Loose Pass: Disparities in the disciplinary as Owen Farrell and Billy Vunipola await their fate

This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with the disparities in the disciplinary…

Because the kerfuffle surrounding Owen Farrell and his legal team wasn’t enough, the weekend once again revealed the clunky inconsistency of rugby’s judiciary and – at times – refereeing system.

The penalty try awarded to South Africa against Wales and the lengthy and inaccurate TMO review has already been picked apart on these pages. But there were other moments. Wales wing Tom Rogers quite clearly took out Cheslin Kolbe in the air during the second half, not to mention knocking him beyond the horizontal as he did so, yet there was no check, not even a whispered word (Kolbe’s immediate obvious sprightly health immediately after might have helped that). In the current climate, how did Damian Willemse escape a red? And then Billy Vunipola did what he did and the rugby world dropped its collective head. Again? Really?

Tuesday hearing for England duo

It’s going to be a rough week in the disciplinary all over the place. The panel adjudicating on the Farrell case will have the devil of a job, faced with one of the finest lawyers deep pockets can buy (more on that shortly) on one side, the baying public defending the sense of injustice on the other. Whatever outcome is determined then will have a strong effect on what happens to Vunipola shortly after. It’s true Farrell deserves his ban, but it’s also true that Vunipola’s high hit was, at the very least, far more asinine and lazy than Farrell’s was. If Farrell does end up with the initially-anticipated six-week entry point, there’s a clear argument for Vunipola to get more (before the mitigation).

Onlookers will abound. George Moala, hit with a five-week ban (mitigated down from an initial ten) for an offence far less egregious than either of the aforementioned, will be curious to see how far the double-standards reach. As will Michael Leitch, whose World Cup is not in danger but whose record is tarnished now by a tackle nowhere near as bad as either of the England duo (and whose ban was placed at the six-week entry point initially).

And what about Willemse? Midway through the second half, Willemse was awaiting a rapidly-moving Rio Dyer. Dyer stepped nimbly at high speed, as is his wont, and with Franco Mostert also going for a tackle and Willemse shifting his position slightly to meet him with his own tackle. The heads of Dyer and Willemse clashed hard, enough for both to crumple with what were potentially serious head contact injuries; certainly enough for referee Andrew Brace to stop the game.

The most pertinent part here is that Willemse saw yellow, it was reviewed, and TMO Joy Neville applied what can only now be referred to as the ‘Farrell Principle’, where it was deemed that Mostert’s attempted tackle on Willemse had changed Dyer’s direction of running and caused the collision.

Which is partly true, but also partly rubbish. Willemse’s body position was upright all the way through, his head high and his arms wide as though he was about to give Dyer a welcoming hug. He was not ready to tackle in low-risk fashion.

The critical parts in World Rugby’s guidelines to the head contact process for all of the above cases concern the paragraph of context: “There needs to be an understanding that tacklers stay up to allow them to ‘adjust and react’ – dropping quickly into the low tackle entry position – using their ‘eyes and feet’ to get their timing right,” it reads. In none of the four tackles we are talking about here have the tacklers dropped – and in the cases of Farrell and Vunipola, the tacklers have clearly moved into the tackle.

🗣️ "There are cards everywhere at the minute, isn't there?" #IREvENG

☘️ Andy Farrell wants Ireland to be most disciplined side. #RWC2023 https://t.co/uSMb1d0n7R

— Planet Rugby (@PlanetRugby) August 20, 2023

Here are the process questions:

1) Has head contact occurred? In all four tackles: yes.
2) Was there foul play? – Intentional, Reckless or avoidable? In terms of recklessness, we’d argue both Farrell and Vunipola moved into the tackles, making them at least reckless, while both Leitch and Willemse could have done better to avoid the contacts; they were avoidable.
3) What was the degree of danger? Direct/indirect contact, high or low force. All four tackles are direct contact, all four show plenty of force.
4) Is there any mitigation? The initial listed considerations include changes or impairments to the tackler’s line of sight, a sudden and significant drop or movement, a clear attempt to change height, a level of control, and whether the tackler’s position was upright – passive vs dynamic. Unhelpfully, there’s an extra box on the third page which adds the Farrell Principle: A late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact.

In the case of Vunipola, there’s simply none of these mitigating factors; it’s impossible not to foresee him being punished. The other three all are affected, to differing degrees, by changes of movement and dynamics, but none of the would-be tacklers are in a good position. As has been argued here previously: Farrell clearly moves into the contact and leads with his shoulder, Leitch unwisely braces with his strong arm forward rather than stepping back and Willemse’s stance and head are far too upright.

The guidelines are harsh on tacklers, as has also been explained in Loose Pass before, but they are there, and players deserve to have them applied consistently. If Willemse is not cited, then Farrell has a good precedent to refer to and to not be banned (although his movement into the contact should absolutely count against him), but then Leitch should also have his ban overturned.

Views from southern hemisphere

Unfortunately, there is no knowing what might happen. Mils Muliaina, as widely reported, was on New Zealand’s ‘Breakdown’ on Monday bemoaning the disintegrated state of the sport’s judiciary in general. Less widely-reported were the words of Taylah Johnson, the former Samoa women’s player, who made two good points: firstly that it was strange that the governing body of the game felt the need to appeal a decision made by a different body, in order to uphold the rules, when the governing body are the ones making the rules. Secondly, and most pertinently, she questioned the need for lawyers, not only on the basis of the cost (prohibitive for the have-nots) but also on the basis of why lawyers, real-life lawyers, are even a consideration? As she succinctly exclaimed: these aren’t crimes we are dealing with.

Steve Borthwick lamented the ‘disgusting circus’ that went on last week, but that’s a bit rich considering it was his employers and their lawyers who created it.

We’ll see. But it is now absolutely time that the governing body convenes its own disciplinary panel system to govern the entire professional game, or at the very least, the international game. We are 18 days away from the highest-profile and most open World Cup ever, yet the oversight of the disciplinary system continues to resemble a kangaroo court.

READ MORE: Disciplinary hearings of Owen Farrell and Billy Vunipola set for same day