Ah, Owen Farrell, what joy you bring…
I hope our systems our close enough that the title works as intended…
There has been, in my opinion, quite rightly, outcry over the way the Owen Farrell high hit on Taine Basham was treated by the Disciplinary Panel and the need of World Rugby to appeal the initial decision.
Fortunately, on appeal, some semblance of justice was served. Personally I feel four weeks was too light, I particularly feel it’s galling when he gets a week off his sentence for accepting foul play after wriggling and squirming to try and find any loophole to get out of a ban when everyone – even the biggest Owen Farrell stans on the internet – were saying 6-8 weeks, no mitigation because he didn’t use his arms.
I would just like to say, before I go much further, that the second panel pointed out that the first panel should not have granted mitigation and should have looked at the use (or lack thereof) of his arms and taken that into account in their original decision. They are spelling out that clearly that disciplinary panels are meant to follow the same guidelines as referees and TMOs. We’ve all seen examples where they don’t, but they’re putting their foot down and saying clearly that they should.
Should World Rugby reform the disciplinary process?
There is a reason it’s earned the nickname The Chocolate Wheel of Justice. The idea is that there’s a neat framework. This type of offence has this type of tariff, half off if it’s your first time, chance to appeal if you think the card was wrongly given and so on. Officials do make mistakes, with the introduction of the bunker review we will hopefully see that number fall, as a TMO who has no other duties reviews the decision over eight minutes instead of the ref and the match TMO spending a few minutes in the middle of the match. However, rugby is a dynamic sport and there are still going to be decisions that are on that borderline. We’ve all seen them, debated them, and a panel that has a few hours, and possibly even more additional footage is a fine thing, at least in principle.
Things to Consider
The Case for Doing Nothing
Does the system need to be changed? There are really two things to consider here.
First, while we moan and bitch about perceived inequities – and who doesn’t like a good moan – how many of those are actually fan-tinted glasses? Recently this post suggested there’s a genuine feeling that the world picks on Australian rugby. Meanwhile a comment on this post rather suggests the opposite, at least for high tackles. The Owen Farrell debacle (and the previous appeals) shows that World Rugby will step in when the system really does go wrong.
Cynics might say they only responded due to the outcry, but they’ve done it before with far less hue and cry – I had forgotten the cases – against Marler for abuse (2012) and Thompson for stamping (2013). Twitter might not have been ubiquitous back then, but I’d dipped my toes and left, it was founded in 2006. There was plenty of space for public outcry, plenty of users who watched rugby, albeit fewer than today.
However, if you’re going to appeal a decision, especially one with all the outcry around it that this one had, it takes time to review the original incident – not as a fan, coach or similar, but as a legislator – then determine first whether, then where you can best appeal the decision, then announce it. If you think about court cases – and this is similar – it’s considered only punitive when a judge in the US gives Trump a time limit of a week to appeal a decision. World Rugby appealed within two days.
If you’ve read what I post in comments over the years, you’ll know I’m rarely anything but critical of World Rugby. It’s impossible to suggest that the huge, and virtually unanimous outcry didn’t affect them but, equally, it’s hard to see that they could have actually acted much faster. I’m prepared, on this occasion, to give them the benefit of the doubt. It was a clear miscarriage of justice, they do try to act for player welfare (they may not do so perfectly, but they do try to do so), they would have acted if there hadn’t been the outcry.
Second, rugby has recently adopted the bunker review for red cards. While the main aim of this is to make the game flow better, because the referee and TMO look at the incident agree it’s at least a yellow card and worth a review – this is over in a minute or less – and off it goes to the bunker. While I don’t have accurate data for on-field red card times, the bunker seems appreciable quicker. Even in clear cases, my feeling is three minutes or more, and in less clear ones, it might have been over five. However, with eight minutes to review everything, plus the backup of the citing officer, we can assumehope there will be fewer wrong red cards going forward, and the judgement will be much more clear-cut about applying the penalty process. Perhaps we should let this bed in before we charge ahead with making changes?
The Case For Change
While no system can ever be perfect, and the Owen Farrell situation was rectified pretty quickly, there have been a number of cases, culminating in his, where it appeared that the disciplinary panel was singing from a different hymn sheet to the referees. This was confusing for everyone.
While the commentators might not understand the framework, good referees, at least before the bunker, went through a pretty clear process and, with microphones, the fans heard it being talked through. While we might, relatively rarely, disagree, as the outcry in the Owen Farrell case showed, we all understood it. Even the England fans, even the Farrell stans, all agreed it was a clear case for the vino, the discussion was around how long the ban would be. This was, in part, the reason that social media lost its marbles. No one doubted that the officials had acted correctly and that the disciplinary panel had stuffed up. You don’t have to get into accusations of racism and all the rest of it – although those allegations may also be justified.
One possible benefit of reform, reforming the makeup of the panel, rather than process, would be that you could get a process that is better aligned with the referee’s processes and, while they do different things – the referee shows the red card and then gets on with refereeing the game, not worrying about the longer term implications, the panel worries about the entry point on the tariff, the previous record and the size of the ban, they are using the same principles to assess “it this an offence that merited a red card.”
We can choose to look at this in a kind of à la carte menu way.
- Are the panel members right?
- Is the tariff system right?
- Are the systems of reductions right?
- Others?
Another option is to say that the whole system is broken. We need a route and branch reform, throw out disciplinary panels, replace it with something new. I don’t have a clear picture for that, but have at it in the comments!
What would I like to see?
- I think replacing lawyers with retired referees, until they no longer wish to continue would be a start. A lot of these panels are held over Zoom or similar, so they don’t have to travel. It’s a relatively small commitment of time, and they already know the laws. They would have to commit to keeping updated, but not to the fitness standards, and they’d get to criticise “the youngsters” but stay in touch with the game.
- I’d be happy to see a larger panel, with one former referee from each of the involved countries plus three others if possible. I don’t mind a kind of “balanced bias” like that. I don’t think referees are particularly biased, but having the different national standards represented in that way would be good. At lower levels, replace that with referees who previously represented the club where possible.
- I don’t have strong thoughts on the tariff system. I wouldn’t mind seeing more for a shoulder to the head than a high tackle to encourage more use of the arms but there’s mitigation for use of the arms already so I don’t know how effective that would be. I would welcome other thoughts and debate in the comments.
- I have no problems about a one-off reduction for tackle school. Equally no problem about 50% off for no previous red cards.
- I do, still, have an issue for a week off for showing remorse and a week off for accepting you committed foul play. Showing remorse is an on-field act of apology, not a before the panel act. I think it should be extra weeks for not doing it. Set the standard that this is the bare minimum expected. Instruct referees on this, so a player shown yellow can deviate to be allowed to say sorry as they leave the field. Equally, anyone that doesn’t earn a week off for “accepting they committed foul play” is stupid, but what’s the point of the damn tariffs if everyone knows it’s six weeks but minus two for saying sorry and yes, it’s a fair cop? No, it’s six weeks. If the player did something exceptional, like knocked their opponent out, but rolled them into the recovery position, week off for that, ok. (I’m not sure if you’re meant to do that, they might have potential neck injuries, but rendered appropriate first aid. Time off for that, I don’t have a problem for that.)
Please, have at it. There’s plenty of food for thought in there. What would you like to see done?
