"Cheapshot"

[Russ]

He should have been yellow carded for being a Warren Gatland

[Cap'n Grumpy]

He was penalised BECAUSE he failed to use his arms. He was penalised FOR a late tackle (IIRC). I think it was described as - "your timing was off.". The impression I got was that the ref may have looked on the timing issue more favourably had the 'tackle' been executed correctly. Certainly we've seen later tackles waived on.

Ref also told him he was penalised for not using his arms - whether you can read "because" or "for" into that is a debatable point, only the ref can answer. ref told him he hadn't used his arms, Farrell replied that he had tried to, ref told him, "you didn't succeed".

To me, he was penalised for both offences, but of course it's immaterial anyway as the penalty is the same for one offence, two offences or both.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

He should have been yellow carded for being a Warren Gatland

In that case why was he not carded as soon as the match kicked off?

Then red carded for a second yellow the minute he came back onto the pitch?

[rumncoke]

Allen I think took the player below the waist not above it which in my book is not actually an offence because it is not dangerous Farrell was full on into the chest and dangerous and intentionally so .

The English defence was basically based on an attitude of if it's moving hit it fairly ,foully who cares just hit the man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BR]

the penalty is the same for one offence, two offences or both.

... not sure about that.

[Russ]

Allen I think took the player below the waist not above it which in my book is not actually an offence because it is not dangerous Farrell was full on into the chest and dangerous and intentionally so .

The English defence was basically based on an attitude of if it's moving hit it fairly ,foully who cares just hit the man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So daddy Farrell is also pond life

[Scranner]

Thought at the time he should have seen yellow. Looked at it again just to confirm the opinion.

[BaggyTrousers]

I'm not sure about BR's reason for saying it was not a yellow, it was late though not hugely, it was high, & intended to wound in my estimation, and there were neither arms used not considered necessary to use them.

In brief then, the title of the thread - a cheapshot & a yellow all day long.

I should be obliged if anyone thinking otherwise would actually explain why not rather than simply say no yellow - a polite request.

As for Allen's tackle, he would have had no complaints had Nigel carded him, he acted like a low rolling barrelling oaf to knock down the opponent, it was no in any shape a tackle & like you Grumps I expected the worst as soon as he did it. Lucky to get away with just a penalty, as indeed was Farrell.

[Snipe Watson]

There is a view that cards should not be waved early in the game, but surely foul play should be appropriately punished at any point.

[cheese]

stop moaning people. that kind of thing happens in every game. Its a contact sport and i'm sure we wouldn't being saying the same thig had Besty done the same to Owen

[tigerburnie]

For me it's not what he does, but the mardy arsed "sucking a wasp" look he has on his face that gets my goat, you must wonder why he doesn't get a few more slaps than he's already had.

[BaggyTrousers]

stop moaning people. that kind of thing happens in every game. Its a contact sport and i'm sure we wouldn't being saying the same thig had Besty done the same to Owen

Don't be a clown Fromage, it's a discussion, not a moan. Oh yeah & Rory isn't a turd so no issue there.

Pretty sure if the same thing happens on 5th April a few more might feel a bit of a burn over Farrell.

TB: top post, he is what wee across the shuck refer to as, a crabbed wee shyte.

[BR]

I will expand.

I think the 'tackle' was slightly late. To me it wasn't THAT late (and I suspect CJ agreed as it was described as 'a timing issue'). 'Accidently late', if you like.

This sort of late charge often leads to accusations of shoulder-charging, simply because the would-be tackler pulls (or attempts to pull) out of the tackle as the ball is cleared, the commited player still makes the hit, but does not wrap the player. Ignoring the safety fears of a shoulder charge, it is better that a player does not complete a proper tackle on you if he can avoid it - there's more chance of you continuing play. (as I said - that ignores the obvious safey considerations).

I did not read the 'tackle' as high.

In law - I believe I am right in saying that the nature of the 'tackle' (wrapping or charging) is irrelevent. The peno was given for a late charge (hence the position of the subsequent kick).

So it all came down to how late and/or deliberate you considered it to be. A peno and a word in his shell-like was IMHO the correct call.

[Neil F]

Farrell's behaviour after the incident was embarrassing. That is the only issue I have with the situation.

In terms of what happened; it was never a yellow card. A penalty was the right decision. I don't think it requires a debate. The tackle wasn't high; it was (slightly) late (although from my view, commitment to the tackle had been made before Murray cleared the ball) and the "attempt" to wrap was poor. Penalty. Simple as that.

As I said after the Wales game, though, the wording of the relevant law creates confusion, here (and, presumably, informed Farrell's ill-informed retort to the referee). The law does not say that a player MUST wrap his opposite number; it says he MUST TRY to wrap his opposite number. As with Williams two weeks ago, one could argue that there appears to be an attempt to wrap that has failed. In that context, I fear those suggesting it should have been yellow are being a little over-zealous.

[BR]

Farrell's behaviour after the incident was embarrassing. That is the only issue I have with the situation.

In terms of what happened; it was never a yellow card. A penalty was the right decision. I don't think it requires a debate. The tackle wasn't high; it was (slightly) late (although from my view, commitment to the tackle had been made before Murray cleared the ball) and the "attempt" to wrap was poor. Penalty. Simple as that.

As I said after the Wales game, though, the wording of the relevant law creates confusion, here (and, presumably, informed Farrell's ill-informed retort to the referee). The law does not say that a player MUST wrap his opposite number; it says he MUST TRY to wrap his opposite number. As with Williams two weeks ago, one could argue that there appears to be an attempt to wrap that has failed. In that context, I fear those suggesting it should have been yellow are being a little over-zealous.

The wrapping relates to a tackle - since the ball was clear, it was a charge, not a tackle. Other than as an indicator of intention/severity, is the tackle law relevant?