So what is it, World Rugby? Contact to the head is a red card or not? Is player safety a priority or not? How many players saw red for this exact kind of tackle, and far less deliberate contacts, the past few years?

Again, SB Williams gets sent off in a pivotal Lions match for going as low as he can and a defender changes direction and falls into his shoulder.

Then there is this incident by a player that is perpetually guilty of these sorts of hits. People review it and don't rate it as red.

The hit on Williams, knocking him out after he has released the ball...also apparently fine.

There is no sport in the world where reffing screws up the sport as much as it does with Rugby.

The TV refs awarding Scotland that try and denying Cheslin his try are just two more very recent examples of how refs ruin this sport.

It's getting to the point where one can hardly take outcomes seriously anymore.

Do we actually expect better reffing in the WC?

And then when Rassie highlights these things, he's out of line.

The question is, if high-profile people in high-profile positions within the sport aren't allowed to speak up, then who is?

Aah, the only people that can speak up are those that nobody really listens to, and always remember that WR won't admit to any mistakes or wrongdoing in public.

No no no...you should sign a mountain of NDAs, submit fully to our process, and then maybe we'll allow you to tell us, behind closed doors and far away from any scrutiny, what the problem is.

Solution: independent panels of current coaches, players, and fans that look at how impactful bad calls are on a particular game and decide the ref's future from there.

...because else WR remains an authority unto itself. Which is clearly not ever a good thing, in any situation or industry, ever!

Farrell must suck some good dick, that's all I can say. Lots of contented smiles among the disciplinary committee this morning.

Anyway, now there'll be backlash followed by the proverbial overcorrection. Somebody will get sent off for sneezing on someone at the WC...mark my words.

If it is a white kit, you must aquit!

Fucking clowns.

These things do happen quickly and a change in the attitude of the runner is reasonable mitigation. But in this case that’s nonsense, the ball carrier’s head did not drop… so Farrell went in at head height. 

Secondly the ‘happen quickly’ argument is blown out of the water by the fact that Farrell has done exactly this multiple times before. Witness the tackle on Esterhozen. This is a repetitive reflex.

The only real short term defense against this ‘inside rugby’ is the press. Fans aren’t going to boycott the World Cup and lawsuits, which will be energized by this, take too long to make a difference…they punish  history, they don’t change the game.

The press has a responsibility to hold the suits accountable. Every sports page in England should have a headline article today deploring this outcome. But that’s not going to happen the rugby press is a sycophantic , cowardly collection of hacks.

There’s been a collective press response against Owen Farrell. They almost to a man, wanted him banned, and a long ban at that. 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/aug/15/rugby-union-england-world-cup-boost-owen-farrell-red-card-rescinded

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/66512745?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

Becs these two articles by the Guardian and  BBC both report the ruling, quote various views pro and con and then conclude with how happy management is. I’m sure there are plenty of articles out there that are critical….but these two important news sources expressed no outrage.

Every article I read….and there were many….said he needed banning. Some even said it would be good for the team if he was. 

It even made the 10 o’clock news last night and there was no real response either way, just a reporting of the facts. 

I’m sure the management are pleased, I wouldn’t be but it’s not my call, unfortunately ! 

The fans are really up in arms about it. 

Well in my search I saw there is some thought that the pressure may require another look….rugby has totally blown this obvious call.

It doesn't matter. They'll be on the early plane home and that'll be his last World Cup. 

WR are going to appeal the verdict, it seems.

,,

A little bit over the top !

World Rugby are going to appeal the verdict, as I’ve already stated. That kind of ruins the above narrative. 

Basically, if you shoulder charge someone, at head height, making direct contact between your shoulder and their face...that isn't Red-worthy?

I mean...are we in bloody upside down land here???

It's completely baffling.

Does anyone know if the thinking behind the decision is published in full?

Farrell must suck some good dick, that's all I can say. Lots of contented smiles among the disciplinary committee this morning.

Unneeded. They are contented as they managed a great trick, a great reading.

Elsewhere, the outcome was predicted: it was stated that the verdict would allow the english captain to join the WC (even though partially incorrect as the speculation included suspension for x games)

When facing the announcement of an obvious outcome before it happened (with the how to reach the conclusion) liberals went liberal: they used the same strategies as in here, claiming gibberish, denying. Liberals even thought they could prove the impossibility of the outcome by providing regulation texts that reads the captain had to be automatically banned. No say in it.

For simple minded people, though, the outcome is not a surprise. It was expected. On the other hand, up to where was the limit. The judges managed to produce a reading that removed the red card from the picture.

That is a piece of art. And that is how liberals shine, while they are transparent in their directions and goals, for simple minded people, it is common to underestimate their doings.

Sure, a decision that would allow the captain to join the comp was easy to predict, it was quite hard to think that the decision would go up to cancelling the red card.

That is brilliant. Liberals are superior minded people, they think big and bigger and bigger than biggest.

Looks like this 3 ring circus who calls themselves word rugby is not quite done yet. Apparently World Rugby will appeal their own decision. 

We all saw that tackle. 

You can't say Jamie George influence that tackle.

It just prove how shite the Australians are when it comes administration and applying discipline.

Wasn't it an Aussie who leaked Rassies video to the world? 

How many SA players have we seen the book thrown at. 

Farrel doesn't deserve to go to the world cup. He as gotten away with it for so many times. 

That tackle on André Esterhuizen and the they have the audacity to use that tackle as how not to tackle. 

I hope they can sort out the rules and try to preserve the game. 

I'm so tired poor reffing spoiling a great game. 

I would rather punish teams on the score board than taking players off the field. 

How about an automatic 3 pointer for repeat infringements. 

The same they do with penalty tries. 

How about, if it's foul play, sub the player immediately and fine his wages and the team to.

If it's a league game, take points away from for poor team discipline. 

I'm just saying, don't spoil the game. There are other ways to punish team 

It wasn’t World Rugby who set the panel for his hearing ! The match came under the auspices of 6 Nations Rugby so WR had nothing to do with it. 

If World Rugby is appealing the 6 nations' decision, it almost certainly means Farrel will sentenced to some time out of rugby. 

Yes, I’m quite sure he will be. 

It wasn’t World Rugby who set the panel for his hearing ! The match came under the auspices of 6 Nations Rugby so WR had nothing to do with it.

Of course not.

It was another liberal moment when an ad hoc decision had to be produced. The proper juridiction was picked to enable the proper decision making.

As in a system of favours, the panel knew that producing the right decision would earn them a return in favours.

It had to be elsewhere than in a WR set panel as the decision destroyed WR new gimmick (the bunker) The bunker has credibility no longer, it is finished even before it made an official tournament.

It is not possible to serve properly two masters, especially when they have conflictual interests.

It may even be that if called by WR, the same three guys this time would produce another decision.

How many SA players have we seen the book thrown at.

Victimhood high among liberals.

SA rugby have been extremelly favoured by rugby reffing. WR even covered a biting fest from a post Apartheid team (they could not be overwhelmed, they had already the burden of the Apartheid, no need to add to the load)

Liberals are greedy as greedy, out of 100 decisions, 99 go their way, one not. The earth must shake, the skies must fall.

It's been a while that liberals have figured out that a bit of justice now and then, here and there works well to consolidate a system of injustice.

One fair decision is not so big a price to pay to benefit from 99 unfair decisions.

My apologies to World Rugby. It appears to be just another liberal plot by the liberals engaging in their usual liberalling.

I believe you are correct, Pakie  

Dirty Boy is shitting himself at this very moment : ) With WR,s official appeal, I think Mr. Feral Cat will be out of WC 23.

We shall have to wait and see. But all this messing around can’t be helping the Squad.

No it can’t be good. You are right Becs. This Situation comes at a time when the ENG squad should be fine tuning there last preparations ….is it my imagination, or is this WC starting of with quite a bit of controversy? Can’t remember the last one being like this.

You’re right. They must be struggling with the uncertainty.

I can’t recall another RWC beginning with such controversy.

Here's the decision in full...

Introduction

The Judicial Committee convened a hearing to consider the Red Card issued to the Player in a match played between England and Wales on Saturday, 12 August 2023 at Twickenham, England.

The Player (E10) received a Yellow Card in the 63^rd minute of the match for an alleged offence under Law

9.13 for a high tackle on Wales #20 (W20) which made direct contact with W20’s head. The Referee gave the Player a Yellow Card and referred the incident to the Foul Play Review Officer (FPRO) under the FPRO Protocol.

The FPRO upgraded the Yellow Card to a Red Card on the basis that the incident gave rise to a “High degree of danger, no mitigation”. In the FPRO’s opinion, the Player effected a dangerous upright tackle on the ball carrier (W20) resulting in direct contact with the head whilst making no attempt to wrap with the arm that comes into contact with W20’s head. The FPRO when applying World Rugby’s Head Contact Process (HCP) deemed this to be a high level of danger without any mitigation and, therefore, determined that the Player’s actions should be upgraded to a Red Card.

At the hearing the Player accepted that his conduct was contrary to Law 9.13 and, therefore, amounted to an act of Foul Play. The Player, however, did not accept that his act of Foul Play met the Red Card Test and contended that the decision by the FPRO to upgrade the Yellow Card to a Red Card was, on the balance of probabilities, wrong.

When applying the HCP to his actions the Player accepted the first three questions of the HCP as follows: First, that head contact occurred between his right shoulder and W20’s head; Secondly, his actions amounted to an act of Foul Play in breach of Law 9.13; and Thirdly, the degree of danger was high warranting a red card.

The Player advanced a case that when considering question 4 of the HCP that mitigating features were available to merit a reduction in the sanction from a red card to a yellow card. 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.

It was submitted by the Player that the availability of those factors, either individually or collectively, should have resulted in the reduction of the red card to a yellow card and that, therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the issuing of the Red Card to the Player was wrong.

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. This was a difficult question to resolve in the circumstances of this case and the evidence was finely balanced as to the correct outcome.

"The Player’s oral evidence was broadly consistent with the video footage. He said that after W20 turned E18 around with his dummy pass he set himself for contact that would give himself enough space to his right to effect a good (legal) tackle on W20’s right hand side. He did not anticipate or foresee that W20 and E2 would get involved with each other whereby W20 would be propelled sideways (across/diagonally) and towards him. "

...such bollocks.

When competing for the ball, you can't always anticipate what the other guy is gonna do. And so you have to put yourself into positions where you don't get drawn into a foul. 

If that statement isn't true then nothing that I believe about reality is true either.

When a defender is low, and someone falls into him, there's not much he can do about that because any movement forward(or up) is gonna look like you meant to do it. The defender has done what he can to meet the attacker legally...as with SB Williams versus the Lions.

But when the defender is meeting the attacker standing upright..? 

I guess they're saying that the attacker is responsible for making sure the defender meets him legally...which is hilarious.

his Situation comes at a time when the ENG squad should be fine tuning there last preparations …

This is rugby, not football.

Group stages are the final stage of preparation and the time for fine tuning for most teams. Groups do not provide enough competition to miss the opportunity.

The few teams that are fine tuning their preparation before the group stage are teams who main objective is to get out of group stage.

Like SC that is prepared to snipe SA rugby during the first game. Remains to see SA rugby preparation, if they are prepared to move beyond or made getting out of the group stage their primary objective.

The reports call for two observations.

First observation: the reviewers of the action made a specific effort to keep the English captain anonymous (not always the case in those types of court)

There is a divide with other watchers. Watchers have seen the english captain committing the same offence for the dozenth time, the reviewers made no connection. The english captain is a first time offender, even though he has displayed the same lack of tackling technique multiple times. And had to admit to it.

Yet reading the reports and focusing on the depiction of the action, it is not possible to know the offence came from this english captain, this n10.

It is a specific effort as liberals are used to connecting people to their past actions. Even more, they are always used to connecting people to the actions of other people based on irrelevant features (eg: racism, a quota has acted in one way several times, another quota who acts that way for the first time is connected to repeated offences through the other quota)

Second observation: it all reeks of the oxbridge line of thought.

Which tells that the conclusion does not matter. The process to deliver the conclusion is what matters. When the process corresponds with legal standards, the conclusion is legal and therefore can be forced through the rule of law on other people.

Anyone who was submitted to this line of thought and thought it over for minutes may achieve the conclusion that the conclusion is in fact all and that they are provided with a powerful tool to coerce people.

In Oxbridge terms, the two outcomes were written on bits of paper: the english captain is red carded, the english captain is not red carded.

People draw on bit and must deliver a legal process to achieve the outcome as written on their bit.

Producing a legal process to motivate a red card is straightforward, thousands of people may do it.

Producing a legal process to motivate the absence of a red card is another story.

It takes superior minded people to jump through loops and achieve all the circonvolutions.

Everything in the paper as it reads is legal. Brilliant stuff.

Legally, the english captain is non guilty.

Well, well well. What have we here. 

I posted a defence of Rassie for showing how thst ref made numerous errors when reffing the Bok versus Lions test.

Indeed Congratulated Rassie on his outstanding clip and courage in unmasking the foul reffing going on.

The Mozzzzquito and a few others, said Rassie had Disgraced the Boks etc. Mozzz was. Very vocal seizing on what he thought was a chance to trash Rassie. He tried to debunk the evidence and smear Rassie.

Now he jumps in to say  the press should reporting on this as it was the best immediate cure for the problem. Ecs has to corrupt the dud by saying they had been cover gand that Farrel got roasted.

I guess the difference this time there was no Rassie involved. 

Oh the hypocrisy at play. Incredible really. 

I also remember some loons trying to give me stock for saying we could have won that test where the ref made the wrong call regarding the Farrel tackle on Esterhuizen. 

Stop laming the ref they squeaked

Farrel probably learnt this head hunting tackle from the wee abs when he was a boy. However to be fair once the refs started penalizing them heavily for these  very dangerous tackles they largely cut it out. 

Of course when you consistent against poor and cheating refs you don't have the problem Mozzzz has! . And yes tha t penalty try awarded in the Moodie instance was not a try. 

Beeno an example to all! 

Bye the way if you haven't you should view the clip posted by Blobbrain. It details the rampant hypocrisy at play and mentions the treatment meted out to Rassie for exposing the corruption. 

Er….nobody ever said the Press shouldn’t point out or acknowledge poor ref decisions…..but coaches shouldn’t produce biased, in many instances incorrect,  summaries of ref decisions and then use surrogates to leak them on the internet.  

If I had more time, I would have spliced the clips of all of the bad reffing decisions the Boks have benefitted from over the past five years. All of the dirt. I would have gone after Erasmus, and he would have bitten back. Erasmus exposed nothing but how low he is, in using racism to deflect criticism of his feeble and weak captain, who was guilty of two spear tackles and three throat slams that very year (all unpunished!). 

Hahahahaha armchair critic Mozzz  thinks he knows more about the rules than a genuine expert like Erasmus.

Instead of being thankful that the Crooks are being exposed he tries to run cover for the powers that be.

Reminds me of the totally corrupt US DOJ. 

Deus is so dumb he doesn't realize that he is just saying the reffing going on is riddled with errors. 

It's not Rassie's job to point out errors favoring the Boks it's the job of the other coaches.

Now assuming poor old confused Deus is correct then why didn't these coaches do something. Yes like Rassie they probably launched official complaints but got zero RESPONSE. THE IRB certainly doesn't like refs being criticised. It's like criticizing election integrity. 

So why didn't they put out a clip like Rassie did. Because they didn't have the courage Rassie has. They didn't want to pay the price of being banned. 

It's just the same as the few doctors who spoke out against the deadly Covid Protocols and the deadly jabs. Today these doctors stand vindicated just like Rassie has been vindicated. 

Meanwhile the dreadful   two DUDS, the notorious Mozzzzquito and the appallingly biased Deus should hang their heads in shame.

Crash go the two DUDS! 

Farrell has a four match ban.

Should have been a 10 match ban - the useless prick should not have been allowed to participate in the WC

I agree it should have been longer. 

They’ve included the Ireland match so he misses Fiji this week and Argentina and Japan in the RWC. 

Well that was bound to happen….and Vunipola?

That’s just pathetic, he seems to be the golden boy of rugby getting away with murder every time and never learning from it

I will never forget the Esterhuizen hit that cost us the test match

Biggest insult I have seen in rugby was Farrell not even being penalised for that hit on Esterhuizen

What happened about Billy Vunipola then??

We haven’t heard anything as yet. 

It took thirteen hours for them to come to Owen’s decision ! 

Billy got two weeks because he’ll attend tackle school…..