Rugby will wither and die with further incomprehensible, inaccessible decisions like Owen Farrell’s rescinded red card.
Top disciplinary professionals across the world have been left perplexed by the England captain avoiding suspension for his high tackle on Wales’s Taine Basham.
When aficionados cannot decipher the riddle, the casual viewer does not even try. Channel hoppers will turn off the TV in confusion and disgust if they happen to land on the Rugby World Cup. Simplicity sells; complication does not.
Rugby ties itself in as many knots as to resemble a mangled stress ball. Dwindling attendances, clubs folding, teams, competitions and unions struggling around the globe — rugby desperately needs this autumn’s World Cup in France to represent a future-proof shot in the arm.
With more judicial nightmares like this, however, the game could fall on its sword. The sport itself is in the dock after England captain Farrell walked away scot-free from his disciplinary hearing on Tuesday.
Farrell delivered a head-high, no-arms shoulder charge on flanker Basham in Saturday’s 19-17 win at Twickenham, yet a three-strong disciplinary panel from Australia accepted England’s contention that Farrell was left unable to avoid the contact after Jamie George pushed Basham at the last second.
Hats off to England’s superstar King’s Counsel, Richard Smith, whose latest disciplinary blinder got Farrell off the hook.
The England captain does have a technique problem when it comes to this kind of tackle, however, given his three previous bans for similar issues. The 31-year-old’s technical deficiency might end up causing serious injury — and that is precisely what rugby is determined to stamp out.
That is where any critique of Farrell must end: anything else would be personal and irrelevant. However, a ban should have ranked among the most stonewall decisions in the sport’s history.
Less than an hour before the decision was released, England assistant coach Kevin Sinfield delivered an extended, impassioned defence of Farrell. The mitigation carried plenty of merit, but was proposed in the full context of England expecting a suspension.
Put simply, no one outside of the disciplinary hearing reacted with anything other than shock at Farrell’s exoneration.
To avoid accusations of a whitewash designed to keep the game’s top stars playing, disciplinary chiefs at the Six Nations must publish the full judgment on the decision.
Rugby Union’s inability to govern itself and promote a clear, compelling product is absolutely on trial
The Six Nations manage the summer World Cup warm-up matches in the northern hemisphere and govern the disciplinary process. They do not publish full disciplinary judgments as a matter of course. For the good of the sport, this time they must break protocol.
Both World Rugby and the Six Nations have the right to appeal the independent disciplinary panel’s decision. Neither body are likely to take up that option.
Rugby Union’s inability to govern itself and promote a clear, compelling product is absolutely on trial. The case for the defence needs to be watertight — and, yet, testimony might not expand beyond ‘no comment’.
