George Moala won't be in Tonga's RWC squad. He got a 5 week suspension for this.
Rugby World Cup 2023
- Thread starter Braveheart81
- Start date
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
I agree with 5 weeks for this, so what's the argument? You can't lift and drop a player dangerously.
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
I agree, but playing devil's advocate, I think the camera angles are a bit deceptive. Using the 5m from touch line as a reference point, you can see in the below photos that George pushes Basham across a about a metre (left foot to left foot) towards touch/Farrell
Point of George's first contact
Point of Farrell's first contact
As you said, Farrell's positioning suggests he was always going to put on a shitty and likely high tackle, but I can understand how the panel thought George's involvement worsened the outcome.
I think qwerty was suggesting that I posted it in this thread not to make a point but just because it is news which is entirely the point of my post.
It is a new judiciary outcome which is relevant to the RWC and I hadn't seen it posted before.
If I'd wanted to make a comparison or use it to further my argument I would have. I intentionally said nothing.
zer0
John Thornett (49)
This is all irrelevant because, as per the "Head Contact Process, 9th March 2023"...
Right there in red and white. "Mitigation will not apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play".
You just described "up".
Wallaby Man
Nev Cottrell (35)
Driving up and ‘up’ are completely different things. Loading up and driving is like doing a squat and powering through the motion. Projecting up to have some level of force so you don’t get barreled over is a completely different conversation. The only tackles front on where players don’t project up even slightly are grass cutter because you project body earlier.
Look I think he should have got banned through consistency. But you’d think he swinging arms a guy and completely took the guys head off from a loaded position with the reaction.
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
I don’t believe shoulder-to-head contact in a tackle is (always) considered an intentional or always illegal act, which is intended for striking and the like.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
I’m pretty sure it is. I might be wrong lol
The Ghost of Raelene
David Codey (61)
It’s the Defenders responsibility to not make contact with the head of an attacker. He did this with zero mitigating factors
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
It should be compared and questioned.
The Pacific Island teams have often been penalised, carded and suspended for hits deemed to be dangerous - even when it was questionable and before there was such an emphasis on head contact. It is VERY rare that they would get away with what Farrell has done here particularly given that he has done this multiple times.
Put him in a Manu Samoa jersey and he would be out for at least 4 weeks - like Moala.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
My understanding is that while the head contact might not be the shoulder charge aspect of it is.
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
I could be wrong too - regardless, the panel applied mitigation, so I imagine they believed they had grounds to do so
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
They ‘mitigated’ the fuck out of it, thats for sure.
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
I wonder if the left arm clearly wrapping (as much as you can for a should charge) meant the panel didn’t see it as a shoulder charge, but an upright tackle?
Tomthumb
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Any evidence to back this up?