WR's announcement of their appeal:
World Rugby has today confirmed it will exercise its right to appeal in regard to the Owen Farrell disciplinary decision.
www.world.rugby
Full judgement of the DC:
I'm wondering on what grounds they are going to appeal, though? Was the DC's interpretation of "never legal" flawed? Or their finding of a sudden and material change of direction incorrect? Or do they just not buy OF's cock-and-bull story about how he would never have tackled so high if TB hadn't been pushed into his path by JG?
I find it very odd the DC didn't interview any of the officials particularly the FPRO to ask why he wrote "no mitigation".
Utter guff:
In support of that contention the player argued that there was a late change in the dynamics of the tackle resulting from contact between W20 and Jamie George (E2), which in turn resulted in a sudden and significant movement, a sudden and significant drop in W20’s head height, and a change in direction from W20.
For one OF couldn't even think about that never mind articulate the discussion.
Secondly the video for almost everyone else on the planet shows a distinctly different dynamic.
Given the Player’s concessions, the central issue for determination by the Judicial Committee was whether, on the balance of probabilities, the FPRO was wrong, by not applying any mitigation under the HCP to reduce the high degree of danger to a level below the Red Card Test.
How is there any probability to balance, you either believe what you saw or you need a season ticket for supersavers. Balance of probabilities may be when there is only verbal evidence to opine upon but when there is prima facie evidence there is not a probability it is there to be viewed, on the video footage.
that mitigation should be applied to the high degree of danger found by the FPRO.
So clearly setting policy that dangerous play can be mitigated!!
When commenting upon the video footage:
As W20 comes into contact with the Player there is some lowering of his body. However, we do not consider this to be a sudden and significant drop in W20’s body height for the purpose of applying mitigation under the HCP.
Interesting perspective I always felt E10 hit W20!! But they are also considering that there was no mitigation!!!
Before W20’s contact with E2, the Player is positioned to make a legal tackle on W20
Really!
In our respectful opinion the FPRO was in error by omitting to consider the late change in dynamics due to E2’s interactions in the contact area with W20 which, in our opinion, brought about a sudden and significant change in direction of W20 (the ball carrier).
Shock hour rugby is a dynamic game, remember Jason Robinson and Shane Williams, renowned for skinning defenders in a post box!! Surely every side step and jink is a sudden and significant change of direction, the onus is on the tackler to execute the tackle safely.
Here comes the bus
well a whole fleet of buses really:
In any such case, the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer shall not make a finding contrary to the decision of the referee or Citing Commissioner unless they are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the decision of the referee or Citing Commissioner was wrong.
and
Under the section headed “Mitigation” the following, relevant to this incident, appears:
- Sudden/significant drop in height or change in direction from ball carrier
- A late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact area
- No time to adjust
But there wasn't any "
sudden and significant drop in height" but then there was some sidestep type kind of action. How can you differentiate? So any head contact sanction now is doomed to failure, whenever there is any other player that may have touched them, even if it was a
touch.
And perhaps the most telling part:
In contrast, the FPRO was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes without the benefit of all the relevant material including, importantly, hearing from the Player and his legal representative.
Quacking and waddling.
