Owen Farrell must be cited. He must also miss the opening game of the Six Nations against Scotland. There is no defence against his rigid right shoulder that stopped Jack Clement, the Gloucester forward, in his tracks, six minutes from the end of Saracens’ 19-16 victory on Friday. There isn’t the hint of what are commonly known as “mitigating factors”.
The fly half positioned himself for the hit — not tackle — with the shoulder. The left arm was tucked away, enabling Farrell to balance himself for a shoulder smash we have seen all too frequently over the years. Of late he has been better disciplined, but Friday night was a reminder of his rugby instincts.
Was the shoulder straight to head? No question. The tackler was ready and rising to hit the ball carrier who was definitely not ducking into the tackle. I don’t believe it was malicious. It is who and what Farrell is, every bit as much as the mighty match-winning drop-goal typifies the iron in his soul.
I have more respect for the kick than contempt for the shoulder charge. The latter is bred in the bone. It wasn’t dirty. It was dangerous. And the sport claims to be clamping down on dangerous play for all the headline reasons we know.
Farrell has to be a victim of his own profile. Any attempt to mollify the offence will be seen as the cop out it would be. If the RFU’s disciplinary committee fail to ban him from the Scotland game – at least – nobody will take England’s concern for health and safety seriously. The kids coming through will be practising their head high shoulder charges as much, probably more, than their long range drop goals.
Advertisement
Farrell has form. The red card meted out a few seasons ago for a dreadful, frustrated hit on then teenage Wasps fly half, Charlie Atkinson, was much worse. There it is, an unarguable case against a good disciplinary record.
He has escaped cards for shoulder charges against the likes of South Africa and Australia as Richie McCaw did — Houdini like — at the breakdown. Both are held in some degree of awe. Karl Dickson looked scared to act at Gloucester.
In this instance, the disciplinary panel’s primary job is to protect the image of the sport. It shouldn’t be like this. But with the size of the Farrell profile and the reaction if a fudge job enables him to be eligible for selection, an example simply has to be set. He should suffer the fullest possible ban. Not because of the intent. I don’t think there was any. There was danger though. And there was unquestionably risk involved to the innocent party. The example was unacceptable and all the worse for the guilty party being Farrell.
What happens if he is sent to the sport’s tackle school for naughty offenders? (Yes, you speeding motorists know what I mean; acquired new habits last a month at best) Two weeks off the suspension and back in the nick of time for the Six Nations? Should this prove to be the case, the rugby world should let out a hysterical laugh aimed straight at the hypocrites who preach safety and pander to populism.
The reaction of the citing commissioner and the decision of any panel is a test case. Does the sport care about its future less than the national team? It isn’t Owen Farrell alone who must surely be on trial this week. It is the deepest principles as espoused by the RFU. Whether Farrell is cleared to play against Scotland is far, far more important than merely who wins another Calcutta Cup match.
