If England’s outhalf escapes punishment it could have serious repercussions for the future of the game.
Richard Smith is this week’s miracle man. The guy who got Owen Farrell off what the Foul Play Review Officer (FPRO) believed was “a dangerous upright tackle on the ball carrier resulting in direct contact to the head” of Taine Basham during England’s recent match against Wales.
Kudos to Smith, English rugby’s legal eagle who convinced a disciplinary panel of David Croft and John Langford, both former Australian rugby players, and barrister Adam Casselden, that “on the balance of probabilities that the decision of the FPRO to upgrade the yellow card to a red card was wrong.”
Smith first came to prominence when he rode to England’s rescue at the 2003 World Cup at the behest of then head coach Clive Woodward. England had briefly fielded 16 players against Samoa when Dan Luger came on the field by mistake. The World Cup disciplinary panel could have docked the eventual winners points but Woodward had Smith at hand and England got off with a fine. “I’ll always owe him a debt of thanks for that,” said Woodard this week.
In fairness to World Rugby, they have confirmed their intention to appeal the decision, with another hearing now set to take place next week. And while being respectful of the independent process and its integrity, the consequences of Farrell escaping scot-free could have serious repercussions for the future of the sport.
The decision as it stands asks people to ignore the evidence of their own eyes. You may have thought you saw something obvious. You may have thought you saw something obvious in slow motion, many times over. Except that you didn’t.
Smith took a look at the case against Farrell, found a loophole, and did what he is an expert at doing. The England outhalf never denied that an act of foul play had taken place or that contact to the head had been made or that the degree of danger meant a red card was warranted. But his legal team successfully argued for mitigation on the grounds of the change of Basham’s dynamics.
“In our opinion, it would be placing an unreasonable burden on [Farrell] to expect him to anticipate, foresee or predict, in the limited time available to him, this late change in dynamics,” read the written judgment. “But for the interactions between [Basham] and [George] we are of the opinion that [Farrell] had enough time and space to execute a legal tackle on [Basham]. This, in our opinion, is a sufficient mitigating feature in [Farrell’s] offending to bring the level of danger down to a point below the red card test. [Farrell’s] act of foul play was not intentional or always illegal to deny him the benefit of this mitigation.”
As a result of the judgment, those campaigning for greater protection in rugby regarding head injuries have gone into meltdown. And rightly so.
[ England leave out Owen Farrell for Ireland warm-up testOpens in new window ]
On BBC 5Live, Prof John Fairclough of Progressive Rugby said: “Today’s astounding decision to overturn the red card given to Owen Farrell for his tackle on Taine Basham has made a mockery of World Rugby’s claim that player welfare is the game’s number one priority.
“Additionally, despite protestations in the judgment to the contrary, it has critically undermined the newly introduced bunker process before a global tournament and eroded confidence in the game’s judicial process which is meant to help those playing the game.”
Ben Robinson was a 14-year-old Carrickfergus schoolboy who collapsed during a school’s rugby match in 2011. A coroner found his death was caused by “second-impact syndrome”. Ben’s father Peter is active on social media as a tireless campaigner for safer rugby around head injuries.
“You know over the past 12 yrs we’ve tried our best to help educate and protect players, but every now and then I have to think what’s the fecking point,” he posted. “Grassroots going above and beyond to protect players and then men in suits come along and stick up two fingers to everything.”
“Please read and share,” posted former Welsh backrow, Alix Popham, highlighting a column from former England player Steve Thompson.
The 45-year-old ex-England hooker, a mainstay of the 2003 World Cup win under Woodward, is among a group of former professional players who have launched legal proceedings against governing bodies in the sport due to post-career health problems. Thompson has been diagnosed with early onset dementia which has left him unable to recall winning the World Cup as revealed in his autobiography, Unforgettable.
“The only good thing is the absolute outcry from about 99 per cent of people, because they know it is wrong,” said Thompson of the Farrell decision.
Former Irish team captain Keith Wood was also outspoken, telling radio show Off The Ball: “I don’t think you can ascribe intention on the tackle. I think it’s a s*** tackle. That’s the only way I can look at it.”
In the face of such anger and frustration, not to mention the undermining of it’s new bunker review system which had recommended Farrell’s red card, World Rugby has acted. One can only imagine that the legal action involving dozens of former players coming towards them at pace might also have had a bearing on their thinking.
“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,” it said in a statement.
The upside of a sorry week for the sport is that World Rugby has reacted the way many people believed it should, by showing leadership and a willingness to question such a questionable decision. They are due to step back into the ring early next week where they will no doubt come up against English rugby’s favourite lawyer.
