RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Barnes, in the times, calling it inevitable and proof/clarification that he should lose the Eng captaincy.

annoys me that Faz's tackling has been a problem for ages and virtually no pundits have called it out previously.

This. According to McCall, Saracens recognise the problem so it's not just us being anti-Farrell. Punditry loves the guy so much that they are blind to the truth, I suppose.

Tbf, to the times lot they took him off his pedestal quite a few months ago, with Barnes leading the way.

Mellsblue wrote:Tbf, to the times lot they took him off his pedestal quite a few months ago, with Barnes leading the way.

Does Barnes still see him in the XV at 12?

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Tbf, to the times lot they took him off his pedestal quite a few months ago, with Barnes leading the way.

Does Barnes still see him in the XV at 12?

Nope.
10. Ford
12. Tuilagi
13. Slade

That’s what I’d like to see TBH. Not often I’d agree with Stuart Barnes.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Tbf, to the times lot they took him off his pedestal quite a few months ago, with Barnes leading the way.

Does Barnes still see him in the XV at 12?

Nope.
10. Ford
12. Tuilagi
13. Slade

Wow, that's what I would go for. Do you agree?

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Does Barnes still see him in the XV at 12?

Nope.
10. Ford
12. Tuilagi
13. Slade

Wow, that's what I would go for. Do you agree?

Either that or with JJ at 13, or even Marchant.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Does Barnes still see him in the XV at 12?

Nope.
10. Ford
12. Tuilagi
13. Slade

Wow, that's what I would go for. Do you agree?

Yep.

I think Barnes’s written work is streets ahead of his commentary. Not that it’s high bar....

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Nope.
10. Ford
12. Tuilagi
13. Slade

Wow, that's what I would go for. Do you agree?

Yep.

I think Barnes’s written work is streets ahead of his commentary. Not that it’s high bar....

Is it just my suspicious mind that saw his written work a couple of months ago, and figured his ghost writer was still furloughed?

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Nope.
10. Ford
12. Tuilagi
13. Slade

Wow, that's what I would go for. Do you agree?

Yep.

I think Barnes’s written work is streets ahead of his commentary. Not that it’s high bar....

Has he mentioned picking Championship-based players? So far, I have seen no comment that the likes of Itoje, Daly and the Vunipolas might not be match-sharp next season, for example. Jones has announced that he will pick Saracens players, I think. Nobody seems to be querying that policy.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Wow, that's what I would go for. Do you agree?

Yep.

I think Barnes’s written work is streets ahead of his commentary. Not that it’s high bar....

Has he mentioned picking Championship-based players? So far, I have seen no comment that the likes of Itoje, Daly and the Vunipolas might not be match-sharp next season, for example. Jones has announced that he will pick Saracens players, I think. Nobody seems to be querying that policy.

There’s very little time for them to lose match sharpness. They’ll go from the end of this season straight into 6 weeks of internationals, have about 6 weeks with Sarries then back into international camp for the 6N’s.

Timbo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep.

I think Barnes’s written work is streets ahead of his commentary. Not that it’s high bar....

Has he mentioned picking Championship-based players? So far, I have seen no comment that the likes of Itoje, Daly and the Vunipolas might not be match-sharp next season, for example. Jones has announced that he will pick Saracens players, I think. Nobody seems to be querying that policy.

There’s very little time for them to lose match sharpness. They’ll go from the end of this season straight into 6 weeks of internationals, have about 6 weeks with Sarries then back into international camp for the 6N’s.

If anything they will be pretty refreshed compared with others.

Yep. I think they can get away without playing Champ for the 6N. From what I’ve heard on the grapevine there’s no chance of the Champ (or below) starting until the new year, anyway. Given Eng training camps start mid-Jan....playing in Champ rugby prior to the 6N is moot.
Fitness might be an issue but the top bods are rumoured to be off to Super Rugby and Vunipolae are said to be more than happy rolling out in the Champ in the hope they can get through a year without injury.
It’ll be interesting for sure but, in the long run, most believe they’ll benefit from the lighter work load.
Looking long term, and given Jones’s past utterances, no European rugby in 21/22 might be a bigger hindrance, for those on the way up or down.

Jesus. I just watched the clip back of that Farrell tackle and that was waaay worse than I realised at the time. I was too shocked at the fact he'd finally been red carded for it.

On the 'the only small mitigation is that Atkinson ducked slightly' I think the way Farrell goes in over the top of someone's outstretched arms (at the latest point I'd say he can pull out of the hit) he was always going to hit the head. I think if anything Atkinson ducking right at the end is the reason Farrell slides off him slightly, rather than getting him full force in the side of the face.

Man, that was like a flashback to 1980’s league. What a cheap shot. He instantly regretted it, but only because he was clearly guilty.

It is good to see the general community consensus of this as not OK though. Question is do you want a dinosaur for a captain?

I've watched the incident several times. What I just cannot understand is his body position as he approached his opponent. How could it result in anything but too high? Was he ever even thinking of dipping into the tackle? No matter how apologetic he was afterwards, his technique set out to be dangerous (how does one define 'accidental' in this scenario). At best, it was appalling judgement.

It doesnt get any better on repeat viewings. I was shocked at the time and remain so. There is absolutely no mitigation.

Dinosaur or no what concerns me, and this bleeds into other aspects of his game, is just how much an unco Farrell looks at times. I've repeat offered the defence that his attack game isn't quite as stilted as it looks because he's so square to the defence and that's in large part a good thing no matter what it looks like, but this is just..., well it's hard to know what he's even trying to do. For me he'd be fortunate to get an entry level tariff for that one, though given disciplinary panels I expect they will go with 6 weeks knocked down to 3 for not spitting out a biscuit.

Stom wrote:So I’ve just watched it. Surely that’s worthy of more than 6 weeks. Utter filth, Jesus. He could have taken his head right off.

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.

It cannot go below 50% the full term.

He has previous for a high swinging arm tackle, so doubt he can get a full reduction for that, but with his apology pitchside, he'll still get to the 50%.

FKAS wrote:

Stom wrote:So I’ve just watched it. Surely that’s worthy of more than 6 weeks. Utter filth, Jesus. He could have taken his head right off.

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

Raggs wrote:Slo-mo doesn't do it justice as to how little was going on around Atkinson, and how long Farrell had to line him up (and how blindsided he was).

Was just wondering about this. Almost every clip I've seen it's super slow motion and zoomed in, it's hard to get a full sense of it without seeing the real timing and space surrounding them both.

Digby wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Stom wrote:So I’ve just watched it. Surely that’s worthy of more than 6 weeks. Utter filth, Jesus. He could have taken his head right off.

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.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

FKAS wrote:
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.

He should be looking at a 104 week ban, I think, but only for internationals. Maybe 312 weeks just to be safe.

Stom wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
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.

He should be looking at a 104 week ban, I think, but only for internationals. Maybe 312 weeks just to be safe.

Finally, some unbiased common sense.