Owen Farrell - tough but fair or willfully dangerous tackling 'technique'?

[HeadInjuriesMatter]

Owen Farrell is clearly a very talented player... BUT... it is an absolute scandal that he continues to tackle in the manner he does (in my opinion).

One day the guy will do some serious damage to someone… and due to the RFU continually turning a blind eye to his tackling 'technique' (ie don't use my arms and aim for the upper chest / head) the culpability should fall fairly and squarely on their shoulders. Given the lawsuits that are currently ongoing I am surprised they are not showing a greater duty of care to those that make the product they are selling possible ie the rest of the players.

OR am I wrong and the number of times Farrell has been involved in these types of incidents overblown and the RFU shares no culpability here, even when it continues to not really require a change in behaviour from players that continue to tackle in this way?

I was discussing this with someone recently who made the comment:
RFU can no longer claim they champion player welfare if they allow this to continue from their top players. Parents won't want their kids to be on the receiving end of a Farrell tackle so it erodes the player base.

Seems pretty spot on to me too.

 

[Saintjay]

I think you are wrong. I believe at times Farrell has poor technique but that can be as much down to coaching. I do not believe for one second he intends to hit the head. People might argue he's a pro so should get it right every time but then his kick percentage should be 100% as well. Jamie George should hit his jumper 100% everytime at the line out.

It's not just Farrell that aims for the chest area. You are also not taking into account mitigation like the height of the ball carrier, speed of contact, decision making time etc.

Change of behaviour will have some impact but unless you change the tackle height. Below belly button has been suggested at grass roots it is difficult. You would need to radically change the current tackle laws and laws on entering rucks etc. As far as I'm aware most head impacts and cards for contact to the head are at ruck time. So instead of aiming at Farrell what would you do to change the laws at rucks and tackling to make it safe?

You are never going to prevent head injuries in rugby. You can try to minimise it but go watch Courtney Lawes highlight reels. A big bloke monstering often smaller people. Do the RFU have a duty of care to those literally pole axed by Courtney. Or does duty of care only apply if it's not in the rules. An employer like the RFU can only have some much duty of care in a contact sport. What more duty of care can the British boxing board give, the NHL or UFC for example. Are they responsible for any injuries Connor McDavid might cause in hockey or Eubank Jnr in boxing.

Like it or not rugby is about aggression, bullying and dominating your opponent.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Owen Farrell is clearly a very talented player... BUT... it is an absolute scandal that he continues to tackle in the manner he does (in my opinion).

One day the guy will do some serious damage to someone… and due to the RFU continually turning a blind eye to his tackling 'technique' (ie don't use my arms and aim for the upper chest / head) the culpability should fall fairly and squarely on their shoulders. Given the lawsuits that are currently ongoing I am surprised they are not showing a greater duty of care to those that make the product they are selling possible ie the rest of the players.

OR am I wrong and the number of times Farrell has been involved in these types of incidents overblown and the RFU shares no culpability here, even when it continues to not really require a change in behaviour from players that continue to tackle in this way?

I was discussing this with someone recently who made the comment:
RFU can no longer claim they champion player welfare if they allow this to continue from their top players. Parents won't want their kids to be on the receiving end of a Farrell tackle so it erodes the player base.

Seems pretty spot on to me too.

Contrary to popular belief, high tackles are not the leading cause of concussion or even close. Most players who are knocked out are when they are the ones who messed up their tackle and get a knee / pelvis into the head. The lower part of your body is a hell of a lot more powerful than the upper part and can give someone's head a much bigger whack that a high tackle can.

Ironically, in forcing players to consistently go lower, they might actually be putting players in more harm. Tackling around the chest is actually safer.

 

[Saintjay]

I'd also add to the above that in up right standing tackles, and tackles where the defender is static. A recent study showed 78% of Hia's conducted were on the tackler not the tackled player.

You are far more likely to suffer a concussion in pro rugby with one concussion per 3 matches reported as per one in 25 at grass roots. The level of reporting and monitoring at grass roots level could be an issue.

Another consequence of pro rugby being very large athletes running at pace into people. Mass and speed etc. The lowering of tackle height being one solution but this then causes the issues as Ragey has pointed out

 

[HeadInjuriesMatter]

Contrary to popular belief, high tackles are not the leading cause of concussion or even close. Most players who are knocked out are when they are the ones who messed up their tackle and get a knee / pelvis into the head. The lower part of your body is a hell of a lot more powerful than the upper part and can give someone's head a much bigger whack that a high tackle can.

Ironically, in forcing players to consistently go lower, they might actually be putting players in more harm. Tackling around the chest is actually safer.

Not for those getting hit in the head by tacklers that don't try to use their arms it isn't...

 

[HeadInjuriesMatter]

I'd also add to the above that in up right standing tackles, and tackles where the defender is static. A recent study showed 78% of Hia's conducted were on the tackler not the tackled player.

You are far more likely to suffer a concussion in pro rugby with one concussion per 3 matches reported as per one in 25 at grass roots. The level of reporting and monitoring at grass roots level could be an issue.

Another consequence of pro rugby being very large athletes running at pace into people. Mass and speed etc. The lowering of tackle height being one solution but this then causes the issues as Ragey has pointed out

Contrary to one of the (quite a number of points actually - but lets just address one) that Saintjay has raised (and relevant to your point):

Saintjay: ...Change of behaviour will have some impact but unless you change the tackle height. Below belly button has been suggested at grass roots it is difficult.

I completely disagree. Behaviour (and attitude) is absolutely everything. Not a minor thing.

You could make tackle height ankle, and there would still be some players with a 'win at all costs, must dominate the contact at all costs... be it by fair mean or foul' attitude - and therefore it would not matter WHAT height you made the law, they would still aim very close to the head. People respond to consequences. Farrell is not really facing any for his continued 'technique'. I can think of a number of times this player has been involved in these types of discussions (for a start - refer to the attached article: ht tps:// www .telegraph.co.uk /rugby-union/2023/01/07/owen-farrells-poor-tackle-technique-big-problem-steve-borthwick/). But I can think of many others in International rugby also. I have nothing against the guy - aside from that I think the way he tackles puts other players health in danger long term. He has done this before. This is not a 'one off'. All players face 'mitigating factors' - something Saintjay states I ignore. I do not. But they are the same mitigating factors that ALL players face. However not ALL players are repetitively pulled up for the same 'error' in their technique.

I accept that the statistics may show that many head injuries occur outside of the tackle situation (or indeed TO the tackler, rather than the player being tackled)... but that is not relevant here. Here I was raising the case where a top player (and recent and possible / probable future England captain) has on numerous occassions been caught up in discussions about technique that puts other players health at risk.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Absolute BS, how many incorrect tackles has Farrell made I his career vs high ones?

You remember the 5 high shots he's made but not the 5-10 legal ones each match. Think about it as a percentage.

Agreed I don't like his technique when the tv shows the replay over and over but that 1 tackle doesn't make a rule.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Absolute BS, how many incorrect tackles has Farrell made I his career vs high ones?

You remember the 5 high shots he's made but not the 5-10 legal ones each match. Think about it as a percentage.

Agreed I don't like his technique when the tv shows the replay over and over but that 1 tackle doesn't make a rule.

The same goes for every foul play ever, if you go down that route?

How many times has Manu not punched a player in the face?!?!

How many times has Marler not been rude about a player's mum?!?!

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

How many times has Marler not been rude about a player's mum?!?!

I believe there was one match in the 2016/17 season.

In the bigger picture are there any stats on head injuries in the tackle v at the breakdown? Tackle technique is important, but the 'clear out' of human missile hitting prone player competing for the ball is a blight on the game. The risk of nasty head injuries feels higher let alone to joints.

 

[Saintjay]

It is a fact that it is shown that it is repeated head contact over time that also causes the issue. Key factors being amount of games played, amount of contact in training.

I feel the OP has ignored the points he raised on "duty of care" by the RFU to players and failed to suggest what can be changed and how. Other than attack Owen Farrell specifically without addressing the issues raised.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Contrary to popular belief, high tackles are not the leading cause of concussion or even close. Most players who are knocked out are when they are the ones who messed up their tackle and get a knee / pelvis into the head. The lower part of your body is a hell of a lot more powerful than the upper part and can give someone's head a much bigger whack that a high tackle can.

Ironically, in forcing players to consistently go lower, they might actually be putting players in more harm. Tackling around the chest is actually safer.

Would like to see these stats as a percentage. I feel like more often than not red card tackles result in two players leaving the pitch, bad tackle technique happens multiple times in every single game however.

One can be heavily reduced the other is unfortunate collateral of playing the game.

 

[stus768]

Would like to see these stats as a percentage. I feel like more often than not red card tackles result in two players leaving the pitch, bad tackle technique happens multiple times in every single game however.

One can be heavily reduced the other is unfortunate collateral of playing the game.

This explains study World Rugby undertook to understand risks and where to target in terms of trying to reduce head injuries.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

This explains study World Rugby undertook to understand risks and where to target in terms of trying to reduce head injuries.

That's clear as day. Honestly it's an even bigger percentage than I'd have expected.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The same goes for every foul play ever, if you go down that route?

How many times has Manu not punched a player in the face?!?!

How many times has Marler not been rude about a player's mum?!?!

But those only prove my point. Manu only punched someone once (that I remember) so it would be unfair to say he's a fighter or a puncher etc

Marler has form for sledging, in most matches, so it's fair to say he's mouthy or a sledger etc.

Compare that with players who repeatedly get pinged for the same thing and it's very different.

 

[HeadInjuriesMatter]

It is a fact that it is shown that it is repeated head contact over time that also causes the issue. Key factors being amount of games played, amount of contact in training.

I feel the OP has ignored the points he raised on "duty of care" by the RFU to players and failed to suggest what can be changed and how. Other than attack Owen Farrell specifically without addressing the issues raised.

I have not ignored anything. I cannot address all that is dangerous in the game in one post. Rugby is a contact sport. There are physical collisions and potential for injury. That 'jeopardy' is I think part of the interest for many of the fans. There are real consequences (just ask any player that has suffered a career ending injury, and I don't just mean head injury here. I mean any injury). I am not saying these can be taken out of what is intrinsically a physically confrontational sport. That was not the point of the post.

The point was to address a specific issue with a very high profile players multiple infringements in terms of tackle technique. Is he under greater scrutiny than other players because he is high profile - undoubtedly. That is life.

Have I tried to address all head injury related contact area's of the game - NO. I was merely stating that in a 'one on one' contact situation - where the tackler is not impeded by 'other factors' (lack of vision / other bodies / etc) that players can choose how they position their body in to that contact. Especially high level atheletes. They got to be high level atheletes because of their physical abilities (at least in part). They won't get it right every time. Things happen fast. But if one player is continually finding themselves on the wrong side of that decision making process - there is something going on that needs addressing.

Some of the points raised above about the OP (ie me) disproportionately focussing on the 'high shots' and not validating the good tackles - misses my point entirely (ie Don't Skip Leg Day stating: "You remember the 5 high shots he's made but not the 5-10 legal ones each match"). I have not run a multifactor regression analysis across all tackles made by all professional rugby players by minutes played / position played... (including analysis by height of tackler / speed of offensive player (ie takle-ee) etc. HOWEVER it seems to me that this particular player is caught up in these situations to a disproportionate degree ie Farrell hits high A LOT. I think the post from Not Mike Brown's Sock eloquently highlights the error in your interpretation of what I have written (thanks for that - and I agree: well done Manu for every time you have not punched a player in the face).

I agree with Saintjay (post of 10.25am) that it is "repeated head contact over time that also causes the issue" (well I think 'may' is a better word... but close enough). I haven't seen the actual stats on that - I am guessing someone has. But again - that was not the point of my post. I did not seek to address ALL area's that lead to head injury with my original post. Just the one regarding tackle technique. It may not be the major driver of head injuries in the professional game and it may in fact be the repeated large AND smaller 'hits' that all add up to a more pervasive problem (and specifically on that point I believe the NFL has (or maybe has just 'considered') enforcing a 'no head contact during training' rule to address this exact issue) - BUT again, I did not seek to address all issues related to head injury. Just one specific one regarding tackle technique / repeat offending and the consequences of not dealing with repeat offenders. So Saintjay's statement that I have attacked Farrell "specifically without addressing the issues raised" - is just plain wrong. You have clearly not understood the issue that I raised.

 

[Saintjay]

Examples of issues raised. That I have clearly understood.

1) RFU continually turning a blind eye to his tackling 'technique' (ie don't use my arms and aim for the upper chest / head) the culpability should fall fairly and squarely on their shoulders.

2) OR am I wrong and the number of times Farrell has been involved in these types of incidents overblown and the RFU shares no culpability here, even when it continues to not really require a change in behaviour.

3) RFU can no longer claim they champion player welfare if they allow this to continue from their top players.

My point being how do you expect the RFU to meet a duty of care. 1) What do you suggest? 2) How can they avoid culpability and harm in a contact sport? 3) What do you think they should do specifically with Owen Farrell.

 

[HeadInjuriesMatter]

Excuse my confusion then for thinking you had not understood the main point I was raising. One of the reasons I was confused was that you were writing things like:

"You are never going to prevent head injuries in rugby. You can try to minimise it but go watch Courtney Lawes highlight reels. A big bloke monstering often smaller people. Do the RFU have a duty of care to those literally pole axed by Courtney. Or does duty of care only apply if it's not in the rules. An employer like the RFU can only have some much duty of care in a contact sport. What more duty of care can the British boxing board give, the NHL or UFC for example. Are they responsible for any injuries Connor McDavid might cause in hockey or Eubank Jnr in boxing."

The sentence above just doesn't seem to understand what I was getting at. Yes - Courtney Lawes is a big guy. Yes - when he hits players smaller than him (and when I say 'hit' I don't mean punch or in any way commit a foul) - the smaller player will probably come off worse. BUT what I am getting at - is that if Courtney Lawes continually hit players in a manner inconsistent with the rules of the game then he should face sanctions commensurate with the danger he is imposing on them. Yes Courtney is tall - that just means he has to be a little more careful to avoid head contact with smaller players. It doesn't me he can't try to flatten them in a tackle (which he often does) - it just means he maybe has to try even harder to do that within the rules of the game. For the governing body to not 'appropriately sanction' a player that has shown a track record of not abiding by the rules disregards the duty of care it has (or at least - it SHOULD HAVE) to the other players. To extend your Eubank metaphor (which doesn't seem appropriate here in any case, but lets go with it for a moment) - if he went in to the boxing ring with a crow bar and started hitting his opponent in the head - I would expect he would receive a lengthy ban for acting outside of the rules of the sport (especially if he did it on multiple occasions).

In terms of the RFU meeting a duty of care to the players - they could do that by taking appropriate action against a repeat offender. I do not think a 4 game ban (reduced to 3 it seems for taking a course) meets the threshold for 'appropriate action'. I base that comment on the fact the tackle in question against Gloucester's Jack Clement is very far from a 'one off' or isolated incident. You seem to think Farrell is not a repeat offender. Many people (including me) would argue otherwise - again I would refer you to the article I linked above (but had to add some spaces) - though this is not (nor does it pretend to be) an exhaustive list of the times Farrell has transgressed the rules with his tackling technique. But it gives you a starting point.

To specifically address your bullet points:
1) a 3 game ban seems insufficient given the repetitive nature of the offences committed by the player in question
2) Not relevant to my post. I was not at any point addressing "culpability and harm in a contact sport" ie here is where you make my post MUCH more all encompassing than it ever was and therefore completely show a lack of understanding of my very specific concern.
3) by actually doing something to mitigate the risk faced by other players taking the field with the player in question by enforcing a longer ban (pretty obviously). One that actually has consequences and that would force a genuine re-evaluation of the players tackling technique (which given the repeat nature of these offences seems to have not happened to date). Point 3) in your post above seems a bit repetitive of point 1) - so if my answer seems a bit disjointed, that is why.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

3) What do you think they should do specifically with Owen Farrell.

It's a mountain out of a mole hill because its Farrell and he got away with a few high profile hits like this in 2018 and the RFU's recent suspensionof Marler was a joke.

I think Farrell's technique gets very poor when he's fatigued, both 2018 hits were late in the game iirc and he is out of position and looks overweight* in the one in question. It's never anything but mid tier in my opinion, no intent and not wilfully reckless, it looked far more like a fatigued player caught off guard.

*by his/pro athlete standards.

 

[General Melchett]

I think Farrell's technique gets very poor when he's fatigued,

Agreed. Fatigued and/or frustrated. I have seen him put in one or two questionable tackles when he was visibly frustrated at how a game was going.

I don't accept that his tackle technique is down to poor coaching. The same coaches would have coached hundreds of other professional players whose technique is perfectly fine. He is a seasoned pro and the buck has to stop with him.

 

[Saintjay]

The player has one previous matter on record from September 2020, for which he served a five-match ban for dangerous tackling, and another old matter which occurred in 2016. Given the date of the first matter, the panel concluded the player is not a repeat offender whose status warrants an increase in sanction for this reason.

This is how the bench sees OF. The debate on an only English panel, six nations coming soon, self interest etc is interesting and not one I have time for today.