'Justice' in Owen Farrell saga a myth as issue merely confirms rugby's disciplinary disconnect

The harsh reality of the supposed "justice" of England captain Owen Farrell's eventual four-week suspension for his dangerous tackle on Welsh flanker Taine Basham, is that Tuesday's appeal verdict is nothing to celebrate.

Instead, World Rugby and its members go into this year's World Cup in France with its product's reputation tarnished by the continued bouts of inconsistency in decision-making that alienate its broader supporters base, especially given that this saga pertains to the code's two stickiest issues: rule-making and player safety.

READ | Billy Vunipola banned for England's Rugby World Cup opener

Rugby's disciplinary process has always garnered much criticism, in the majority of instances for variable sanctions, meaning that while there's generally consensus about the incidents that need to be cited and investigated, the sanctions differ markedly.

However, the Farrell issue is particularly notable and disheartening because the initial adjudication and appeal differed so fundamentally.

Last week, a Six Nations-facilitated independent judicial committee - made up of an all-Australian panel of Adam Casselden, John Langford and David Croft - ruled that the upgrading of Farrell's initial on-field yellow card to a red one - while the flyhalf was sitting in the sin bin - was flawed and should've stayed a 10-minute punishment.

They argued that England hooker Jamie George's apparent attempt to tackle Basham had pushed the Welsh player into Farrell's channel and represented a "late change in dynamics due to the England No 2's interaction in the contact area brought about a sudden and significant change in direction from the ball carrier".

Coupled with Farrell's remorse and acknowledgment of foul play, the panel cleared him