Rarely, if ever, has a red card prompted such an outcry, and certainly not a rescinded one. The decision by the three-man, all-Australian Disciplinary Committee to downgrade Owen Farrell’s red card against Wales last Saturday to a yellow card was met with genuine shock, even some anger, and quite an amount of mirth.
Among the latter, a social media standout was a picture of Donald Trump on the phone with the catchline ‘Get me Owen Farrell’s legal team’. Indeed, credit to Richard Smith KC, the vastly experienced sports law barrister, who succeeded in having Farrell’s red card for a high tackle on Taine Basham downgraded to a yellow on the technicality that Jamie George’s shove changed the Welsh flanker’s line of running just before impact with the English captain’s shoulder.
But outside of Smith, one ventures that not a solitary person in the game anticipated such a verdict. The only issue up for debate had been the severity of Farrell’s suspension.
Amid the angry outcry which the decision prompted, it’s worth stressing that while Farrell may have appealed the red card, most players in his situation would probably have done the same, especially if advised to do so.
The Counter Ruck: the rugby newsletter from The Irish Times
England coach Richard Wigglesworth unsure as to Felix Jones’ role in South Africa preparations
Farrell set to stay his hand on wholesale changes for Ireland XV against Argentina
High price of penalties left Ireland in the red against All Blacks
Nor was it Farrell’s decision to rescind the red card, but that of the Independent Judicial Committee consisting of Adam Casselden SC – Chair, John Langford and David Croft. Casselden was on the independent committees which eventually meted out a three-game suspension to Johnny Sexton (fully seven-and-a-half weeks after the Champions Cup final), and the three-game ban to Bundee Aki during the last World Cup.
Some, such as Shane Horgan, have claimed World Rugby’s “overly complex” and “subjective” laws gave the panel scope to find mitigating circumstances. Yet it’s hard not to feel that the Australian panel have egg on their faces and that, as Horgan also noted, the southern hemisphere lag behind the north with regard to high hits and player welfare.
That was abundantly clear in the astonishing reaction of former players and pundits in New Zealand to the red card incurred by Angus Ta’avao for his head-on-head hit on Garry Ringrose in the second Test last year. A different world.
Owen Farrell being the England captain brought on a furore and outpouring of comments on both social and the mainstream media. But it’s also because he’s Owen Farrell. In England, it competes against the monster that is the Premier League and Farrell is one of the few rugby players with a sufficiently high profile to engender headlines and column inches, and he sure has this week.
Shaun Edwards was undoubtedly in the minority when stating “justice had been served” in his Mail column.
As the Trump quip demonstrates, the decision has made rugby “a laughing stock”, as Clive Woodward put it. Former referee Nigel Owens said “rugby is in big trouble” if Farrell’s challenge was not a red card. Warren Gatland hailed the player’s warrior spirit but questioned his tackle technique.
Professor John Fairclough from the player welfare and concussion awareness lobby group Progressive Rugby said the decision “has made a mockery of World Rugby’s claim that player welfare is the game’s number one priority”.
The former England scrumhalf turned pundit and TV sports-quiz host Matt Dawson cited this case, of all cases, as the reason why he would not want this children to play rugby, which of course was grist to the mill for some of the anti-rugby lobby in Ireland.
For Owen Farrell himself, and his family, being in the eye of such a storm can’t have been easy these past few days, as evidenced by his father, Andy, speaking out untypically, and using words such as “bullshit” and “disgusting”.
Meanwhile, in this age of instant verdicts, impatience abounded over World Rugby’s deliberations before eventually deciding to appeal, as they had to do given the damage to their protocols on the eve of the sport’s showpiece event. But they had to wait to read the committee’s full verdict. They couldn’t give a knee-jerk reaction.
Hence, whether or not Smith has ultimately done the English captain a favour remains to be seen. History may well demonstrate Farrell jnr would have been better off with a three or four-week ban.
You wonder how any panel could henceforth adjudicate on any appeal to this vexed verdict such has been the noise around it. Ultimately, there will certainly be no winners in this saga. Least of all the game itself.
