It was a distinguished disciplinary panel convened to deliver a verdict on whether Owen Farrell should be banned for a high tackle and, if so, for how long. Instead, through the fault of shambolic mechanisms and amidst a distinct whiff of buck-passing, it is Steve Borthwick who must take the decision that truly matters.
What a mess, what a farce and what an awful position to put a coach in as he prepares for his first England match in charge. As hospital passes go, this should have been delivered complete with a map to the nearest A&E, although perhaps jokes are not appropriate due to the medical concerns at the heart of this wretched affair.
Certainly Borthwick should consider the implications his choice could bear on the hot subject of head injuries in his sport as he sets out on the rugby management equivalent of that popular board game “A Question of Scruples”.
Here is the cringeworthy quandary on the card Borthwick has ridiculously and shamelessly been handed:
- A: Fail to name Farrell in his initial Six Nations squad on Monday, meaning that Farrell can serve the third of his three-match ban for Saracens against Bristol and then pick him for the Calcutta Cup regardless
- B: Pick Farrell in the Six Nations squad but then defy convention by allowing Farrell to be released back to the Saracens, meaning he can serve his ban by not playing against Bristol and be eligible for Twickenham on February 4
- C: Announce that, of course, Farrell is in the squad and that, of course, Farrell will not be released back to his club the week before a Six Nations match, because that is not what England coaches do unless they are called Eddie Jones (see Kyle Sinckler, 2021)
Naturally, “C” is the correct answer, if one is judging simply on what does and does not happen to be honourable. The first two options are simply cases of playing the system, of loopholes, and surely we should all agree that in a matter as serious as brain trauma then the inadequacies of a set of laws should not be exploited just because of the quality of the player.
Borthwick seems a decent man, a character with principles who understands that the result is not all the be-all-and-end-all and that even if it is, that the abandonment of “values” in circumstances such as this could ultimately prove detrimental going forwards.
Yet, you still would not want to be in his training boots at the moment, with social media on red alert and the authorities apparently giving you the opportunity to take advantage of the absurd ambiguities of their own making.
Inevitably, Twitter leapt into an outrage akin to the 99 call of the 1974 Lions when the punishment was finally, after a ludicrously long time, announced around Wednesday midday. And just as predictably the focus fell on Farrell and what many considered to be the leniency with which he was treated.
From where I was sitting, there is more than enough in the regulations to deem that a mid-range point of entry for the hit on Gloucester’s Jack Clement last Friday was what the 31-year-old deserved.
And even though his detractors will claim that he is a serial offender, two previous suspensions in seven years does not, in my opinion, establish the Saracen as a recurrent miscreant in his sphere, regardless of how often people, in there own Kangaroo courts, rule him as consistently guilty.
Granted, in the drive to ensure that the game becomes safer, the sanctions might well be too light in their severity, but that just means the law-makers should rewrite their retribution charts. It does not mean that Owen Farrell should be punished more than his fellow competitors, just because he is Owen Farrell.
Neither should he be ridiculed for being allowed, as an international with more than 100 caps, to shave off a week of the four-week ban by attending “tackle school”, or as the ruling body so catchily labels it “World Rugby's Coaching Intervention Panel”.
“How can a veteran such as Farrell be told how to tackle in a week?” goes the cry. Fine. But where would you draw the line? Again, if the “tackle school” system is ineffective, then change it, abolish it. But do not blame Farrell for the existing protocols. That is above his pay grade.
And it should be above Borthwick’s station effectively to have the power to adjudicate if a disciplinary panel’s punishment is served by his player or not. When they banged down the gavel and declared “three matches” they must have peered down the fixture list and knew what this meant and the can of worms it would instantly prise open.
Essentially they bottled it, but in doing so at least exposed the rank weakness of this daftly convoluted system. It needs simplifying immediately and it desperately requires common sense to be applied.
Before Farrell was hauled in front of the bench, Borthwick should have been asked if he intended to pick him in his squad and if he did, whether he intended to release him back to Saracens. Borthwick would not lie. He would respond yes and no and then, if they did wallop him with a three-punch combination, it would be clear he would not be lining up against Gregor Townsend’s men.
This could so easily be avoided, but rather we have the burning issue in the sport reduced to what would be a transparent technicality. We can only pray Borthwick does what is right.
Owen Farrell ban is a farcical decision that has thrown Steve Borthwick under the bus
Borthwick could take advantage of the ambiguous disciplinary ruling, which means Farrell could play against Scotland in the Six Nations