Seen a few suggestions that WR are planning on appealing the judiciary decision, and I really think they do need to. This rogue decision undermines the IMHO really positive change of adopting an off-field bunker review for these cards.
I was thinking about just how wrong this judiciary decision feels and it took me back a little to when Jordie Barrett had a red card reduced after his foot contacted Koroibete’s face. That was a fairly controversial reduction in the card, but there was a lot of agreement about the facts on it, even from non-Kiwis. And the most vitriolic against reducing it from red would claim that Jordie karate kicked Koroibete’s face which was such a hyperbolic exaggeration of what happened that it was easy to dismiss them.
Contrasting it with Farrell i’ve barely seen anyone, even English fans, who think reducing it from a Red was right; and the facts of the tackle seem to be pretty well agreed by everyone - apart from the 3 aussie chaps on the judiciary.
Another recent card (that was Red, and stayed Red) that came to mind was Angus Ta’avao in the 2nd NZ-Ireland test in Christchurch. The Judiciary in Farrell’s case claim there was a sudden change in dynamic/direction. They should watch the Ta’avao tackle because in that case the cut line from Ringrose was so late, and so sharp that Ta’avao had less than half a second to adjust.
Seen a few suggestions that WR are planning on appealing the judiciary decision, and I really think they do need to. This rogue decision undermines the IMHO really positive change of adopting an off-field bunker review for these cards.
I was thinking about just how wrong this judiciary decision feels and it took me back a little to when Jordie Barrett had a red card reduced after his foot contacted Koroibete’s face. That was a fairly controversial reduction in the card, but there was a lot of agreement about the facts on it, even from non-Kiwis. And the most vitriolic against reducing it from red would claim that Jordie karate kicked Koroibete’s face which was such a hyperbolic exaggeration of what happened that it was easy to dismiss them.
Contrasting it with Farrell i’ve barely seen anyone, even English fans, who think reducing it from a Red was right; and the facts of the tackle seem to be pretty well agreed by everyone - apart from the 3 aussie chaps on the judiciary.
Another recent card (that was Red, and stayed Red) that came to mind was Angus Ta’avao in the 2nd NZ-Ireland test in Christchurch. The Judiciary in Farrell’s case claim there was a sudden change in dynamic/direction. They should watch the Ta’avao tackle because in that case the cut line from Ringrose was so late, and so sharp that Ta’avao had less than half a second to adjust.