was 28 years of age, had 201 Premiership games for Saracens, 83 England caps, 4 Tests for the British and Irish Lions and was also the current England captain."
Well, with all that experience and responsibility he bloody well should've known better and should be expected to set an example. Grounds for an increased ban!

[St Bruno]

Mike909,
We don't actually know the extent of Charlie's injury yet and we won't know until he's back playing.

[mike909]

Mike909,
We don't actually know the extent of Charlie's injury yet and we won't know until he's back playing.

No we don't and given that the coaches have given him the rest of the season off, its not likely to have been slight. Regardless - I would not have wanted to be responsible for the risk of serious harm.