Farrell cleared

[Neils]

And red card rescinded.

That is the fudge.

[JF]

And red card rescinded.

That is the fudge.

Please do not associate a pleasant and enjoyable sweet with that thug.

A decision that is both unbelievable and entirely predictable.

[Nrgee]

Why am i not surprised any other player would be facing the maximum ban.
The RFU banging on about player welfare and this thug with previous gets a slap on the wrist.I have had it with EPL and the RFU.
Ill watch the world cup but choose my games.
😡

[coddy]

I had to check my calendar to make sure it wasn't April Fools

It seems the joke is on those in the game who are trying to limit head injuries

Utterly incomprehensible decision.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

🤬🤬🤬🤬

[BlackAndGoldSunglasses]

Also massively undermines the new "bunker" review system.

They have 10 mins to make a proper decision in terms of affecting the game - and then are found not to have done so. Farrell should not have been red carded, should have come back on after 10 mins and restored England to 15 (I think, at that point).

Complete cock up.

Everyone waiting with expectation for the first RC for a high tackle in the RWC now....

[WonkyWasp]

Word's would fail me if it wasn't so utterly utterly predictable.  What hold does this thick idiot have over the RFU?

[Trevs Big Tackle]

I hope decisions like this are cited in the various ex-players lawsuits against RFU, World Rugby etc displaying how the authorities are not looking after player welfare.

[nuneaton wasps]

have no word's for this , just wrong

[Neils]

Is this a SH versus NH view of his actions.

[BlackAndGoldSunglasses]

Is this a SH versus NH view of his actions.

Potentially? I've seen some SH citings overturned where NH would normally ban... the fact the panel was (all?) Australian might point to that.

Makes the whole consistency question more pertinent then...

[Neils]

Is this a SH versus NH view of his actions.

Potentially? I've seen some SH citings overturned where NH would normally ban... the fact the panel was (all?) Australian might point to that.

Makes the whole consistency question more pertinent then...

Yes my thinking.

[Rossm]

Not that I'm malicious but if we have to play the Aussies then I hope one of them does the same thing to him as he did to Basham.

[Lwasp]

Do those banging on about the RFU and EPL not realise this is an IRB match and the panel were all Australian? I'm all for a knee jerk hot take but honestly.....

That being said, insane decision really. Faz was always upright and made no attempt to wrap. It could never be a legal tackle and as 2nd tackler Faz could never be in control of point of impact given the technique (or lack thereof). So to give mitigation because Basham wasn't where Faz thought he'd be? Nonsense.

And I agree with B&GSunglasses, think it damages the bunker system which I though worked well for Fagerson. The game got going again much quicker whilst a decision was made.

[Chunky24]

Do those banging on about the RFU and EPL not realise this is an IRB match and the panel were all Australian? I'm all for a knee jerk hot take but honestly.....

That being said, insane decision really. Faz was always upright and made no attempt to wrap. It could never be a legal tackle and as 2nd tackler Faz could never be in control of point of impact given the technique (or lack thereof). So to give mitigation because Basham wasn't where Faz thought he'd be? Nonsense.

And I agree with B&GSunglasses, think it damages the bunker system which I though worked well for Fagerson. The game got going again much quicker whilst a decision was made.

While they may not be responsible for the "independant" world rugby committee the RFU presumably finance the lawyer who made the case for the defence of not guilty when at the same time saying they value player safety and literally about to introduce sternum height tackling in the community game?
Contradictory?