RC issued in the bunker

[Marc Wakeham]

but wasn't the referee's decision in this Farrell case, by dint of the panel's decision, the correct one ie YC ?

I'm not sure you can make that call. By calling for the review it is clear he was leaning to red but felt let's let the review make doubly sure.. In fact if the ref had gone straight to Red I could have bought the hearing overturn it on the basis of England 2's involvement. But, as the Review had they chance to lok the whole incident in context, I'm happy 2's influence on the outcome was correctly assessed and dismissed,

 

[Dickie E]

Msf..

 

[belladonna]

Across the global game, the ripple effect of this verdict will be massive. And not in a good way.

Because, with the highest-profile Rugby World Cup in history starting in barely three weeks, what price all those stern official messages about lowering tackle height and player welfare? How can the game even pretend to be effectively governed when the most important new innovation in years, the “bunker review” system, has already been crassly undermined?

[...] Prof John Fairclough from the player welfare and concussion awareness lobby group Progressive Rugby [...] believes the decision “has made a mockery of World Rugby’s claim that player welfare is the game’s No 1 priority”. It is a conclusion that will be shared by many, possibly including some of Farrell’s teammates. So upright shoulder charges and no-arms tackles are now fine again? Talk about opening a huge can of oval‑shaped worms.

Because if Jamie George’s involvement in the Basham incident was so significant, how come any clear lowering of height was not seen during the bunker review re-examination? At no stage, either way, was Farrell aiming to go low. The independent disciplinary committee, even so, concluded the foul play review officer [Ireland's Brian MacNeice] was wrong, on the balance of probabilities, to have upgraded the yellow card. They might as well have added that World Rugby’s shiniest new initiative is a waste of time.

Owen Farrell’s rescinded red card sets worrying precedent for the game | Robert Kitson

England will be delighted at their captain’s reprieve but in the long term it could have serious repercussions for player welfare

www.theguardian.com

 

[didds]

I'm not sure you can make that call. By calling for the review it is clear he was leaning to red but felt let's let the review make doubly sure..

ah - ill take that as an answer to my hitherto unanswered question in #35

RC issued in the bunker

Actually I don't agree. I believe the OF incident was misjudged by the official on the day and a YC should have been sufficient under current guidelines. That's completely fine, we don't have to agree about the decision, and I hope we can agree to disagree 😊 But isn't this illustrative of my...

forum.rugbyrefs.com

 

[didds]

I ndont know why that second quote is in my post above. its redundant to my post.

 

[belladonna]

so for my own clarity...
when the ref awards a YC in these games is that then reviewed by the TMO in ALL cases/YCs, or only if the ref says "here's a YC but review THIS card for possible RC"?

The ref has to make a raised crossed-wrists gesture with closed fists for it to be reviewed by the bunker for possible upgrade to RC. So not all YCs get reviewed.

 

[Balones]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66522157

Provides a bit more detail I think.

 

[Locke]

'Terrible look' - Six Nations refuse to publish full Owen Farrell disciplinary

The Six Nations have come under fire after refusing to publish the full disciplinary judgement of Owen Farrell's rescinded red card.

www.planetrugby.com

This article indicates that the judicial committee was a “Six Nations” committee rather than World Rugby and people in the comments are indicating that World Rugby can (and should) appeal. I’ve never heard of that. I thought all the judicial reviews were WR.
Does anyone here have any insight or clarity on this being a 6N committee vs WR?

 

[crossref]

I'm not sure you can make that call. By calling for the review it is clear he was leaning to red but felt let's let the review make doubly sure.. In fact if the ref had gone straight to Red I could have bought the hearing overturn it on the basis of England 2's involvement. But, as the Review had they chance to lok the whole incident in context, I'm happy 2's influence on the outcome was correctly assessed and dismissed,

I wonder whether the Tribunal actually pay any attention at all to the decision in the bunker - and I assume they actually don't - as the bunker has absolutely no information that is not equally available to the tribunal (who presumably have all the TV footage). i.e who cares what the bunker bloke made of it? - it's of no import, he's not on the panel.

Indeed, I suspect that the bunker doesn't even submit a report.

Don't forget the panel is the court of first instance, it's not an appeal court sitting over the bunker.

On the other hand, the tribunal probably does receive a referee's report as the referee was a close, impartial, witness who might conceivably have seen/heard something that wasn't clear on the TV footage.

 

[crossref]

'Terrible look' - Six Nations refuse to publish full Owen Farrell disciplinary

The Six Nations have come under fire after refusing to publish the full disciplinary judgement of Owen Farrell's rescinded red card.

www.planetrugby.com

This article indicates that the judicial committee was a “Six Nations” committee rather than World Rugby and people in the comments are indicating that World Rugby can (and should) appeal. I’ve never heard of that. I thought all the judicial reviews were WR.
Does anyone here have any insight or clarity on this being a 6N committee vs WR?

discipline is delegated downwards, always has been, right down to CB and school level.

I think the 6N has to appoint panels from a long-list of WR accredited people, qualified to sit on panel.

 

[belladonna]

... people in the comments are indicating that World Rugby can (and should) appeal.

According to today's Torygraft, both the 6N and WR could appeal?

World Rugby can appeal against the independent panel’s decision – as can the Six Nations, who run the ongoing Summer Nations Series – but the global governing body will not comment until they have seen a full written judgement.

https://archive.is/p7A8d

 

[belladonna]

Weird day today - the Grauniad and the Torygraft actually agree about something! I think I'll have to go and have a lie down

Owen Farrell’s rescinded red card sets worrying precedent for the game | Robert Kitson

England will be delighted at their captain’s reprieve but in the long term it could have serious repercussions for player welfare

www.theguardian.com

Owen Farrell decision is horrendous – for the sake of rugby, he must be banned

With a mounting crisis over brain injuries, the overturning of England captain's red card seems like an unforgivable dereliction of duty

www.telegraph.co.uk

https://archive.is/05lzT

 

[Marc Wakeham]

WR have announced that they are appealing the outcome. It was on "X" (formally Twitter) today.

 

[belladonna]

WR have announced that they are appealing the outcome. It was on "X" (formally Twitter) today.

Huzzah!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I wonder whether the Tribunal actually pay any attention at all to the decision in the bunker - and I assume they actually don't - as the bunker has absolutely no information that is not equally available to the tribunal (who presumably have all the TV footage). i.e who cares what the bunker bloke made of it? - it's of no import, he's not on the panel.

Indeed, I suspect that the bunker doesn't even submit a report.

Don't forget the panel is the court of first instance, it's not an appeal court sitting over the bunker.

On the other hand, the tribunal probably does receive a referee's report as the referee was a close, impartial, witness who might conceivably have seen/heard something that wasn't clear on the TV footage.

Don't buy this at all. The basis of the red card was the bunker's opnion. To suggest that opinion is not put before the hearing is crazy (WR jibes aside) Also, of course they ge the referees report. The ARs will also report if they witnessed anything and those will also go forward.
The Panel hears ALL the evidence. To suggest the person who made the call is ignored is nuts.

 

[belladonna]

WR have announced that they are appealing the outcome. It was on "X" (formally Twitter) today.

Hmmmm... after my initial enthusiasm I can't find on twitter - was this on their official account?

Meanwhile, Wales Online reported that, "in a new development, respected Irish journalist Murray Kinsella, from The42.ie, reported on Wednesday that World Rugby will appeal the decision, meaning Farrell could yet be banned for World Cup matches."

But there's no trace of it on The42.ie

World Rugby to appeal against Owen Farrell let-off in dramatic new twist

The latest rugby headlines from Wales and beyond

www.walesonline.co.uk

 

[belladonna]

I think this might be the source of the rumours...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691837173438222458

 

[Locke]

England captain Owen Farrell could still face Rugby World Cup ban

England captain Owen Farrell could still be banned for his tackle on Wales flanker Taine Basham in the Rugby World Cup warm-up match at Twickenham.

www.planetrugby.com

“Sources from within Six Nations Rugby have confirmed exclusively to Planet Rugby that the appeal is now ‘looking likely’.”

 

[didds]

So WR will appeal the panel made of of WR approved panellists.

Right.

Got it.

Lunatics, asylums.

 

[Phil E]

respected Irish journalist Murray Kinsella

Oxymoron alert!