‘Below the red-card threshold’
“The player acknowledged that whilst he had committed an act of foul play, he denied that the act was worthy of a red card,” read a statement on Tuesday afternoon.
“After reviewing all the evidence, questioning the player in detail and hearing submissions from the player’s representative, the Committee concluded that the foul play review officer was wrong, on the balance of probabilities, to upgrade the yellow card issued to the player to a red card.
“The committee determined, when applying World Rugby’s head-contact process, that mitigation should be applied to the high degree of danger found by the foul play review officer. The committee found that a late change in dynamics due to England #2’s [George’s] interaction in the contact area brought about a sudden and significant change in direction from the ball carrier [Basham].
“In the committee’s opinion, this mitigation was sufficient to bring the player’s act of foul play below the red-card threshold.”
Farrell’s defence was led by Richard Smith KC, a veteran of five World Cups, three British and Irish Lions tours and described as the country’s “pre-eminent rugby barrister”. A profile of Smith on Chambers & Partners says he “achieves incredible results from seemingly impossible situations.”
The all-Australian judicial committee comprised Adam Casselden SC and two ex-Wallabies in John Langford and David Croft.
Croft, a former back-rower, was coached by Eddie Jones, both for Australia and the Queensland Reds. These committees are assembled by World Rugby’s judicial panel chair, Chris Quinlan, with the chair selected in advance of matches. Two other members are then added afterwards, with an onus on neutrality for a player’s upcoming fixtures.
‘Owen is on board with laws, but mistakes happen’
Just before the news of Farrell’s reprieve broke, England defence coach Kevin Sinfield described the captain’s outlook as “very positive” and said that the 31-year-old had been “very vocal” in meetings.
Asked whether Farrell may have garnered a reputation as a repeat offender, Sinfield suggested that Farrell’s image could be shaped by the tone of media coverage.
“Potentially, it depends on what line you guys take, possibly,” said Sinfield. “The influence you have over people out there will probably determine what reputation he’s given. What I can say is that I’ve seen a guy who has been incredibly diligent and works so hard at trying to get better in this area and I know he’s done similar work at Saracens having spoken to them.
“It’s something we work on three times a week and in every session. It’s always in our sessions and we’re always reminding players. We know the game’s changed and we’ve got to move with it and we fully support the laws that are in place. Owen is right on board and right on side with that but unfortunately mistakes happen.”
Farrell’s previous offences
Back in January, Farrell was cited for a dangerous tackle on Jack Clement of Gloucester. Despite escaping without an on-field sanction, he was found guilty and received a four-week ban that was reduced for three on the completion of World Rugby’s coaching intervention programme.
Players are not allowed to undergo this initiative, which aims to stop repeat-offending and is commonly known as ‘tackle school’, twice in a career.
In 2020, Farrell was handed a five-week ban for a dangerous tackle on Charlie Atkinson of Wasps. Prior to that, he had received a two-week suspension in 2016 for a high tackle on Dan Robson during another fixture between Saracens and Wasps.
