There is so much noise around the Owen Farrell suspension but the long and short of it is the disciplinary process isn’t fit for purpose and World Rugby have to intervene. Farrell was guilty of a dangerous tackle but this isn’t about him – we have seen similar with other players after all. There shouldn’t be so many loopholes in the system and there has to be more independence in these disciplinary hearings.
Yes, the case was heard by an independent disciplinary panel but everyone on it was English and the ten-page full judgment has red roses emblazoned all over it. Why isn’t there a Frenchman, an Irishman and an Australian on there?
The RFU aren’t the only culprits when it comes to incidents like this one. We have seen it with the FFR and Rugby Australia recently and I’m sure every union has done similar over the years. World Rugby have to implement a centralised disciplinary process… and fast.
In the Farrell case, it was a mid-range offence and there wasn’t the option to reduce the six-week ban by 50 per cent – as is customary nowadays – because of the suspension he received for a particularly bad tackle on Charlie Atkinson a couple of years ago.
I have said it before but the fact that so many bans are cut in half because players have a clean record is a joke. In this instance, despite Farrell not qualifying for that full reduction, he might still only serve three weeks of his six-week ban and the reasoning behind why that is the case is extremely dubious.
He can knock a week off by applying to World Rugby to take part in the coaching intervention process. You can argue the merits of that but it is an option that is open to almost everyone so there are no major issues there. However, two weeks have been deducted because of his “timely acknowledgment of his offending and considering his behaviour following the incident, during the hearing and leading up to the hearing, sitting alongside other mitigation available to him”.
I don’t know what classes as timely but we are told that Farrell “said a number of times that he felt he had made primary contact through the chest area and that he had made a fair tackle”. He also denied that his actions warranted a red card.
The other relevant off-field mitigating factors listed for a reduction in the ban include the fact that he expressed remorse, contacted his opponent to apologise, and that he received an exemplary reference from Mark McCall, his boss at Saracens.
Of course, you are going to say sorry to someone if you make contact with their chin, especially if you know it counts in your favour at a disciplinary hearing, and it would be pretty odd if a player didn’t get a glowing reference from their head coach or director of rugby.
How that all adds up to a two-week deduction, I have no idea and the structures in place just aren’t strong enough so it does seem as if it is possible to find ways to reduce suspensions by as many weeks as suits.
I’m not saying the RFU have tailored the ban to suit them but the explanation for the deduction seems questionable and the optics aren’t good with Farrell potentially now able to play in the opening game of the Guinness Six Nations as a result.
The final nail in the coffin is that the third ‘meaningful’ game that he will miss as a result of his ban is Saracens’ match against Bristol on January 28, a Gallagher Premiership fixture that he would never have played in because he would have been preparing with England for the February 4 Calcutta Cup match versus Scotland.
Farrell is not the first player to benefit from this loophole. Kyle Sinckler, amongst others, have previously returned to international duty sooner than one might expect in similar circumstances but bans should only apply to games that players would actually play in.
