Outrage over Farrell's charity 'discount'
REACTION: There is an outpouring of outrage over the ‘slap on the wrist’ treatment meted out to England captain Owen Farrell.
The disciplinary hearing panel’s decision to reduce a ban from 10 weeks to five – based on various testimonials – has not gone down very well.
The Saracens flyhalf was handed the suspension on Tuesday for his red card offence in last Saturday’s Premiership contest with Wasps.
The panel deemed the high tackle on Charlie Atkinson “reckless and not intentional”, with panel chairman Mike Hamlin adding: “Testimonials provided by Mark McCall, Eddie Jones and the founders of a charity with which the player works very closely were of the highest quality.”
This resulted in the ban being halved to ‘five meaningful matches’, an outcome that has caused quite a stir on social media.
#DisciplinaryUpdate: @EnglandRugby captain Owen Farrell to miss @ChampionsCup!
🗣️”Testimonials provided by Mark McCall, Eddie Jones and the founders of a charity with which the player works very closely were of the highest quality,”https://t.co/dBQnTPXske— rugby365.com (@rugby365com) September 8, 2020
Many disgruntled people feel Farrell’s charity work was irrelevant when it came to dangerous play on a rugby field.
In a collision that left Atkinson unconscious, which many have branded as potentially “career-ending”, a mass of people felt any prior charity work should have had no bearing on the hearing decision.
The input of McCall and Jones, the respective Saracens and England head coaches of Farrell, was also questioned as it was in both of their interests to have the player’s ban reduced as much as possible.
(Reaction below video …)
Here’s what @ben_cisneros & I said in a recent @LawInSport article, “the authors would ask @WorldRugby to consider introducing some form of weighting system to the mitigating factors, so mitigation is only applied where it is truly appropriate.”https://t.co/gKPwtpFpS5 [2/2]
— Kevin Carpenter (@KevSportsLaw) September 9, 2020
Owen Farrell tackle was ‘dangerous, reckless but not intentional’.
Ban reduced from 10 matches to 5 because he does a bit for charity!
Eh?!
Disagree with the intentional part. He knows the rules.— Milena ZP♿🇮🇹🇪🇺🏴 (@MilenaZP_) September 9, 2020
“Off-field mitigating factors”
Nothing Farrell has done off the field should come into the equation when deciding the length of a ban for what was a really awful act of foul play.
The incident itself should have been viewed in complete isolation.
— Tom Pritchard (@TomJPritchard) September 8, 2020
I fail to see why Farrell’s off field Charidee work has any bearing on the fact he’s a repeat-offending dangerous cheat on field. pic.twitter.com/52a8bToyXg
— Calvin (@WelshEcon) September 9, 2020
I fail to see why Farrell’s off field Charidee work has any bearing on the fact he’s a repeat-offending dangerous cheat on field. pic.twitter.com/52a8bToyXg
— Calvin (@WelshEcon) September 9, 2020
Oh dear. @EnglandRugby Supporting a player is one thing, but manipulating a disciplinary panel with tales of “good work for Charity” to get your man back is not Rugby. Farrell could have ended Atkinson’s career with his often repeated shocking tackle. Shame on you. #owenfarrell
— Simon Carter (@balatacarter) September 9, 2020
What have other people’s testaments and charities got to do with a decision based on what was a serious, potentially career ending, maybe worse, tackle? It was pure filth, but do some charity work and it’s ok? Nowt against Farrell but we are clearing the game up or we aren’t!
— Alex Campbell (@Alexbcampbell2) September 9, 2020
Speechless that the fact Farrell does alot of charity work has reduced punishment for (and trying to) decapitate an opponent.
Blazer boys strike again
— Andy Thomas (@andy_thomas89) September 9, 2020
Ban reduced from the entry-point by 50% after glowing testimonials from Eddie Jones and the charity Farrell works for. Yeah, there’s clearly no bias there. And back just in time to play for England. It just stinks! 💩
— Ray Palmer (@raystratman) September 8, 2020
