Read on Twitter
Ahead of his disciplinary hearing this evening, here are my thoughts on the likely sanction Owen Farrell will face for the high tackle that saw him red carded on Saturday.
Farrell is charged with making a dangerous tackle contrary to Law 9.13.
THREAD
#sportslaw
Farrell is charged with making a dangerous tackle contrary to Law 9.13.
THREAD
#sportslaw
The incident can be viewed in the below tweet.
It shows Farrell making a tackle with a swinging arm on Wasps' Charlie Atkinson, with contact to the ball-carrier's head/neck. https://twitter.com/btsportrugby/status/1302248669677314048?s=20
It shows Farrell making a tackle with a swinging arm on Wasps' Charlie Atkinson, with contact to the ball-carrier's head/neck. https://twitter.com/btsportrugby/status/1302248669677314048?s=20
1) Proving the charge & the red card test.
There is evidently a tackle above the line of the shoulders and hence, Law 9.13 is breached.
The red card test is also met, following the High Tackle Framework, as the contact to the head was direct & with a high degree of danger.
There is evidently a tackle above the line of the shoulders and hence, Law 9.13 is breached.
The red card test is also met, following the High Tackle Framework, as the contact to the head was direct & with a high degree of danger.
1) Continued...
There is a high degree of danger because the tackle was made with significant force, Farrell completed the 'tackle', and had swung his arm through in preparation for the tackle. He was clearly attempting a dominant hit.
Atkinson also appeared to be knocked out.
There is a high degree of danger because the tackle was made with significant force, Farrell completed the 'tackle', and had swung his arm through in preparation for the tackle. He was clearly attempting a dominant hit.
Atkinson also appeared to be knocked out.
1) Continued...
Although Atkinson's height dipped somewhat as Farrell made the tackle, and he changed direction slightly, this is insufficient to mitigate the offence down from a red card to a yellow card.
Hence, the red card test is met
Although Atkinson's height dipped somewhat as Farrell made the tackle, and he changed direction slightly, this is insufficient to mitigate the offence down from a red card to a yellow card.
Hence, the red card test is met
2) Assessment of seriousness.
Intent? Though the tackle was intentional, it is not clear that Farrell intended to hit Atkinson above the line of the shoulders. Rather, he was reckless as to the point of contact.
It was a reckless, not intentional offence.
Intent? Though the tackle was intentional, it is not clear that Farrell intended to hit Atkinson above the line of the shoulders. Rather, he was reckless as to the point of contact.
It was a reckless, not intentional offence.
2) Continued...
Gravity of his conduct? Grave, particularly given contact with the head, which WR/RFU are trying to reduce, due to concussion risks.
It is mitigating, though, that Atkinson's height dropped somewhat and he changed direction - making the conduct look much worse.
Gravity of his conduct? Grave, particularly given contact with the head, which WR/RFU are trying to reduce, due to concussion risks.
It is mitigating, though, that Atkinson's height dropped somewhat and he changed direction - making the conduct look much worse.
2) Continued...
Also important that Farrell was attempting to make a legal tackle, using arms
Effect on victim? It is relevant that Atkinson was knocked unconscious. This may make the offending more serious, though important to note there is a degree of 'outcome luck' involved.
Also important that Farrell was attempting to make a legal tackle, using arms
Effect on victim? It is relevant that Atkinson was knocked unconscious. This may make the offending more serious, though important to note there is a degree of 'outcome luck' involved.
3) Sanction
I would expect a mid-range entry point to be selected, based on the assessment of seriousness. It was reckless but a genuine tackle attempt.
Starting point = 6 weeks (the minimum for cases of head contact anyway)
I would expect a mid-range entry point to be selected, based on the assessment of seriousness. It was reckless but a genuine tackle attempt.
Starting point = 6 weeks (the minimum for cases of head contact anyway)
4) Mitigation.
Farrell was genuinely remorseful immediately after the tackle & apologised to Atkinson on the touchline, as soon as he could.
He does have a previous ban for a high tackle in 2016.
If he pleads guilty (as he should), I'd expect a 2-week reduction
4-week ban.
Farrell was genuinely remorseful immediately after the tackle & apologised to Atkinson on the touchline, as soon as he could.
He does have a previous ban for a high tackle in 2016.
If he pleads guilty (as he should), I'd expect a 2-week reduction
4-week ban.
Of course, with multiple games being played in the same week, that will translate to 4 matches.
Even if the panel discount his earlier ban, a 3-match ban would see him miss the Champions Cup quarter-final against Leinster.
Even if the panel discount his earlier ban, a 3-match ban would see him miss the Champions Cup quarter-final against Leinster.
