Ladies and Gentlemen, place your bets please

[Heathen]

Eastmond got six for two clotheslines v Quins.

High end is 12. Should be nothing less than 6 but .....................................

[wasps]

Lee Blackett essentially coming out in Farrell's defence in the post match won't help either

[bigad82]

It's going to be 2 weeks halved to 1.
I have a bad feeling as about this.

[Rifleman Harris]

Mark McCall was on the radio this morning pleading his case and explaining just how remorseful he is too etc etc (I didn't / couldn't listen to it all).

[bigad82]

Mark McCall was on the radio this morning pleading his case and explaining just how remorseful he is too etc etc (I didn't / couldn't listen to it all).

I have to run off and be sick when he opens his gob as well.

[InBetweenWasp]

I do think Farrell is genuinely remorseful that he got it wrong and hurt Atkinson and that his reaction and apology were both respectful and sincere.  He's held his hands up to his mistake.

That being said:

-- I don't think it'll change the way he tackles (and actually, I think there's a few other 10's who tackle upright - Cips and Umaga spring to mind as two we've seen)
-- I don't think it'll change him playing 'hard'
-- He'll do it again

I was about to wonder whether a non-white player might see a different outcome to whatever Farrell gets but then recall Nanai from Worcester got a 3-game ban for his no-arms tackle on Jonny May which wasn't hugely disimiliar.  Perhaps that is what we should expect Farrell to get.

That'd mean he misses the Leinster game, then is back as R21 isn't confirmed yet (presumably as it's subject to how Sarries, Saints and Chiefs get on as well as Bears and Tigers in the Challenge Cup).

[Hymenoptera]

I do think Farrell is genuinely remorseful that he got it wrong and hurt Atkinson and that his reaction and apology were both respectful and sincere.  He's held his hands up to his mistake.

I was about to wonder whether a non-white player might see a different outcome to whatever Farrell gets but then recall Nanai from Worcester got a 3-game ban for his no-arms tackle on Jonny May which wasn't hugely disimiliar.  Perhaps that is what we should expect Farrell to get.

That'd mean he misses the Leinster game, then is back as R21 isn't confirmed yet (presumably as it's subject to how Sarries, Saints and Chiefs get on as well as Bears and Tigers in the Challenge Cup).

What else would you expect after that hit, no credit points for remorse, 99% of humans would do the same. And the May hit was so different i'm not sure it can be offered as any comparison.

[backdoc]

I do not think remorse has any role to play here as he clearly committed himself to do harm. That the harm was more dangerous than he anticipated because of the movement of the other player is of no consequence.

I would ban him for 12 weeks.

[Heathen]

I do not think remorse has any role to play here as he clearly committed himself to do harm. That the harm was more dangerous than he anticipated because of the movement of the other player is of no consequence.

I would ban him for 12 weeks.

+1.

That tackle was dangerous and could have broken Charlie's neck.

[Neils]

I do not think remorse has any role to play here as he clearly committed himself to do harm. That the harm was more dangerous than he anticipated because of the movement of the other player is of no consequence.

I would ban him for 12 weeks.

+1.

That tackle was dangerous and could have broken Charlie's neck.

Yup agree. Has to have some kind of screw or fixing device very loose.

[wasps]

Unfortunately, the game is dangerous, and serious injuries sometimes happen even in innocuous situations
As such, I don't see the panel taking that into account too much.


In the context of the game, Farrell wasn't playing particularly well, his team were struggling but still more than capable of winning... They just needed a little something extra.

With that in mind, Farrell deviced it was time for a big hit to change the flow of the game.
We'd just brought a young fly half on, Farrell undoubtedly wanted to put a mark on him

I genuinely believe he went in with full intention of leaving one on him and ensuring that he knew who and what he was up against.
I also genuinely believe that he didn't intend to injure him - and that's where the remorse / apology comes in.



Ultimately, it's incredibly reckless and exactly the sort of thing that the RFU, and world rugby, are trying to get out of the game.
However, without precedence, I don't expect to see anything out of the ordinary from the panel.
I suspect worst case will be 6 games reduced to 3

[InBetweenWasp]

Goodey suggesting 20 weeks mitigated down to 10

Jim Hamilton suggesting 8-10 served minimum

[mike909]

I do think Farrell is genuinely remorseful that he got it wrong and hurt Atkinson and that his reaction and apology were both respectful and sincere.  He's held his hands up to his mistake.

I'm sorry but I don't think he "got it wrong". "Reckless" also makes the presumption that it wasn't deliberate or exceptionally stupid to risk such an assault. Sure rugby is a dangerous game - I've been knocked out in the past - it was a genuine accident and mainly my own fault. But at no point does someone end up straight arming tackling to the head if they intended to make an even barely legal tackle.

At no time did he attempt to make a legal tackle, he could see the player from a long way out and it was not an instinctive hit. It suggests it was what he intended - or he'd lost his ability to make a decision.....ann had lost control of himself....which seems quite likely given past incidents.

My take - and after what he did to Robson a couple of season ago - I have little sympathy or belief in his remorse. He'd just knocked Robson unconscious and was arguing the toss about a yellow card. (Citing officer thought it ought to have been red)

I think he shows remorse when it suits.

And I do think he'll get off with a minimal sanction.

[Shugs]

0-3 with the mitigation that it's the first time he's used his arms in a tackle for a decade.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

I do think Farrell is genuinely remorseful that he got it wrong and hurt Atkinson and that his reaction and apology were both respectful and sincere.  He's held his hands up to his mistake.

We don’t know what’s going on inside his head so it’s impossible to say whether or not his expressed remorse is genuine. Given his track record if he really didn’t want hurt people in that way he’d have learned to tackle properly, or at least control his temper. 

Anyway, that’s bye the bye, there’s 3 parts to any sentence:

1 Protection of the general population. More to do with keeping serious criminals of the street, but perhaps some of Sarries opponents over the next 3 months might need protecting.

2 punishment for the crime. This is where they can take in to account good behaviour, admitting the crime etc

3 Deterrence. Sending a message to other players and even the player himself.

IMNVHO, 1&3 should be the overriding issues here and he warrants a lengthy ban at the upper end if TPB are serious about player safety.