Saracens vs Wasps - Saturday

[Mellsblue]

You’ll all be glad to know that Dallaglio has given his unbiased* thoughts on the ruck podcast:

He stated categorically that Farrell did not intend to cause harm (no info as to how he knows this for certain).

His record is clean save a yellow four years ago.

The repeated issues with his tackling technique, particularly the infamous two v SA**, cannot and should not be taken into account when deciding his punishment.

Farrell is not a naughty boy but is, in fact, the messiah***


*despite knowing Farrell since he was a teenager and employing him to babysit his kids.
**one of the journos did point out that one of his tackles v SA featured in a World Rugby video showing what techniques would now be viewed more harshly by the on field officials.....I think I’d also be correct in saying that WR came out and stated that the tackle should’ve been a yellow.
***i made this one up

[Mikey Brown]

Even Andy Goode said it was awful.

[Raggs]

He doesn't have a clean record. How are they missing this...

[FKAS]

He doesn't have a clean record. How are they missing this...

Previous citings or red cards? I can't remember any.

Remember Calum Clark was allowed a reduction for a previously good record despite having a red card a few years before for England under 20s and having intentionally broken another players arm. The citing officials aren't the most reliable or consistent.

I mean we could do a whole thread on the lack of consistency in citings. Farrell could get anything from two weeks to twelve weeks.

[Raggs]

He doesn't have a clean record. How are they missing this...

Previous citings or red cards? I can't remember any.

Remember Calum Clark was allowed a reduction for a previously good record despite having a red card a few years before for England under 20s and having intentionally broken another players arm. The citing officials aren't the most reliable or consistent.

I mean we could do a whole thread on the lack of consistency in citings. Farrell could get anything from two weeks to twelve weeks.

He's been banned for 2 weeks after a cited high tackle on Dan Robson, yellow on the pitch, upgraded to red by the citing officer. Robson was falling, but Farrell took his head off with an arm too.

Don't think he ever got even carded for his arm into Watsons head.

[Mellsblue]

He's been banned for 2 weeks after a cited high tackle on Dan Robson, yellow on the pitch, upgraded to red by the citing officer. Robson was falling, but Farrell took his head off with an arm too.

I’m assuming that’s incident from four years ago that Dallaglio refers to?

[Mikey Brown]

Was looking for a full speed clip of it but found this, which is a rather strange compilation of Farrell smashing people. Much of it perfectly legit but some of it just aimless/reckless. His ability to knock much bigger players over is impressive, but it would be great if he could do it within the rules. Maybe a switch to NFL?



Habana though, what a tart.

[Puja]

He doesn't have a clean record. How are they missing this...

Previous citings or red cards? I can't remember any.

Remember Calum Clark was allowed a reduction for a previously good record despite having a red card a few years before for England under 20s and having intentionally broken another players arm. The citing officials aren't the most reliable or consistent.

I mean we could do a whole thread on the lack of consistency in citings. Farrell could get anything from two weeks to twelve weeks.

He's been banned for 2 weeks after a cited high tackle on Dan Robson, yellow on the pitch, upgraded to red by the citing officer. Robson was falling, but Farrell took his head off with an arm too.

Don't think he ever got even carded for his arm into Watsons head.

There was also the no-arms shoulder charge into Izack Rodda against Australia that should've been a yellow and penalty try but was instead "a good solid tackle". That won't be counted on his record either.

Puja

[Raggs]

He's been banned for 2 weeks after a cited high tackle on Dan Robson, yellow on the pitch, upgraded to red by the citing officer. Robson was falling, but Farrell took his head off with an arm too.

I’m assuming that’s incident from four years ago that Dallaglio refers to?

If so, then it's a very disingenuous way of portraying what was classed as a red and given a ban.

[Digby]

I'm sure that Farrell will get a 50% reduction for previously being a good boy and then mitigation for the player dipping even though nobody else gets that anymore. Two, three week ban max.

It's a horrible tackle with quite a bit of force. Farrell knew it as well, he went for the really big smash trying to dislodge the ball and got it horrifically wrong. Exactly the type of tackle rugby should be trying to get rid of. Farrell is never in control.

I don't thin Stom is arguing he shouldn't get a standard reduction, more it shouldn't get a low end tariff as the entry point. And I think there's a reasonable case for that as this is much worse than many high tackles we've seen red carded leading to bans

Indeed, that’s never low end, that’s medium or even high end it’s so bad.

I'd go with medium

[Mellsblue]

Finished The Ruck podcast. Dallaglio even as the temerity to wish Owen Farrell all the best for the hearing!

[paddy no 11]

I predict 3 weeks

With no bums on seats they can afford to teach him a bit of a lesson and let him miss leinster game so that he'll learn to not be a naughty boy anymore

[Raggs]

5 matches missed. Top end of 10 weeks reduced by half for guilty plea and being a jolly good fellow.

[Danno]

And no internationals :/

[jimKRFC]

And no internationals :/

That's not really a surprise is it...

[Digby]

Owen reported to comment the sanction was a little high

[fivepointer]

A suspension was guaranteed from the moment Farrell badly misjudged his attempted 61st-minute tackle on Atkinson during Saracens’ surprise weekend defeat. He apologised immediately and could be heard saying “I know this was bad” to the referee, Christophe Ridley, before receiving the first red card of his professional career. Despite the blatant nature of the offence and the acceptance it had not been intentional, it took more than four hours for the panel to issue its verdict.

“This was a totally unacceptable contact with the neck/head of Charlie Atkinson as a result of a reckless tackle which had the consequences of him being knocked unconscious and sustaining a concussion,” Hamlin said. “This resulted in the panel concluding this was a top-end offence.”

Debate over Farrell’s tackling technique has been continuing for some time but some high-profile character witnesses, including his national and club coaches, did their best to leap to the fly-half’s defence.

“Testimonials provided by Mark McCall, Eddie Jones and the founders of a charity with which the player works very closely were of the highest quality,” Hamlin confirmed. “The panel concluded that applying the off-field mitigating factors, notwithstanding his suspension four and a half years ago, the player was entitled to a reduction from 10 to five meaningful matches under RFU regulation 19.11.11.”

Wasps have announced Atkinson will be sidelined for longer than normal as he recovers from the heavy blow. The 18-year-old, who had been on the field for only eight minutes as a second-half substitute, will not train for at least a fortnight as a precautionary measure.

“You have to look after these guys and it was a tough head knock,” said the Wasps coach, Lee Blackett. “He’s come through OK but obviously because of his age we’ll look after him.”


What possible relevance can the view of people who work for a charity have on things like this? Should "off field mitigating factors" be considered at all when the panel are basically ruling on the facts in front of them? Was it a high tackle, was it dangerous, were there any mitigating factors at all?
Should the panel really have to listen to an appeal that includes, Owen is a lovely bloke who does a lot of work for charity, so if you can reduce the ban for setting out to decapitate Atkinson (who looks set to miss almost as much action as Farrell) that would be much appreciated.
And should they have to listen to representations from his coaches, who inevitably are going to present a very biased picture?

[Digby]

I don't mind to some extent, but as a for instance had Ben Foden made that tackle would the panel have wanted to hear from Una that he's a cheating piece of shit?

[Puja]

Did anyone hear Pat Lam's diatribe after the Saints game last night? He was offered an opportunity by BT to give a comment on the Piutau suspension for them to use in commentary and said he wanted instead to talk about it in a live interview after the game. Went in hard on the disciplinary system, the inconsistencies and mitigating factors, the fact that Piutau got the same ban for defending himself as Kitchener did for attempting to level him, that if Kitchener had connected it could've ended SPiutau's career given his history of headknocks, etc. Absolutely fuming and very candid.

Not sure if I agree with all of his points (he reckoned you have a right to self-defence on the street and therefore you should be allowed to defend yourself on the pitch without penalty), but the disciplinary system badly needs overhauling. I suspect it's more likely Lam will get punished than anything will change, but there we are.

Puja

[paddy no 11]

Yeah testimony from your coaches who are not at all interested in having their player back - Jones being an odious kunt is hardly a great witness either

[paddy no 11]

Did anyone hear Pat Lam's diatribe after the Saints game last night? He was offered an opportunity by BT to give a comment on the Piutau suspension for them to use in commentary and said he wanted instead to talk about it in a live interview after the game. Went in hard on the disciplinary system, the inconsistencies and mitigating factors, the fact that Piutau got the same ban for defending himself as Kitchener did for attempting to level him, that if Kitchener had connected it could've ended SPiutau's career given his history of headknocks, etc. Absolutely fuming and very candid.

Not sure if I agree with all of his points (he reckoned you have a right to self-defence on the street and therefore you should be allowed to defend yourself on the pitch without penalty), but the disciplinary system badly needs overhauling. I suspect it's more likely Lam will get punished than anything will change, but there we are.

Puja

Would agree with Lam to an extent and each situation should be judged individually

Some might suggest tuilagi defended himself the time he punched ashton which would be ridiculous

The thich canadian from clermont got a red for attacking O'Connell, O'Connell got a yellow for defending himself with his fists which was about right imo

[Mellsblue]

Love the fact that Jones and McCall were credible character witnesses. They’ve no ulterior motive at all. “Actually,” said Jones “he’s a bit of a chav, is a poor role model on the pitch and really needs to be punished as this was bound to happen eventually. He’s been aware that his tackle technique is at best poor and at worst dangerous for years yet he hasn’t managed to eradicate this from his game. That said, I need him for the up coming test matches so I’ll say he’s a bloody good bloke.”

Reminds me of the time I was sent off playing hockey at school, albeit with a different outcome. Went up in front of the head with my history teacher and sevens coach as my character witness. He banged on about how it was out of character etc etc. Head asked him if he was only saying this as he needed me for the upcoming sevens tournaments and he replied “no” with absolutely zero sincerity. My punishment was to be banned from sevens for the season......

[Digby]

Love the fact that Jones and McCall were credible character witnesses. They’ve no ulterior motive at all. “Actually,” said Jones “he’s a bit of a chav, is a poor role model on the pitch and really needs to be punished as this was bound to happen eventually. He’s been aware that his tackle technique is at best poor and at worst dangerous for years yet he hasn’t managed to eradicate this from his game. That said, I need him for the up coming test matches so I’ll say he’s a bloody good bloke.”

Reminds me of the time I was sent off playing hockey at school, albeit with a different outcome. Went up in front of the head with my history teacher and sevens coach as my character witness. He banged on about how it was out of character etc etc. Head asked him if he was only saying this as he needed me for the upcoming sevens tournaments and he replied “no” with absolutely zero sincerity. My punishment was to be banned from sevens for the season......

So you're saying you couldn't find credible character references for your good character?

[Mikey Brown]

Did anyone hear Pat Lam's diatribe after the Saints game last night? He was offered an opportunity by BT to give a comment on the Piutau suspension for them to use in commentary and said he wanted instead to talk about it in a live interview after the game. Went in hard on the disciplinary system, the inconsistencies and mitigating factors, the fact that Piutau got the same ban for defending himself as Kitchener did for attempting to level him, that if Kitchener had connected it could've ended SPiutau's career given his history of headknocks, etc. Absolutely fuming and very candid.

Not sure if I agree with all of his points (he reckoned you have a right to self-defence on the street and therefore you should be allowed to defend yourself on the pitch without penalty), but the disciplinary system badly needs overhauling. I suspect it's more likely Lam will get punished than anything will change, but there we are.

Puja

Haha. Jesus, he doesn't hold back does he?

https://www.bt.com/sport/watch/video/cl ... suspension

I think that is fantastic what he has said there. He is clearly fuming but manages to be as polite, thoughtful and clear as possible.

I remember a vaguely similar thing with POC getting thumped by that arsehole Cudmore a few years back, looking at the referee for several seconds, clearly wondering why he is letting somebody punch him in the face, then punching him back and getting carded. IIRC it was a red for Cudmore and a yellow for POC, which I think is much closer to fair.

I understand not wanting to condone retaliation if it escalates things, but they have to distinguish between the two.

[Mellsblue]

Love the fact that Jones and McCall were credible character witnesses. They’ve no ulterior motive at all. “Actually,” said Jones “he’s a bit of a chav, is a poor role model on the pitch and really needs to be punished as this was bound to happen eventually. He’s been aware that his tackle technique is at best poor and at worst dangerous for years yet he hasn’t managed to eradicate this from his game. That said, I need him for the up coming test matches so I’ll say he’s a bloody good bloke.”

Reminds me of the time I was sent off playing hockey at school, albeit with a different outcome. Went up in front of the head with my history teacher and sevens coach as my character witness. He banged on about how it was out of character etc etc. Head asked him if he was only saying this as he needed me for the upcoming sevens tournaments and he replied “no” with absolutely zero sincerity. My punishment was to be banned from sevens for the season......

So you're saying you couldn't find credible character references for your good character?

Yes. The head had seen my reports, I knew what was coming.