Six Nations statement: Why the Owen Farrell red card was rescinded
The Six Nations have issued a statement explaining the decision by an independent disciplinary hearing to free the red-carded Owen Farrell to play again with immediate effect. There were grave fears that the England skipper could be banned for up to six matches following last Saturday’s incident with Wales’ Taine Basham at Twickenham.
Farrell was initially given a yellow card but was soon told while sitting in the sin bin that the sanction was being upgraded to a red card following review by the TMO bunker.
However, rather than England having to deal with their captain being unavailable for the start of their Rugby World Cup campaign on September 9 versus Argentina in Marseille, he has instead been cleared to play and is available for selection for this Saturday’s Summer Nations Series game away to Ireland in Dublin.
A statement following the three-and-a-half hour judicial hearing read: “England fly-half Owen Farrell appeared before an independent judicial committee via video link having received a red card for an act of foul play contrary to law 9.13 (a player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously; dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders) in the Summer Nations Series match between England and Wales on Saturday, August 12.
“The independent judicial committee consisting of Adam Casselden (SC, chair), John Langford and David Croft (all from Australia) heard the case, considering all the available evidence and submissions from the player and his representative. The player acknowledged that whilst he had committed an act of foul play, he denied that the act was worthy of a red card.
“After reviewing all the evidence, questioning the player in detail and hearing submissions from the player’s representative, the committee concluded that the foul play review officer was wrong on the balance of probabilities to upgrade the yellow card issued to the player to a red card.
“The committee determined, when applying World Rugby’s head contact process, that mitigation should be applied to the high degree of danger found by the foul play review officer. The committee found that a late change in dynamics due to England No2’s interaction [Jamie George] in the contact area brought about a sudden and significant change in direction from the ball carrier.
“In the committee’s opinion, this mitigation was sufficient to bring the player’s act of foul play below the red card threshold. The committee believes it is important to record that no criticism is made of the foul play review officer nor would any be warranted.
“Unlike the foul play review officer, the committee had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the head contact process.
“The committee believes this is in contrast to the foul play review officer, who was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes without the benefit of all the additional material including hearing from the player and his legal representative.
“On that basis, the committee did not uphold the red card and the player is free to play again immediately.”
Latest Comments
All of these media pundits always miss the obvious whenever they analyse what is ailing or assisting the game. Rugby always has contentious points for debate when picking apart individual games and finding fault with itself. All this focus and scrutiny on “speeding up the game”, “high ball in play” etc is all contextual to the fan. As a tv viewer, if you’re absorbed into a game, regardless if your team is playing or not, more ball in play time and action are all byproducts of the contest. A good contest subliminally affects your memory in selectively remembering all the good aspects. A poor contest and your brain has switched off because its a blowout and the result is never in doubt or it’s a real chore to watch and remain engaged throughout. The URC, Top 14 and English premiership are all competitions that feel like there’s real jeopardy each week. The dominance of Super rugby by NZ teams was unhealthy from a sustainable interest perspective. You can’t fault those teams or the players, but the lack of competitions won by SA and Australian teams long term was always going to test the faith and patience of die-hard and casual fans from those regions. SANZAR took their eye off the fans and fans voted with their feet and subscriptions. They were so concerned about expanding their product they forgot the golden rule about broadcasting live sport. Viewers tune in more when there’s an atmosphere and a true contest. You need to fill stadiums to create one, host unions need to do more to service ticket buyers, and this year proves the other, there’s more interest in Super rugby this year only because more games are competitive with less foregone conclusions. All these micro statistics bandied about, only interest the bean counters and trainspotters.
Go to commentsIt’s a good, timely wake up call for NZ Rugby (seem to be a few of them lately!) - sort out the bureaucratic nonsense at board level. We can’t expect to stay the number one option without keeping fans/players engaged. We’ve obviously been bleeding players to league for years but can’t let the floodgates open (although I think this headline is hyperbolic as it’s a result of a recent Warriors pathways system where they are tracking things more closely) Understand the need to focus boys on rugby if they’re at a proud rugby school too, don’t think it’s harsh at all re Barakat in Hamilton. Reward the committed players with squad positions. An elite 1st XV system in NZ has done more for league than they even realise, think it’s good to protect our game further.
Go to comments