So, there we have it. Some players are untouchable and some countries have great wealth and access to the best lawyers – and player safety is not a priority, no matter how many promotional videos and campaigns say otherwise.

Drawing any other conclusion from the fact that England’s Owen Farrell escaped censure for smashing his shoulder into Wales flank Taine Basham’s face last week, is delusional.

Even if the incident were accidental – and that’s highly debatable – reducing the red card to yellow is an extremely contentious decision that will, in time, have huge ramifications for the sport.

Flyhalf Farrell was red-carded during last weekend’s Test against Wales at Twickenham for clobbering Basham in the face with his shoulder.

The only way Farrell was likely to evade a minimum four-week suspension was if the red card was rescinded and reduced to a yellow. To the sound of jaws hitting the floor across the rugby world, that’s exactly what transpired and everything that followed was mandated by the process.

In this instance, Farrell’s tackle struck Basham on the chin with force, with Farrell in an almost upright position. The Welsh player failed a head-injury assessment and could not continue.

Read more: World Rugby must throw the book at repeat offender Farrell if they are serious about tackling head injuries

Yet the all-Australian independent judicial committee of Adam Casselden SC, John Langford and David Croft came to a different conclusion based on a technicality that apparently only they could see.

The key factor, according to the committee, was this: “The Committee found that a late change in dynamics due to England number 2’s (Jamie George) interaction in the contact area brought about a sudden and significant change in direction from the ball carrier.

“In the Committee’s opinion, this mitigation was sufficient to bring the player’s act of foul play below the red card threshold.”

Watch the incident here and decide for yourself how much Basham changed his body height as a result of George’s actions. Also, note whether Farrell even tried to wrap his arm, as legal tackling would dictate.

It doesn’t matter which way you cut it, the committee has taken an extremely lenient view.

According to The Telegraph, “Farrell’s defence was led by Richard Smith KC, a veteran of five World Cups, three British and Irish Lions tours and described as the country’s ‘preeminent rugby barrister’. A profile of Smith on Chambers & Partners says he “achieves incredible results from seemingly impossible situations”.

World Rugby could appeal against the outcome, but that is an unlikely hope – even though it would send a strong message that it is serious about player safety.

Farrell was initially yellow-carded by Georgian referee Nika Amashukeli, but the foul play review officer (FPRO), in what is called the “bunker”, reviewed the matter. A few minutes later, the message came back from the FPRO to the referee with the instruction to elevate the yellow card to a red.

Farrell was subsequently charged with dangerous tackling, which carries a six-week, mid-range sanction for any hit that makes contact with a player’s head. Farrell has also previously served three suspensions related to dangerous tackling.

During the hearing, Farrell even admitted to “committing an act of foul play”, according to a statement from the independent judicial committee. Yet he has escaped any punishment.

Inconsistency

World Rugby might talk about player welfare as a priority, but when it comes to doling out punishments equitably, there is woeful inconsistency.

In recent weeks, Tonga’s George Moala received a 10-week ban for a bad tip tackle against Canada. It’s quite a harsh punishment, but it sends a strong message against potential neck-breaking tackles.

Japan’s Lappies Labuschagne received a three-week suspension for a clash of heads when playing against Fiji. Again, that looked far more accidental than the Farrell incident. But it was a red card and he received a suspension in line with the lower range of the sanction, which is fair enough. It also seemingly cost him a place in Japan’s World Cup squad, as he was omitted from the lineup this week.

Last year, Bok flank Pieter-Steph du Toit was red-carded and suspended for striking French centre Jonathan Danty in the head, even though he was pushed into contact by Bok No 8, Kwagga Smith.

See the incident here

Despite Smith pushing Du Toit off balance, that was not considered a mitigating factor in the subsequent hearing and Du Toit was banned for three weeks.

But England bad boy Farrell has had a red card rescinded thanks to the considerable skills of the Rugby Football Union’s (RFU’s) legal counsel and a lenient decision by a disciplinary panel.

As a consequence, he escapes any form of ban despite a chequered disciplinary record and is free to play.

“The player acknowledged that whilst he had committed an act of foul play, he denied that the act was worthy of a red card,” a statement from the committee said.

“After reviewing all the evidence, questioning the player in detail and hearing submissions from the player’s representative, the Committee concluded that the Foul Play Review Officer was wrong, on the balance of probabilities, to upgrade the yellow card issued to the player to a red card. 

“The Committee determined, when applying World Rugby’s Head Contact Process, that mitigation should be applied to the high degree of danger found by the Foul Play Review Officer.

“On that basis, the Committee did not uphold the red card and the player is free to play again immediately.”

Discrediting the ‘Bunker’

What’s staggering is the following: “The Committee believe it is important to record that no criticism is made of the Foul Play Review Officer (FPRO), nor would any be warranted,” the statement continued.

“Unlike the Foul Play Review Officer, the Committee had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident and the proper application of the Head Contact Process.

“The Committee believes this is in contrast to the Foul Play Review Officer, who was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes without the benefit of all the additional material, including hearing from the player and his legal representative.”

It simply undermines the purpose of the “bunker” where the FPRO is in a separate location, free of influence from the crowd and local broadcasters, with eight minutes to assess a yellow card and decide whether it needs to be upgraded to red.

And this statement seems to suggest the FPRO needs to consult legal counsel in-game to decide on an upgrade to a red card. It’s ludicrous.

Furthermore, World Rugby’s Law Calibration Committee, made up of players, coaches and refs, has made it clear that the onus is on the tackler to be better.

This outcome appears to have only considered the actions of the ball carrier and not those of the tackler. Their next meeting should be interesting.

It’s unclear where this will end, because one day, sadly, someone is not going to get up from one of these “tackles” and then it will be too late.

Farrell, England and the RFU have won the immediate battle. But in the struggle against head injuries and player safety, rugby has taken a huge step towards losing the war. DM