RC issued in the bunker

[crossref]

Good decision by England to leave him out of the Ireland game, I guess they saw this coming

 

[crossref]

Surely Billy is looking at a ban now. Three games I would say. Won't Borthwick will leave him at home?

 

[chbg]

Backdated to include the Ireland game he was not selected for. Crazy!

It was made very clear after the first Panel that he was going to be selected; he was removed from the match squad after WR's appeal was announced. Quite obviously better to miss a friendly, even if he didn't have to, than potentially a WC Pool game.

 

[chbg]

Surely Billy is looking at a ban now. Three games I would say. Won't Borthwick will leave him at home?

Likely to be full remission so 3 games reduced to 2 plus tackle 'school'. Would seem to be about right.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It was made very clear after the first Panel that he was going to be selected; he was removed from the match squad after WR's appeal was announced. Quite obviously better to miss a friendly, even if he didn't have to, than potentially a WC Pool game.

The ban should start AFTER the hearing. Unless WR told Englad "Stand him down and we will back-date any ban". If that was done on the basis that had the appeal failed then a ban would have included that game, I could understand the thinking

 

[chbg]

Exactly so.

You are thinking of this like an on field decision and a TMO needing a reason to overrule

But it's not like that , the panel simply considers the evidence and forms a judgement

Other people's judgements are not evidence, they are just other people's judgments

But the player, and highly paid legal advocate, are allowed to put their 'judgement', which of course is entirely unbiased.

 

[belladonna]

Decision in full

A Six Nations statement reads: "Following an initial Disciplinary Committee hearing for England number 10 Owen Farrell, who received a red card during the Summer Nations Series match between England and Wales on Saturday 12th August, World Rugby lodged a formal appeal against the Committees’ decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow, appealing for the red card to be upheld.

“The Appeal Committee met on Tuesday 22nd August and unanimously determined that in the original hearing the Disciplinary Committee should have considered the attempt of the player to wrap his opponent in the tackle. This point did not feature in the original decision.

“The failure to attempt to wrap was judged to be an important element of the Foul Play Review Officer’s (FPRO) report and had led to an upgrading of the referee’s yellow card to a red card during the match.

“As this element did not feature in the original decision, the Appeal Committee decided it was in the interests of justice to hear the case afresh on that key point alone, which included hearing from the player.

“Following the review by the Appeal Committee of this key element, it was determined that the FPRO was correct in his decision leading to the red card. The Appeal Committee subsequently determined that the tackle was ‘always illegal’.

“When applying the terms of World Rugby’s Head Contact Process, no mitigation can be applied to a tackle that is ‘always illegal’.

“The Appeal Committee therefore considered that the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow card had been manifestly wrong, which led to the Disciplinary Committee’s decision being overturned, the appeal brought by World Rugby being allowed, and the red card upheld.

“In considering sanction, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head (six-matches). Taking all considerations into account, including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.

“The Appeal Committee accepted submissions on behalf of the player that the Ireland v England match on 19 August 2023, for which the player was voluntarily stood down would be included as part of the sanction. Therefore, the suspension applies to the following matches:

Ireland v England 19 August 2023
England v Fiji 26 August 2023
England v Argentina 9 September 2023
England v Japan 17 September 2023

Owen Farrell ban hearing live updates as England captain hit with ban

The England skipper will miss the first two games of his side's Rugby World Cup campaign

www.walesonline.co.uk

 

[crossref]

But the player, and highly paid legal advocate, are allowed to put their 'judgement', which of course is entirely unbiased.

Of course, everyone has the opportunity to defend themselves, both at the original tribunal and at the appeal

Note though , that in these tribunals there is no prosecution per se

 

[BikingBud]

But the player, and highly paid legal advocate, are allowed to put their 'judgement', which of course is entirely unbiased.

A highly paid legal advocate who was entitled to provide not a judgment but their compelling argument, but again it seems the argument was the equivalent to the 5$ shake that Mrs Mia Wallace ordered when went to Jack Rabbit Slims with Vincent Vega

the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to downgrade the red card to a yellow card had been manifestly wrong,

including the player’s acceptance of foul play, clear demonstration of remorse and his good character, the Committee agreed a four-match suspension.

Really!!

I was going to add that there is nothing to see here, but in fact we are all required to observe that "process" has been followed as much as we continue to find it extremely distasteful and devisive!!

 

[BikingBud]

Of course, everyone has the opportunity to defend themselves, both at the original tribunal and at the appeal

Note though , that in these tribunals there is no prosecution per se

@crossref any thought on this statement?

“The failure to attempt to wrap was judged to be an important element of the Foul Play Review Officer’s (FPRO) report and had led to an upgrading of the referee’s yellow card to a red card during the match.

“As this element did not feature in the original decision, the Appeal Committee decided it was in the interests of justice to hear the case afresh on that key point alone, which included hearing from the player.

 

[crossref]

Those interested in procedure will like this thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694083445796852012

 

[BikingBud]

Those interested in procedure will like this thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694083445796852012

Doesn't tell us anything other than someone is surprised!

Many of us are surprised but we tend to communicate why we are surprised, even Victor Meldrew, "I caaaaaaan't believe it" did better than that as he put more enthusiasm into it. This discussion around surprise or difference in expectation, enables all parties to ensure they can assess the differences between their position and that of others, potentially bringing about a change in consideration of key facts and leading to sharing the same perspective, or not!

But just saying they're surprised, excellent well done!

What does it offer about the procedure? Was it good, bad, indifferent, followed, neglected, biased, true or any other thing that might give us a clue about it what piqued your "interest"?

I was hoping you could comment about the extract I highlighted from the finding where the Review Panel found the DP to be manifestly wrong and referred to the omitted consideration by the DP of the FPRO's evidence.

But what did the FPRO know?

 

[Dickie E]

This concept of "always illegal" ... apart from a shoulder charge, what else would be an always illegal act?

 

[Dickie E]

I was hoping you could comment about the extract I highlighted from the finding where the Review Panel found the DP to be manifestly wrong and referred to the omitted consideration by the DP of the FPRO's evidence.

I'll have a go. As the 'no mitigation for always illegal acts' is such a fundamental element of the head contact process, the DC is not only manifestly wrong, the members are manifestly incompetent and are guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. How the process got to this stage is mind boggling

 

[belladonna]

Two things get me about the judgement.

Firstly that this is exactly the sort of pickle you get into when you entrust three non-referees to review what is essentially a refereeing decision.

Despite having the benefit of the FPRO's report stating there was no attempt to wrap and no mitigation, three far less qualified people on the DC either ignored this decision or overruled it. It's a disaster waiting to happen. I believe appeals against the actual awarding of a RC should be judged by a panel of ex-referees who are highly trained in the laws and their application, not the current regime of well-meaning but untrained ex-players.

Secondly, four weeks is a joke. Starting at the "minimum entry point" of six weeks, that's one week off because he's sorry, and another week off for his "good character" No mention of several previous similar offences in recent months, for which the penalty can and should have been increased. (WR Regulation 17, para 17.20a.)

Thirdly, (OK it's three things now!) - backdating the ban to include the friendly vs Ireland last Sat is complete and utter BS. One of the conditions that has to be met before a match can be counted towards the ban is, that it "is to feature the best players available to each team". (WR Regulation 17, para 17.21.3.c.ii.)

Given the OF is both the England captain and first-choice #10 (and was available) this is hardly like to have been the case.

In addition, WR Regulation 17 does not grant the DC the power to backdate a suspension. So, in granting one they have acted outside their powers, or "ultra-vires". Or, as you like to put it, didds, they make it all up as they go along

What a complete and utter shambles.

Meanwhile a SH player gets five weeks for a tip-tackle despite an unblemished record.

It stinks.

The only good thing to come out of this whole sorry affair is that the on-field officials (and the one in the bunker) came out of this very well, with their correct decision eventually upheld.

Regulations | World Rugby

Information about the game's laws and regulations, including the World Rugby Laws app

www.world.rugby

 

[didds]

Backdated to include the Ireland game he was not selected for. Crazy!

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave at 8.37pm

;-) <<<--

 

[didds]

In addition, WR Regulation 17 does not grant the DC the power to backdate a suspension. So, in granting one they have acted outside their powers, or "ultra-vires".

so does that mean that somebody can appeal this appeal because this appeal acted outside the appeal's powers ?
I do hope so - because this is so absolutely stupid, pathetic and farcical it deserves to run some more to highlight just how STUPID the entire farrago of bollix is!

 

[Decorily]

Two things get me about the judgement.

Firstly that this is exactly the sort of pickle you get into when you entrust three non-referees to review what is essentially a refereeing decision.

belladonna are you a referee?

 

[BikingBud]

He can not get time off for contrition given the circumstances:

So what did he admit today?

And what did he admit previously?

If he admitted what they found previously he cannot now admit that he did what was found today with clear conscience and remorse, otherwise if he was remorseful he would have said to the DP last week,

"sorry fellas you have that all wrong, I actually had no arms in it I was always trying to bang him on the chin"

Because if he admits to it now, once they have judged he was intending to bang him on the chin, he was lying before.

Sugars been boiling and the marble slab is coooooool, just about right to lay out the fudge.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

And this:
“The Appeal Committee met on Tuesday 22nd August and unanimously determined that in the original hearing the Disciplinary Committee should have considered the attempt of the player to wrap his opponent in the tackle. This point did not feature in the original decision.

“The failure to attempt to wrap was judged to be an important element of the Foul Play Review Officer’s (FPRO) report and had led to an upgrading of the referee’s yellow card to a red card during the match."

is why the FPRO must be allowed to give his evidence. Had he/ she been at the original hearing the issue of "always illegal" could have bee "underlined" by them. Of course, o the flip side, the defence coud have "cross examined" that evidence as a result.

So Fancy pants lawer says " The wind changed direction and blew the tackled player into the path of my totally innocent gentleman client. PS have another biscuit sir"

THe FPRO " and the "prosecution" ereiterate. "THere was never an attempt to bind so there is no mitigation under WR Regulation!" Th FPRO referring to his guidlings / protocols to back up his point.