Exposing World Rugby's Corruption: The Owen Farrell Red Card Controversy

In the fast-paced, adrenaline-fueled world of international rugby, there are bound to be occasional missteps, accidental fouls, and honest mistakes on the field. But what happens when these inevitable instances become marred by inconsistent questionable decisions made off the pitch? In this video, we delve deep into the controversial reversal of Owen Farrell's red card and highlight the inconsistencies and contradictions within World Rugby's governing body.

The stage was set: England facing off against Wales, with both teams vying for victory. As tensions flared and the match progressed, a key event took the limelight – a dangerous tackle by England captain, Owen Farrell, on Taine Basham. Initially receiving a yellow card, Farrell's sanction was promptly upgraded to a red card following a review by the TMO bunker - a newly implemented system designed to ensure accurate decisions by isolating TMOs from on-field distractions.

The purpose of this new TMO bunker system is clear: to provide a space away from crowds and interference, allowing dedicated TMOs the chance to meticulously review incidents of foul play and determine if they merit a red card. Such decisions are not taken lightly, considering the potential impact on a player's career and team fortunes. Given this, the bunker's decision to upgrade Farrell's penalty to a red card after comprehensive review indicates the severity of the foul in their perspective.

But, in a shocking twist, the independent disciplinary committee reversed this decision days later. Despite the bunker's conclusion, the committee deemed that there was enough mitigation to revert the red card sanction back to a mere yellow. Their justification? A "late change in dynamics" due to Jamie George's involvement. But many are left wondering: if the TMO bunker system was introduced to ensure accurate decisions, how can it be so easily overturned?

Let's put things into perspective. Rugby is a sport beloved for its physicality and passion. But with that comes the responsibility of ensuring player safety. A high tackle, like the one executed by Farrell, poses significant risks to the players involved. Recognizing the importance of safety and fair play, World Rugby has implemented laws and guidelines, such as Law 9.13, which states, "A player must not tackle an opponent early, late, or dangerously." By this definition and the immediate evidence at hand, the TMO's decision to red card Farrell seemed appropriate.

But the inconsistencies don’t end here. Consider Lappies Labuschagne's case. For an accidental head clash, Labuschagne received a 3-week suspension, resulting in him losing his cherished place in the World Cup. In stark contrast, Farrell's more dangerous tackle sees him face no subsequent repercussions, and he remains eligible for crucial World Cup matches.

One must then ponder: why the glaring discrepancy? Why does a player from Japan face significant penalties for an accidental clash, while a player from England walks free after a clear shoulder charge?

This video aims to highlight and question these very inconsistencies. We're not pointing fingers at individual players or referees who, in the heat of the moment, are doing their best. Our focus is on the governing body, World Rugby, and the evident contradictions in their decisions. The reversal of Farrell's red card, in light of their own established TMO bunker system, raises eyebrows.

The committee's statement, emphasizing the "luxury of time" they had in contrast to the Foul Play Review Officer, seems to ironically undermine the purpose of the TMO bunker system. If World Rugby's newly introduced system is effectively sidelined by the committee's claim of having a more detailed deliberation process, it brings to light a pressing question: Is the TMO bunker system even necessary? And if it is, shouldn't its decisions be given the weight and respect they deserve?

In conclusion, while the Farrell Red Card controversy is just one of many incidents in the vast world of rugby, it serves as a glaring example of the existing contradictions within the sport's governing body. Fans, players, and stakeholders of rugby deserve consistency, clarity, and fairness. World Rugby, as the governing body, has the responsibility to ensure that the spirit of the game is upheld, that decisions are consistent and transparent, and that player safety remains paramount.

[tasanalytics]

For those of you who care, I'm not changing the title. World Rugby appealing this decision, changes absolutely nothing. Where were they when he got away with all the other stuff? The only reason they're appealing is because the whole rugby community called them out on their BS. Not to mention, there's been no word on them reducing the 10 week ban on George Moala from Tonga. And for people saying it's the 6 Nations that is to blame, you might want to go look into the people that are part of these "independent" committees, then you'll see that World Rugby is at fault.

[douglasbraddock]

I am English through & through, but there is a class action against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union in progress, alleging negligence in failing to protect players from concussive and sub-concussive impacts during their careers. If I was legally representing those players involved, this decision and accompanying video, would be at the top of the evidence list!

[tyronematthews]

As an England fan this is a disgrace - Take into account his record, there is no mitigation, he made a mess of it and caused a concussion. The outcome does not affect the outcome, but, come on, if we are trying to protect players then this is not the way. Faz should have got and taken a 6 game ban. Minimum!!

[sepsism]

It's either insanity or corruption. Not sure which is better/worse.

[stuartcarden]

England fan here and I'm baffled by the decision. Farrell is a repeat offender in this regard and something needs to be done to stop this kind of dangerous play. At this point in his career it's just arrogance that he hasn't taken major steps to try and improve his tackle technique. He's an embarrassment.

[jodydelaney]

From my point of view, if that was from a player on my team with no previous for doing so, I'd expect a red for sure, and accept it. I'd hope for not too long a ban but would have to accept what you get. But coming from Farrell, a ban should have been pretty much guaranteed specifically because of priors, with his tendency to go in that way to tackles. He has shown that this type of tackle is not a bug but a feature.

[louislourens]

How that red card was reduced is beyond human comprehension

[Ernesto_Sergio]

I’m an England fan and it should have been a 6 week ban. Farrell’s been tackling badly for a while. It just shows kids you can get away with a cheap shot.

[ianpearson]

Farrell is well known for using his arms less than an Irish Riverdancer.

[Timknight]

I’ll bet the southern hemisphere players have seen this and are thinking if it’s acceptable for him it’s acceptable for us. Trouble is if the big SA or NZ players do it, it will be much harder, and the victim might not get up. Truly disgraceful.

[Mrin]

The 3 man panel need to be investigated

[kevinpillay]

Was expecting a light sentence but nothing is amazing. So going forward any played cited or red carded for similar offenses must plead the Farrel rule of leniency. This is a disgrace. The Wales played Basham went off for HIA which he failed and now must go thru concussion protocols thus likely to miss games. But this is world Rugby. Different rules apply for some.

[georgebaker]

As an England fan I'm really disappointed by this decision, not only because it was clearly a red card but also because I really want to see Ford start at 10!

[kcuk]

Someone needs to start a petition. This is completely farcical.

[gabogabotirio]

A video like yours, along with international rugby community, forced World Rugby to appeal from this decision. I hope they stop the joke now and act as it should have been done from the first minute.
Thank you for this brilliant analysis.

[ericjames]

As an England supporter I applaud this accurate analysis

[noelburland]

They basically said the fact that Taine Basham suddenly changed direction, because he was being tackled, caused him to dip and that's mitigation to reduce the sanction to a yellow card. What an absolutely disgraceful decision. It does not take into account that Owen Farrell's body height is always upright and that he lifts his height to make the no arms tackle. It was a red card offence and he should have been banned for it.

To make matters worse there's footage of George Moala tip-tackling a Canadian player, where he let's the player go in the air and causes him to land on his side and back. Under the guidelines for this type of tackle I believe this was a yellow card at worst and yet he has been suspended for 10 weeks and has a relatively clean judicial record when compared to Farrell's. What an absolute disgrace World Rugby. Sort it out!

[plc]

This is true corruption. I am disgusted.
He showed no remorse or compassion which is worse.

[themachinestops]

I can't believe he's got away with this. Beyond shocking. To think Zander Fagerson got a 3 match ban for something far less dangerous....

[gillesduquesnoy]

The question must be asked : Is there corruption ?