Owen Farrell red card U-turn just sends out all the wrong messages over player welfare

Awful. disgraceful. Ridiculous. Shocking. Just some of the words used to describe the decision to overturn Owen Farrell’s red card.

Sure, it sends all the wrong messages at a time when concussion and player well-being should be at the forefront of everything the game does.

On what turned out to be a remarkably dark day in rugby, England skipper Farrell somehow escaped any penalty for his high tackle on Taine Basham in Wales at the weekend – despite assumptions he would receive a six-match ban for the violation. The resulting outrage has been great.

Those fighting for more awareness of traumatic brain injuries have rightly been particularly furious – with former Wales international Alix Popham telling Mail Sport the decision was ‘an absolute joke’.

Meanwhile, Professor John Fairclough of campaign group Progressive Rugby said on social media that the “astonishing decision to reverse the red card Owen Farrell received for his tackle on Taine Basham is a mockery of World Rugby’s claim that player welfare is the number 1 in the game. priority.

In addition, despite protests in the verdict to the contrary, it has critically undermined the newly introduced bunkering process before a global tournament and confidence in the game’s legal process, which is designed to help protect those who play the game.

So how on earth did this farcical scenario unfold? Let’s go back and look at this in the round.

First, the crime. Farrell – the England captain and a vital part of Steve Borthwick’s set-up – got his notes for a dangerous tackle on Basham during his side’s World Cup warm-up against Wales.

The playmaker pushed his shoulder forward and up and hit Basham on the chin. Farrell stood erect, and no arms were wrapped around Basham at the time. Originally deemed worthy of a yellow card, it was subsequently upgraded to a red card using the new ‘bunker’ system, which allows upgrades to be made during the sin-bin window.

This represented a potentially dangerous position for England ahead of their World Cup campaign. A six match suspension would see Farrell miss a significant part of the tournament and leave England without their talisman and skipper.

That penalty would have been fully justified as Farrell is in form.

Usually, players who encounter such charges can sometimes receive a lenient sentence, provided they attend ‘tackle school’.

The problem for Farrell, however, is that he’s already gone through that rehab program.

The course – introduced by World Rugby – is designed to raise awareness of good technique and encourage players to practice tackles that carry a lower risk of injury.

Essentially, it’s a ‘carrot and stick’ approach, encouraging players to think about why their offense happened and to prevent it from happening again.

As a result, after they complete the program, they reduce their ban by one week. In the run-up to a major tournament, this can be significant.

It is therefore designed to encourage players to participate and see the error of their ways by using ‘rehabilitation’ rather than direct punishment as an aid.

According to last year’s World Rugby stats, the program had a 92 percent non-offending rate. This is an impressive number and worth mentioning as a reason to view this idea with a sense of positivity.

You only get one shot at it though, and Farrell apparently burned that bridge when he appeared to have relapsed last weekend.

We therefore waited for a long-term ban to follow. Except, it didn’t.

At Farrell’s disciplinary hearing, a panel determined that a “late change in dynamics” due to Jamie George’s involvement in the contact area had “caused a sudden and significant change of direction from the ball carrier.” This was enough to decide that Farrell should have been hit with yellow instead of red.

Farrell did not deny his act of foul play, but argued that it was not worth being sent off.

Now there will be those who would agree that the ball carrier suddenly changed direction, leaving Farrell in a position where he couldn’t get into a more suitable position.

I’ve tried to see both sides watching the video, but I’m afraid I can’t see past Farrell who goes in too high, too straight and too dangerous. He also appears to twist his upper body sideways to enter with his right shoulder at head level. There’s no relief, is there? It’s an illegal maneuver. Let’s also remember that this isn’t his first offense.

Equally concerning is the next part of the statement, which refers to the bunkering process used to determine Farrell’s red card. It noted that ‘Unlike the Foul Play Review Officer, the committee had the luxury of time to privately deliberate and consider the incident and the proper application of the main contact process.

The Committee believes this is in contrast to the Foul Play Review Officer, who had to make his decision within minutes without the benefit of all additional material, including hearing the player and his legal representative.

“Based on that, the committee did not uphold the red card and the player is immediately free to play again.

“

Are they really saying that the “bunkering process” recently initiated to mitigate the effects of quick decision making and ensure that a player’s well-being was adequately taken care of suddenly no longer applies? Surely the purpose of this process was to give the Review Officer time to go through this instead of making a quick decision?

We’ve all criticized those quick decisions in the past that can put players at risk – so the ‘bunker’ idea seemed like a sensible alternative. And why would they need to hear from the player and his legal representative at that stage?

Honestly, it’s just ridiculous and seriously undermines the process leading up to the biggest rugby league in the world.

In addition, it raises serious questions about the message it is sending to the younger generation and amateur players, who will watch this and wonder why they are forced to lower their tackle height and take head injuries seriously when those they look up to can walk away with this type of incidents without serious consequences.

Hopefully Basham will be okay and will not experience any unnecessary difficulties as a result of this collision. However, many others in similar positions can. That’s the point – which is why those campaigning for a safer sport and for the well-being of the players will continue to beat the drum to raise awareness of this issue.

This was a real opportunity for rugby to set the standard and set a boundary in terms of penalties regardless of the player or league affected by it.

Sadly, rugby has failed spectacularly in this regard.