• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England vs Wales - 12/08/23

Anyone remember @smartcookie?.....he'd be losing his mind right now
He'd be fine, ABs not involved so he'll go with the majority and explain reasonably. Of course is Farrell was a NZ player he'd be arguing with us all the committee got it right and nobody else understood the laws.
 
He'd be fine, ABs not involved so he'll go with the majority and explain reasonably. Of course is Farrell was a NZ player he'd be arguing with us all the committee got it right and nobody else understood the laws.
probably true, i think there would be a little bit of explaining to everyone even if everyone already agreed
 


Fester just cutting out the BS.


Total common sense.

What really resonated is saying that a guaranteed red means that it will be out of the game in the short term. This has long been my argument for sorting out collapsing scrums - don't rearrange deckchairs on the ***anic with engagement sequences etc, just make it a complete no-no. Automatic cards, bans - maybe a season of pain, but the coaches and players will soon sort it. The argument that refs often don't really understand what's going on in the front row and that it is just a lottery would actually incentivise the coaches to sort it, as they analyse everything to death and the one thing they don't want is uncertainty and risk.

You don't see punch ups or head stamping any more. It's not because testosterone levels have dropped - it's because there are now proper consequences for those actions so player behaviours have changed. Clothes line and tip tackles similarly.
 
The problem is that this tackle has been coached into the game over the past 20 years, and the first time I came across it was with an u16 side I was coaching. We had a number of promising players who went off to a Connacht coaching camp. In an early game the next season the opposition tapped a penalty our no 8, who went on to play with Munster and Connacht, smashed the carrier with a chest high tackle, and the crowd, and the ref, went ballistic. I had to explain that this was the tackle that they were being coached to use at provincial level and that it was technically legal. The consensus after the game was that while it was impressively effective it was also incredibly dangerous for both the tackler and the carrier. Which proved to be completely correct as our no. 8 retired in his mid 20s from the professional game with very serious concussion issues.

The problem now is that the chest high tackle is embedded in the game, not just at pro level, and it is causing a huge number of the head injuries that are blighting rugby and endangering its future. We talk about elite players becoming bigger, quicker, and more powerful, but this is also happening at all levels of the game. The issue of tackle height needs to be addressed with changes in laws and strict enforcement of disciplinary penalties. This weeks farce sets it back in a huge way and either the 6ns or World Rugby, whichever has the standing in this instance, needs to step in.
 
All understood,

What I find shocking in Farrell is that he's a persistent offender and I'm struggling to think of another one in the professional era. He has a serious mindset/technique failing that his peers just don't have. So while its fine to say players in general will have issues it really doesn't explain why this one particular fella has such a hard time of it.
 
It was also pointed out in one of the many podcasts I've listened to talking about it, that Sinfield is supposedly so good at coaching this aspect of tackling, the videos of him are used in "tackle school"
So if he can't get through to Farrell, who can?
 
Appeal confirmed
In a statement, World Rugby said: 'World Rugby has today confirmed to the Rugby Football Union and Six Nations Rugby that it will exercise its right to appeal in regard to the Owen Farrell disciplinary decision following a careful review of the independent Judicial Committee's full written decision received on August 16.

'World Rugby fully supports the important role that an independent disciplinary process plays in upholding the integrity and values of the sport, particularly regarding foul play involving head contact.

'Player welfare is the sport's number one priority, and the Head Contact Process is central to that mission at the elite level of the sport.

'Having considered the full written decision, World Rugby considers an appeal to be warranted.

'In line with provisions set out under Regulation 17, an independent Appeal Committee will be appointed to determine the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

'Further details regarding the hearing, including appointments and date, will be confirmed by Six Nations Rugby.'

 
The sad thing is the system was working until the three Aussie panel. The ref bottled it but didn't have to hold the game. Another group looked at without crowd pressure but during the game so the correct decision was made. He should of then taken his ban and alls good.

Unfortunately the three man panel utterly borked it and I really hope that following what should be a successful appeal thier jobs are really looked into
 
Gonna be funny if WR clear him too
Yes from watching everyone including myself going apoplectic.

Long term in the sport its bad, we know a waft of concussion lawsuits are coming. Any prosecution lawyer is gonna point to this incident showing that not only did they never consider player welfare important they still don't. So the sport will get sued out of oblivion.
 

Latest posts

Top