Appeal puts Farrell’s place with England at Rugby World Cup back in jeopardy

Owen Farrell’s availability to lead England into the World Cup is in jeopardy again after World Rugby announced that it is appealing against the decision to rescind his red card.

In the latest twist of a saga that threatens to drastically undermine England’s World Cup preparations, World Rugby has said that an appeal was warranted having considered the full written decision of the disciplinary panel which cleared Farrell on Tuesday.

England are due to name their team to face Ireland later on Thursday and it is understood that George Ford is in line to start at fly-half with Steve Borthwick having already decided to keep Farrell out of the firing line. The captain may have been lined up for a place on the bench but now faces another anxious wait to discover whether he faces a suspension after all.

The appeal is expected to hinge on whether the panel was right to consider mitigation in Farrell’s case. According to World Rugby’s head contact process, mitigation will not apply for acts that are “always illegal” or “intentional”. The panel had initially determined that Farrell’s tackle did not fit either of those two criteria but World Rugby are likely to argue the tackle was “always illegal” tand that mitigation should not be considered. In other words, the mitigating factors that the panel took into consideration – that Jamie George’s attempted tackle on Taine Basham prompted the Wales back-row to charge direction – would be irrelevant.

That the panel disagreed and felt the need to consider mitigation is ultimately what saved Farrell on Tuesday. The backlash was ferocious, however, with one lobby group insisting it “made a mockery” of World Rugby’s commitment to player welfare. A host of players, including Samoa’s Steven Luatua, criticised the decision which in terms of perception is at odds with the sport’s attempts to make the game safer.

“World Rugby fully supports the important role that an independent disciplinary process plays in upholding the integrity and values of the sport, particularly regarding foul play involving head contact,” read a statement from the governing body. “Player welfare is the sport’s number one priority, and the Head Contact Process is central to that mission at the elite level of the sport. Having considered the full written decision, World Rugby considers an appeal to be warranted.”

Farrell did have his supporters in Eddie Jones and the France defence coach Shaun Edwards but now an independent appeal committee will be established to determine his fate. If he does end up serving a suspension, given his previous record he can expect a ban of somewhere between four and six weeks, ruling him out of England’s opening World Cup fixtures against Argentina and Japan at the very least.

Six Nations, as organisers of the fixture, will confirm the details of Farrell’s second hearing in due course. Initially, they did not plan to publish the written decision of his first hearing but World Rugby has now done so. It details how Farrell’s defence centred on the fact that George’s actions had meant that Basham was “propelled across and towards him he did not have enough time and space to try and get his head out of the way”.

Farrell accepted that foul play had taken place, that contact to the head had been made and that the degree of danger meant a red card was warranted. He successfully argued for mitigation on the grounds of the change of Basham’s dynamics, however.

“In our opinion, it would be placing an unreasonable burden on [Farrell] to expect him to anticipate, foresee or predict, in the limited time available to him, this late change in dynamics,” reads the written judgment.

“But for the interactions between [Basham] and [George] we are of the opinion that [Farrell] had enough time and space to execute a legal tackle on [Basham]. This, in our opinion, is a sufficient mitigating feature in [Farrell’s] offending to bring the level of danger down to a point below the red card test. [Farrell’s] act of foul play was not intentional or always illegal to deny him the benefit of this mitigation.”