England vs Wales - 12/08/23

[Bada-Bing!]

Who is Rollo Tomassi?

Watch LA Confidential and you'll find out.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Watch LA Confidential and you'll find out.

View attachment 17356

I knew the name sounded familiar. Haven't seen that film in ages.

 

[Derpus]

Sexton's ban is outrageous in light of this, no one heard what he said. IRFU should appeal and just bring a picture of Owen Farrell to the hearing.

Yeah you really took that and ran in the wrong direction huh.

 

[Flankerboy]

Gotta wonder what WR the IRB* make of that decision with the lawsuits still hanging over the game.

Be interesting to see how they'd talk that away in front of a judge/jury when its put to the court along the lines of "as lately as August 2023, the officials at the highest level in rugby showed scant regard for its players when deciding to rescind what the overwhelming majority of experts agreed was a dangerous tackle making direct head contact at high speed. It appears that viewing figures matter more than player health and wellbeing"


Madness.


*and its really still the IRB in my world. The WR moniker is pathetic.

As if an all Australian panel would have a vested interest in keeping Farrell playing for England, knowing that we underperform and have no flair when he does. Hang on, let me just see who the teams might be in the Group C and D quarter finals ha ha ! - What a joke.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yeah you really took that and ran in the wrong direction huh.

I'm having fun with it, have been since the whole circus began.

Sexton got about what he deserved in the circumstances but it was a trial by social media, anyone who read the report, looks at his disciplinary record and thinks that he should have received a longer ban is straight wrong.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

SHAUN EDWARDS: It is RIGHT that Owen Farrell has been cleared to play

SHAUN EDWARDS: We're living in a world of slow-motion replays. These frame-by-frame pictures are so different to what players see on the pitch.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[ncurd]

Edit: Getting people mixed up.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Mad that this guy predicted the citing decision perfectly on Saturday

(there are more tweets explaining his prediction if you click through)

 

[ncurd]

Mad that this guy predicted the citing decision perfectly on Saturday
(there are more tweets explaining his prediction if you click through)

The issue is no matter how many times you look at there is nothing to suggest Farrell would of ever made a legal tackle.

 

[BrokenWing]

I don't think they're looking at "legal tackle" it's the shoulder to the face that earns the red no?

There's also nothing to say that without George pushing him it wouldn't have been a shoulder to the face mind.

 

[Which Tyler]

I don't think they're looking at "legal tackle" it's the shoulder to the face that earns the red no?

According to that little red box in the bottom right - "Mitigation will not apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play"
That tackle could not possibly have been completed legally, even if he had hit a whole foot lower, it would still have been a no-arms shoulder charge, with force.

There is absolutely no possible way that the conclusions agree with the guidelines.

 

[ncurd]

According to that little red box in the bottom left - "Mitigation will not apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play"
That tackle could not possibly have been completed legally, even if he had hit a whole foot lower, it would still have been a no-arms shoulder charge, with force.

There is absolutely no possible way that the conclusions agree with the guidelines.

View attachment 17359

Thanks this was my understanding.

 

[General Melchett]

I heard that Sexton was in line to get an even longer ban but part of his defence was "Do you jobsworths know who my head coach's son is?". The panel then looked at each other and nodded in agreement that the ban should be reduced.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It is weird how they can put weight in the "Maybe it'd have been legal if not for Jamie George" argument, but not in the "He probably would've hit high regardless" argument
Like why does one hypothetical take precedence over the other?

 

[Reiser99]

It is weird how they can put weight in the "Maybe it'd have been legal if not for Jamie George" argument, but not in the "He probably would've hit high regardless" argument
Like why does one hypothetical take precedence over the other?

Yeah, he might have bent his hips if not for George is a real stretch

 

[Which Tyler]

It is weird how they can put weight in the "Maybe it'd have been differently illegal if not for Jamie George" argument, but not in the "He probably would've hit high regardless" argument
Like why does one hypothetical take precedence over the other?

FTFY

 

[higgik]

Steward was not "defending himself", he turned and lined Adams up. This was also a clear red.

These pics clearly don't show "defending from a falling player", rather a distinct tackle in the air, couldn't be clearer

View attachment 17342View attachment 17343

Was thinking about the hip tackle v Ireland

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Eddie Jones backs decision to rescind Owen Farrell’s red card

Owen Farrell has found an unlikely supporter on the other side of the world in Eddie Jones, the Australia head coach, who has defended his old captain for the t

www.thetimes.co.uk

Probably worse for Farrell than if he'd come out saying he should've been banned for 26weeks

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

They could have just given him 4 weeks and everyone would be fine with it. What a mess.

 

[duncanb]

Was thinking about the hip tackle v Ireland

Personally as he doesn't land on his head, but arm, then back and shoulder yellow perfectly correct with pen try.
No doubt bunker and citing looked at it and no further action.
Josh Adams clutching his head is the ever growing nature of wendyballer antics creepy into rugby trying to influence decisions.