World Rugby, the sport’s governing body, have stepped into rare, but not unprecedented territory by formally appealing an independent judicial committee’s decision to rescind a red card issued to England flyhalf Owen Farrell.

Flyhalf Farrell was red-carded during last weekend’s Test between England and Wales at Twickenham for clobbering Taine Basham in the face with his shoulder. The Welsh player failed a head-injury assessment and could not continue in the match England won 19-17.

Farrell was initially yellow-carded by Georgian referee Nika Amashukeli in the 63rd minute, but the foul play review officer (Fpro), in what is called the “bunker”, upgraded the sanction. 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.

The only way Farrell was likely to evade a minimum lengthy suspension was if the red card was rescinded at the hearing and reduced to a yellow.

That’s exactly what transpired and everything that followed was mandated by the process. And Farrell was cleared to play immediately.

England’s Owen Farrell scores a try against Australia at Twickenham stadium in London, Britain on 24 November, 2018. (Photo: EPA-EFE/Neil Hall)

Outcry

The decision by the committee, appointed by Six Nations, who have been overseeing the current series of “friendly” internationals, caused a huge outcry.

But World Rugby, under pressure because it professes to place player welfare at the heart of the sport, had little option but to consider an appeal.

As the pressure mounted after an outcry from media, fans, former players and coaches, World Rugby took the only decision that made sense and appealed the outcome.

Farrell’s participation at Rugby World Cup 2023, remains in the balance, especially as he is a repeat offender of similar ‘tackles’.

“World Rugby has today confirmed to the Rugby Football Union and Six Nations Rugby that it will exercise its right to appeal in regard to the Owen Farrell disciplinary decision following a careful review of the independent Judicial Committee’s full written decision received on 16 August,” a statement from World Rugby on 17 August read.

“World Rugby fully supports the important role that an independent disciplinary process plays in upholding the integrity and values of the sport, particularly regarding foul play involving head contact.

“Player welfare is the sport’s number one priority, and the Head Contact Process is central to that mission at the elite level of the sport.

“Having considered the full written decision, World Rugby considers an appeal to be warranted.

“In line with provisions set out under Regulation 17, an independent Appeal Committee will be appointed to determine the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.”

From left: Freddie Steward, Ellis Genge and Owen Farrell of England look on as they sit in the sin bin after receiving yellow cards during the Summer International match between England and Wales at Twickenham Stadium, London, on 12 August 2023. (Photo: David Rogers / Getty Images)

Controversial decision

The all-Australian independent judicial committee of Adam Casselden SC, John Langford and David Croft that heard the original case earlier this week, 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.”

On the face of it, it’s farcical and even reading the full judgement, it appears they were very lenient on the tackler.

The Committee, in its full ruling, confirmed that the incident had met three fundamental Head Contact Process  (HCP) — that head contact occurred, that the actions amounted to an act of foul play and that the degree of danger was high, warranting a red card.

But, because Farrell accepted and conceded that his actions had breached those three criteria, the committee appears to have taken a softer stance.

The Committee then went on to assess if there were mitigating circumstances that led to the incident. The Fpro, during his eight minutes to review the decision in real time in the bunker, did not find sufficient grounds for mitigation.

In this instance, mitigation fell under three definitions:

• Sudden/significant drop in height or change in direction from ball carrier;
• A late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact area; and
• No time to adjust.

Armed with a lawyer and lengthy hearing the Committee concluded that the FPRO erred because there was a “change in dynamics” from Jamie George’s light push on Basham which apparently was enough to befuddle Farrell split seconds before he shouldered Basham in the head.

Mitigation will be a key battleground in the appeal.

According to the original ruling, Farrell made the following submission at the hearing:

“The Player’s oral evidence was broadly consistent with the video footage. He said that after W20 (Basham) turned E18 around with his dummy pass he set himself for contact that would give himself enough space to his right to effect a good (legal) tackle on W20’s right-hand side.

“He did not anticipate or foresee that W20 and E2 (Jamie George) would get involved with each other whereby W20 would be propelled sideways (across/diagonally) and towards him.

“He said when W20 was propelled across and towards him he did not have enough time and space to try and get his head out of the way. He said the position of his head was a subconscious reaction to W20’s body being propelled across him.

“The Player gave his evidence in a measured and thoughtful manner. He was a matter-of-fact witness. We accept his account as it accords with our observations of the video footage.”

The Committee went further by undermining the entire concept of “the bunker” system and the Fpro officer.

“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.”

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.

This statement seems to suggest the Fpro needs to consult legal counsel in-game to decide on an upgrade to a red card. It was ludicrous.

This tackle by England’s Owen Farrell on France’s Yoram Moefana would be deemed too high. (Photo: Gaspafotos/MB Media/Getty Images)

Appeals have happened before

It’s not often that World Rugby appeals the outcome of an independently appointed committee, but it has happened before.

In 2012 All Blacks flank Adam Thompson received a one-week ban for stomping on Scotland flank Alisdair Strokosh’s head. World Rugby appealed and the ban was increased to two weeks.

World Rugby also unsuccessfully appealed when Wallaby skipper James Horwill was cleared of stamping on Alun Wyn Jones during the 2o13 series between Australia and the British & Irish Lions.

But this issue is by far the most important. If the appeal fails, legally speaking, policing foul play around head contact, would become ungovernable. DM