The card thread *mod warning post 1*

molloyjh

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

A lot of commentators are arguing that the reason the card shouldn't have been red is because there was another tackle during the world cup that was as bad, but not punished with a red card.

I don't really understand how this argument can lead to anything other than the referee in the Fiji / South Africa match made a mistake or that they didn't see it clearly enough. It doesn't follow that just because the tackle below should have been red but didn't get one, Warburton didn't deserve a red card

.ak wrote: »

I also believe that any of the other tackles that were similar in the WC should've been red cards. They weren't because A) the ref made a mistake, the bottled out of the red, or C) weren't in the right position to make that call.

In any case the players were correctly cited afterwards.

That logic is baffling all right. If my mate got away with a hit and run that doesn't then mean that I should be able to as well. With logic like that we might as well do away with all of the laws of the game completely!

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Ok, so for example Ghilardini didn't get any punishment for making contact with Cian Healy's eyes in the Italy game. Does that give every player for the rest of the tournament free reign to gouge as much as they like?

He did he was banned for 8 weeks, gouging incidents are rarely seen by the referee anyway

Ciaran-Irl

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Fishooks12 wrote: »

He did he was banned for 8 weeks, gouging incidents are rarely seen by the referee anyway

Yes, but if he had seen it he would have given him a red card. It is baffling that people could say that because such and such a person in x match deserved a red card, but didn't get one, Warburton shouldn't have gotten a red card. There is absolutely no logic.

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

The tackle on Lambie was a stonewall red card too. You can see from the video that the touch judge is following the play as he runs to keep up which is fair enough and the referee is doing the same one would assume. Unfortunately, an incident like that can't be spotted every time. It was just as bad as the Warburton tackle for me. The player was cited and banned after the game and correctly so.

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Yes, but if he had seen it he would have given him a red card. It is baffling that people could say that because such and such a person in x match deserved a red card, but didn't get one, Warburton shouldn't have gotten a red card. There is absolutely no logic.

he didn't get a red because the ref didn't see it, if the ref had seen it I can assure you he would have gotten the line

Your logic is baffling to be honest, do you think that cards should be handed out after the game or something?

vetinari

Only a foul

I'll clarify my comments regarding red cards.
Whether it's official policy or not, there's been a strong trend in rugby of reds not issuing red cards and players being retroactively cited. In this scenario, the normal situation would have been yellow for Warburton and then a citing after the game. You can argue that if he gets cited, then he should get a red card. That line of logic only holds up IF other refs are doing the same thing.

They're not. Refs as a whole are rightly or wrongly leaving incidents to the citing commissioner. Again this might not be the correct approach but the time for change is NOT the world cup semi final. That's what makes Rolland's decision so inconsistent and frankly a very poor decision. Consistency from referees is the expectation in any sport.

check_six

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

I flicked around the channels for the various analysts views. I was particularly concerned by the views of the the ITV panel. Their arguments held no water:
- Rolland should have had a think about it for a few minutes IF he wasn't sure. Well, he was sure, which is why he made a rapid decision.
- There was no intent to do harm. Only the player knows this and, as has been pointed out in this thread, intent makes no difference. If the action of this kind of dangerous tackle is carried out, the result is a red card.
- It was in a semi-final of the World Cup. Surely this is a reason for applying the rules correctly, and not fudging them. One of the marquee games in the sport must be run properly according to the laws. I think the referee did this.
- Rolland should have used the video ref. This was Pienaar losing the plot in his analysis. Video ref cannot be used in this instance as it is not a try scoring incident. And, Rolland did see the incident clearly. And, if he had got it reviewed, it would still be the same result, red card.

Over on RTE, Frankie Sheahan got in a muddle and said implied that someone has to get hurt before red cards come out. I say muddle, because I don't think he really thought through his idea before he expressed it. Hook's belligerence towards him might have made him stick to his guns without reassessing what he had said. (I'm being generous towards him here!). Hook called it correctly at the time, and in the round up show David Wallace pointed to the technique Warburton used in his tackle and explained where he had a chance to give a fair tackle, but brought his left elbow up to flip Clerc over. This was an excellent piece of analysis and was delivered in an understated, matter of fact manner without any histrionics and hyperbole. Really good work.

Over on Setanta, Williams and Francis seemed to concede that a red card *could* be given but that it should have been yellow because it was the semi-final. I was disappointed as their analysis is normally spot on. I did not catch their round up show, so I don't know if they changed their minds after reflecting on it.

ITV news (!) continued the company line about how the red card was incorrect, blah blah blah. Absolute utter nonsense. Shocking to see. They may have copied the words of their report from Pienaar's crazy rant from earlier!

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

That's an absolutely valid point, vetinari. Up until now, generally, a lot of referees (not all, certainly) have bottled the decision and used the yellow card with the knowledge there will be a citing to get around having to make a big call. I don't think Rolland's decision was poor however. I think it's imperative that these incidents are stamped out and no better time to do so than a WC semi final. It was the ideal time to show that this type of incident should not be tolerated within the game and, given it's profile and coverage, I think it could lead to similar incidents in the future getting a red card when in the past the official may have bottled it.

irishbucsfan

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

vetinari wrote: »

I'll clarify my comments regarding red cards.
Whether it's official policy or not, there's been a strong trend in rugby of reds not issuing red cards and players being retroactively cited. In this scenario, the normal situation would have been yellow for Warburton and then a citing after the game. You can argue that if he gets cited, then he should get a red card. That line of logic only holds up IF other refs are doing the same thing.

They're not. Refs as a whole are rightly or wrongly leaving incidents to the citing commissioner. Again this might not be the correct approach but the time for change is NOT the world cup semi final. That's what makes Rolland's decision so inconsistent and frankly a very poor decision. Consistency from referees is the expectation in any sport.

Florian Fritz was sent off earlier this season for the exact same thing. In the Fiji-Japan game pre-world cup there were something like 3 reds for dangerous tackles. The idea that this is out of the ordinary is incorrect.

Rolland was right, he made the correct decision under huge pressure. If other refs are being lenient then it is them that are making the mistakes. As GerM said, the reason the Fijian wasn't given that red was most likely because neither the ref nor AR saw it properly.

cgpg5

Was no way a red, yellow at best, that's my opinion and judging by this thread it's not the popular one and I completely accept that 100%!

Ciaran-Irl

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Fishooks12 wrote: »

he didn't get a red because the ref didn't see it, if the ref had seen it I can assure you he would have gotten the line

Your logic is baffling to be honest, do you think that cards should be handed out after the game or something?

Maybe you aren't following me.

People are arguing that Warburton shouldn't have gotten a red because the Fijian didn't get a red.

I am saying that all that proves is that the Fijian should have gotten a red card. It has no impact on the Rolland decision, which was correct.

If people make the argument that consistency is the important thing, then because Ghilardini didn't get a red card, nobody should get a red card for gouging.

vetinari

Only a foul

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Florian Fritz was sent off earlier this season for the exact same thing. In the Fiji-Japan game pre-world cup there were something like 3 reds for dangerous tackles. The idea that this is out of the ordinary is incorrect.

Rolland was right, he made the correct decision under huge pressure. If other refs are being lenient then it is them that are making the mistakes. As GerM said, the reason the Fijian wasn't given that red was most likely because neither the ref nor AR saw it properly.

He was sent off by Rolland!! He's a one man consistency machine!
Shame he's out of sync with every other referee.
No offence to Fiji or Japan but in rugby the refereeing for the biggest games is very different to a warmup game between two tier 2 nations.

It is out of the ordinary. The only other red card at the WC was for a Samoan player punching a player in front of the referee. And even that has been given as a yellow card before!

Ciaran-Irl

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

check_six wrote: »

Over on Setanta, Williams and Francis seemed to concede that a red card *could* be given but that it should have been yellow because it was the semi-final. I was disappointed as their analysis is normally spot on. I did not catch their round up show, so I don't know if they changed their minds after reflecting on it.

They completely retracted their original view, and Matt Williams repeatedly said, "I have to hold my hand up. I was wrong to say he shouldn't have gotten a red card. Allain Rolland made the correct decision."

MungBean

Only a foul

vetinari wrote: »

I'll clarify my comments regarding red cards.
Whether it's official policy or not, there's been a strong trend in rugby of reds not issuing red cards and players being retroactively cited. In this scenario, the normal situation would have been yellow for Warburton and then a citing after the game. You can argue that if he gets cited, then he should get a red card. That line of logic only holds up IF other refs are doing the same thing.

They're not. Refs as a whole are rightly or wrongly leaving incidents to the citing commissioner. Again this might not be the correct approach but the time for change is NOT the world cup semi final. That's what makes Rolland's decision so inconsistent and frankly a very poor decision. Consistency from referees is the expectation in any sport.

Agree 100%. If the game it reffed to the letter of the law it would be penalty after penalty after penalty. The ref's job is to ref the game, and from what I have seen of other refs in other games thats what they do. Thats how they have treated dangerous tackles, yellow (red if clear spear or shockingly bad) and let the citing commission decide is a ban is warranted.

How many bans have been handed out to players who were not red carded ? Should all of those players been red carded on the day ? If the IRB is comfortable leaving these issues to the citing commission as they have shown they are with consistency then a ruling like this by a ref in a semi final that goes against that is wrong. Doesnt matter if it can be backed up by the letter of the law a ref has options and he chose the wrong one.

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Maybe you aren't following me.

People are arguing that Warburton shouldn't have gotten a red because the Fijian didn't get a red.

I am saying that all that proves is that the Fijian should have gotten a red card. It has no impact on the Rolland decision, which was correct.

If people make the argument that consistency is the important thing, then because Ghilardini didn't get a red card, nobody should get a red card for gouging.

The Fijian tackle was off the ball and the ref didn't see it, that's what the citing commissioner is for

A referee can't see everything but Rolland was right in front of Warburton and was right to send him off just like if the gouging incident had been in front of the referee it would have been the same but it wasn't

The citing commissioner is for citing what the ref misses or can't see, why would Rolland have let Warburton off with a yellow if he knew he would end up getting a ban for it

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

vetinari wrote: »

He was sent off by Rolland!! He's a one man consistency machine!
Shame he's out of sync with every other referee.
No offence to Fiji or Japan but in rugby the refereeing for the biggest games is very different to a warmup game between two tier 2 nations.

It is out of the ordinary. The only other red card at the WC was for a Samoan player punching a player in front of the referee. And even that has been given as a yellow card before!

There was also a red card in this season's S15 for an almost identical tackle in the match between the Force and the Sharks which can be viewed on YouTube. I accept what you're saying in terms of a lot of referees hide behind the yellow and let the citing panel deal with it but it is far from unheard of for a red card to be handed out in such an instance.

Chucky the tree

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

vetinari wrote: »

He was sent off by Rolland!! He's a one man consistency machine!
Shame he's out of sync with every other referee.
No offence to Fiji or Japan but in rugby the refereeing for the biggest games is very different to a warmup game between two tier 2 nations.

It is out of the ordinary. The only other red card at the WC was for a Samoan player punching a player in front of the referee. And even that has been given as a yellow card before!

The only thing that's a shame is that every other ref if out of sync with the rules.

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

How many bans have been handed out to players who were not red carded ? Should all of those players been red carded on the day ? If the IRB is comfortable leaving these issues to the citing commission as they have shown they are with consistency then a ruling like this by a ref in a semi final that goes against that is wrong. Doesnt matter if it can be backed up by the letter of the law a ref has options and he chose the wrong one.

In relation to spears? I think 4 although I could be wrong. Should they have been red carded? Yes, absolutely 100%. The IRB is not comfortable leaving them to the citing commissioner. They want them dealt with as they have directed and publicly stated. Of course they're not happy with them being left to the commissioner. The citing commissioner is only there as a back up for what the referee misses or gets wrong. I think a genuine issue is that referees are afraid to give a red card in case they saw it incorrectly with the game happening so quickly and are scapegoated in the aftermath. Therefore they find it more palatable to issue a yellow and let the citing commissioner deal with it if it warranted red. Rolland was a matter of feet away and had a clear and unobstructed view of the incident. He did not need another opinion. He didn't need a citing commissioner or video footage. He had the best view in the house and made the correct call.

MungBean

Only a foul

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The only thing that's a shame is that every other ref if out of sync with the rules.

Thats the problem, no consistency. We are at the stage where refs have to stick to the rules regarding some things and ignore others to keep the game entertaining.

You cant say "Thats a red you lifted him and says so in the rule book"
And another refs saying "Says yellow in book but I'm gonna make a game decision and ignore the laws"

Refs either have options or they dont and the IRB needs to figure out which approach they want to go for.

CatFromHue

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Fishooks12 wrote: »

A referee can't see everything but Rolland was right in front of Warburton and was right to send him off just like if the gouging incident had been in front of the referee it would have been the same but it wasn't

Rolland was in the best possible position to see what happened.

Regarding the Lambie tackle he had passed the ball before he was tackled and when you watch the clip you can see there were a few bodies between the ref and Lambie. There is also the ferocity of the tackle he really knocked him back as the guy he passed the ball to was sprinting away.

There is also the height difference between the tackles. Lambie was tipped, whereas Clerc was lifted very high and then tipped. Clerc's whole body at one stage is upside down. I'm not saying the Lambie tackle shouldn't have been a red, it should, but if the ref is unsighted not much can be done.

There is also the time and score in the game which really makes me question why the Fijian did it. Thats a different matter!

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

Agree 100%. If the game it reffed to the letter of the law it would be penalty after penalty after penalty. The ref's job is to ref the game, and from what I have seen of other refs in other games thats what they do. Thats how they have treated dangerous tackles, yellow (red if clear spear or shockingly bad) and let the citing commission decide is a ban is warranted.

How many bans have been handed out to players who were not red carded ? Should all of those players been red carded on the day ? If the IRB is comfortable leaving these issues to the citing commission as they have shown they are with consistency then a ruling like this by a ref in a semi final that goes against that is wrong. Doesnt matter if it can be backed up by the letter of the law a ref has options and he chose the wrong one.

In your opinion he chose wrong but as the poll shows, your in the minority

The argument against the red is laughable at this stage

Players and management knew what the repercussions of these kind of tackles were, we've seen this with hefty bans an red cards for similar incidents in the T14 and S15

As far as I can establish the only similar tackles were in the fiji SA game and the French Tonga game, both incidents were not seen directly by the referee and 5 week bans were handed out for each. Thus defeating the consistency argument

People think that because rugby is highly physical sport that tackles like Warburtons one happen in every game, in reality they don't. If they did we'd have dozens of professional players crippled every year

swordofislam

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

Agree 100%. If the game it reffed to the letter of the law it would be penalty after penalty after penalty.

And in 3 years there wouldn't be so many penalties and the came would be safer and cleaner.

This will have an impact all the way down to under 14s. There is too much cheating in Rugby.

Fishooks12 wrote: »

The crucial difference here is that the player was released in the air while lateral, Warburton drove Clerc into the ground

No he picks him up and drops him. Was it malicious? No. Was it a red card? Yes.

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

swordofislam wrote: »

And in 3 years there wouldn't be so many penalties and the came would be safer and cleaner.

This will have an impact all the way down to under 14s.


No he picks him up and drops him. Was it malicious? No. Was it a red card? Yes.

He drops him at the very last second. I never said it was malicious did I?

MungBean

Only a foul

Fishooks12 wrote: »

In your opinion he chose wrong but as the poll shows, your in the minority

The argument against the red is laughable at this stage

Players and management knew what the repercussions of these kind of tackles were, we've seen this with hefty bans an red cards for similar incidents in the T14 and S15

As far as I can establish the only similar tackles were in the fiji SA game and the French Tonga game, both incidents were not seen directly by the referee and 5 week bans were handed out for each. Thus defeating the consistency argument

People think that because rugby is highly physical sport that tackles like Warburtons one happen in every game, in reality they don't. If they did we'd have dozens of professional players crippled every year

My opinion is in the minority so its laughable and therefore wrong ? And heres me thinking we were going to have an actual discussion on the matter.

Chucky the tree

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

Thats the problem, no consistency. We are at the stage where refs have to stick to the rules regarding some things and ignore others to keep the game entertaining.

You cant say "Thats a red you lifted him and says so in the rule book"
And another refs saying "Says yellow in book but I'm gonna make a game decision and ignore the laws"

Refs either have options or they dont and the IRB needs to figure out which approach they want to go for.

Agree with this. IRB really need to clamp down hard on the refs ignoring the rule.

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

My opinion is in the minority so its laughable and therefore wrong ? And heres me thinking we were going to have an actual discussion on the matter.

ammm I never said that did I? Trying to put words in my mouth won't help

if you read my the rest of my post (which you conveniently ignored) I go on to outline why red was the right decision

I mentioned that you were in the minority becasue the sheer weight of numbers against your opinion should be an indication as to how most people IMO correctly see the issue

justsomebloke

Please keep things civil, every one is entitled to their own opinion once they are explaining their position

MungBean

Only a foul

Fishooks12 wrote: »

ammm I never said that did I? Trying to put words in my mouth won't help

if you read my the rest of my post (which you conveniently ignored) I go on to outline why red was the right decision

I mentioned that you were in the minority becasue the sheer weight of numbers against your opinion should be an indication as to how most people IMO correctly see the issue

You said the argument against the red is laughable. Thats not discussing it its writing it off before it gets started.

You pointed out that I was in the minority as though that somehow meant my argument wasnt valid.

You didnt discuss why you thought it was the correct decision. You discussed the implications it it being a right decision.

You then implied I thought ("people think") that these tackles happen in every game and that if they did lots of players would be crippled, despite the tackle not resulting in any injury whatsoever.

Thats not a reasonable discussion so based on that, and your trolling from the last thread I'm done talking to you and I'm done with this thread. Good day.

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

You said the argument against the red is laughable. Thats not discussing it its writing it off before it gets started.

You pointed out that I was in the minority as though that somehow meant my argument wasnt valid.

You didnt discuss why you thought it was the correct decision. You discussed the implications it it being a right decision.

You then implied I thought ("people think") that these tackles happen in every game and that if they did lots of players would be crippled, despite the tackle not resulting in any injury whatsoever.

Thats not a reasonable discussion so based on that, and your trolling from the last thread I'm done talking to you and I'm done with this thread. Good day.

Ha, so you just repeated my opinions on the tackle and your the one accusing me of not discussing it

I think the reason you refuse to have a logical discussion is because you have no retort to the perfectly reasonable argument for the red I've outlined

Therefore you brand me a troll, throw your toys out of the pram and run off crying

justsomebloke

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Ha, so you just repeated my opinions on the tackle and your the one accusing me of not discussing it

I think the reason you refuse to have a logical discussion is because you have no retort to the perfectly reasonable argument for the red I've outlined

Therefore you brand me a troll and run off crying

I've already given a warning please either be civil or refrain from posting

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

Refs either have options or they dont and the IRB needs to figure out which approach they want to go for.

They have done. They have clearly stated which approach and advised all referees and teams as to which. At this stage, the only defence people are coming up with is that it shouldn't be red as it isn't entirely consistent with other decisions. And whilst that may be true, red cards have certainly been issued for very similar incidents in the past so it's certainly not very unusual. In the case of the previous incidents that led to citations instead of straight red cards, the referee often didn't have a clear view of the incident or there was some effort to return the player to ground.

MungBean

Only a foul

GerM wrote: »

They have done. They have clearly stated which approach and advised all referees and teams as to which. At this stage, the only defence people are coming up with is that it shouldn't be red as it isn't entirely consistent with other decisions. And whilst that may be true, red cards have certainly been issued for very similar incidents in the past so it's certainly not very unusual. In the case of the previous incidents that led to citations instead of straight red cards, the referee often didn't have a clear view of the incident or there was some effort to return the player to ground.

I have gone through why I thought it shouldnt have been a red as per the laws on two other threads. I have spoken at length to you about it in one of them so felt no need to repeat it all here again. You know my position on it so I dont understand why your saying the only defence left to me is to question the consistency of refs and previous incidents.

The consistency of the reffing was a part of my problem to begin with, the consistency of how referees see a certain things in relation to the laws.

gudede

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Every point is covered in this.

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/ignore-the-blather-heres-why-alain-rolland-was-right-to-send-off-warburton-256151-Oct2011/?utm_source=facebook

molloyjh

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

Thats the problem, no consistency. We are at the stage where refs have to stick to the rules regarding some things and ignore others to keep the game entertaining.

You cant say "Thats a red you lifted him and says so in the rule book"
And another refs saying "Says yellow in book but I'm gonna make a game decision and ignore the laws"

Refs either have options or they dont and the IRB needs to figure out which approach they want to go for.

Here now hang on a second. There's a difference between the ref giving a bit of leeway to a player who is offside compared to a player who commits a dangerous tackle. The whole point of this entire red card thing is to try and remove instances where players seriously and gravely endanger other players in a situation that could be controlled but isn't.

There has to be a certain element of latitude afforded to make the game a spectacle, but only when that latitude does not come at the kind of cost you could see from dangerous play.

As I said before it is pure luck that Clerc wasn't seriously injured. A lot of people are forgetting that. Had he fallen slightly differently and been seriously injured would people hold the same view?

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

I have gone through why I thought it shouldnt have been a red as per the laws on two other threads. I have spoken at length to you about it in one of them so felt no need to repeat it all here again. You know my position on it so I dont understand why your saying the only defence left to me is to question the consistency of refs and previous incidents.

The consistency of the reffing was a part of my problem to begin with, the consistency of how referees see a certain things in relation to the laws.

Well, because on the other thread your justification was centred on the argument that Warburton released Clerc before he was inverted. Your stance now seems to be focussed on the consistency and not with the actual incident itself at all. If I've misconstrued, apologies.

CatFromHue

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

I just watched the RTE panels section on this on the RTE player. I've no idea what Frankie Sheehan was talking about and neither did he. It was cringe inducing watching it.

I did enjoy Popey telling McGurk to stop putting words in his mouth, I'd loved to have heard more actually as Popey sounded very pissed!

It starts on the 1hr 19mins mark or thereabouts.

MungBean

Only a foul

GerM wrote: »

Well, because on the other thread your justification was centred on the argument that Warburton released Clerc before he was inverted. Your stance now seems to be focussed on the consistency and not with the actual incident itself at all. If I've misconstrued, apologies.

I didnt mean to centre my argument on it I just agreed with a post that did and it went from there. Personally I think it was dangerous but not red card dangerous. I feel the lack of consistency in dealing with those issues probably have contributed to my view on it.

MungBean

Only a foul

molloyjh wrote: »

Here now hang on a second. There's a difference between the ref giving a bit of leeway to a player who is offside compared to a player who commits a dangerous tackle. The whole point of this entire red card thing is to try and remove instances where players seriously and gravely endanger other players in a situation that could be controlled but isn't.

There has to be a certain element of latitude afforded to make the game a spectacle, but only when that latitude does not come at the kind of cost you could see from dangerous play.

As I said before it is pure luck that Clerc wasn't seriously injured. A lot of people are forgetting that. Had he fallen slightly differently and been seriously injured would people hold the same view?

I'm not going to entertain anything based on what might have happened. The tackle has to be judged on what it was and what did happen not what ifs.

I know why the law is there, I know players safety has to come first. But its not just these tackles that are dangerous. You cannot allow leeway in parts based on what the ref wants regardless of the laws and then expect tackles to be punished to the letter of the law and expect it to be palatable for people. These decisions affect the game and at the end of the day are just decisions made by the referee.

The law is the law and a refs decision is made because of that law, you need consistency in all areas if you want consistency in dealing with any one area. That hasnt been shown to date and I find it hard to swallow that its now top priority in a semi final of the world cup.

Roanmore

A few people here mentioned the ITV coverage already, I hope those guys are embarassed watching it back especially Steve Rider - "The worst decision ever in World Cup History". I didn't see all their coverage but did they even quote the rule like the other stations did. I turned on Sky Sports news not soon after and even though the reporter said it was harsh he quoted the rule and said according to that the red card could be justified.
Also, did I imagine Joubert say Clerc wasn't even injured and that he got up straight away to scrap for the ball?

Last point, Hook said on the radio today that is was good to see people in the game coming out and defend Roland, anybody know who it was? Paul Ackford had a good article in one of the paper's yesterday, haven't seen anything else.

Podge_irl

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

I find it hard to swallow that its now top priority in a semi final of the world cup.

The safety of players is always the top priority.

MungBean

Only a foul

Podge_irl wrote: »

The safety of players is always the top priority.

Please dont quote me out of context and answer it with a strawman argument. If you want to discuss it then discuss it but I've had enough of that kind of shít.

Podge_irl

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

Please dont quote me out of context and answer it with a strawman argument. If you want to discuss it then discuss it but I've had enough of that kind of shít.

These tackles have always been a top priority. The other referees who didn't give red cards were wrong. This is shown by the citings aftewards. Those referees would have been marked down by their assessors and it will affect their future appointments.

You can't genuinely be trying to compare a ref using their discretion to let the game flow with clamping down on potentially dangerous tackles. Nor should mistakes by other referees set precedent. Just because Burger wasn't sent off against the Lions doesn't mean future gougings should only receive yellows.

.ak

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

I'm not going to entertain anything based on what might have happened. The tackle has to be judged on what it was and what did happen not what ifs.

I know why the law is there, I know players safety has to come first. But its not just these tackles that are dangerous. You cannot allow leeway in parts based on what the ref wants regardless of the laws and then expect tackles to be punished to the letter of the law and expect it to be palatable for people. These decisions affect the game and at the end of the day are just decisions made by the referee.

The law is the law and a refs decision is made because of that law, you need consistency in all areas if you want consistency in dealing with any one area. That hasnt been shown to date and I find it hard to swallow that its now top priority in a semi final of the world cup.

It's slightly saddens me that people have this view. Not to be too melodramatic about it, mind you.

No offense to you I hope you understand MungBean, as I'm sure you're not the only one with the opinion I highlighted above. But this is the argument that the fact Clerc was not injured there should be no red. The reason this saddens me is that if Rolland, O'Brien and the rest of the IRB thought like you did, even for an instant, they would be letting tackles slide until someone breaks a neck.


As to you other point in regards to consistency: I agree. The ref's are inconsistent, but that is purely down to human nature. Just like Warburton's tackle was accidental to a degree, so are ref's subject to mistakes. The rest of the 'tip tackles' in the tournament warranted red cards, but ref's are not perfect - some of them bottled it, some of them just didn't see the tackles in nice slo-mo HD like we did. The point is their not perfect, but Allain Rolland's choice was just that - a perfect call, to the text of the IRB laws.

Having said that, we have citing commissioners to pick up where ref's fail, but ref's should not rely on that.

Eoin

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

I have seen worse tackles, but while it might not have been malicious, it did not look (to me) as only a dump tackle that ended badly.

It's hard to explain, but if it had been a standard dump where the player is hit around the midriff, lifted around the legs, driven backwards and landed on his back, only with his legs slightly too high - then I could sympathise a little more with Warburton. But in this case, he was flipped the wrong way around in the air and dropped.

I think that suggestions that Rolland should have waited to see if Clerc was injured or not are silly and miss the point.

MungBean

Only a foul

Podge_irl wrote: »

These tackles have always been a top priority. The other referees who didn't give red cards were wrong. This is shown by the citings aftewards. Those referees would have been marked down by their assessors and it will affect their future appointments.

You can't genuinely be trying to compare a ref using their discretion to let the game flow with clamping down on potentially dangerous tackles. Nor should mistakes by other referees set precedent. Just because Burger wasn't sent off against the Lions doesn't mean future gougings should only receive yellows.

Thats my point. Its hasnt been dealt with by referees with any consistency which shows it hasnt been top priority.

I cant be trying to compare them probably because I DIDNT try to compare them. I said to have consistency in any area of a game the ref must show consistency in all aspects of the game because if they dont the laws themselves are undermined.

molloyjh

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

Thats my point. Its hasnt been dealt with by referees with any consistency which shows it hasnt been top priority.

I cant be trying to compare them probably because I DIDNT try to compare them. I said to have consistency in any area of a game the ref must show consistency in all aspects of the game because if they dont the laws themselves are undermined.

Can I clarify so, do you mean that because others got away with it Warburton should have or do you mean the refs in all cases should give a red? Or do you care one way or the other as long as its consistent?

At the end of the day we need to hold the refs to the highest standard, to do otherwise would be defeat the purpose. Therefore should we not be applauding Rolland for doing what others wouldn't or didn't?

We also then have to recognise that the officials can't see everything with perfect clarity and so must accept a certain level of inconsistency.

MungBean

Only a foul

.ak wrote: »

It's slightly saddens me that people have this view. Not to be too melodramatic about it, mind you.

No offense to you I hope you understand MungBean, as I'm sure you're not the only one with the opinion I highlighted above. But this is the argument that the fact Clerc was not injured there should be no red. The reason this saddens me is that if Rolland, O'Brien and the rest of the IRB thought like you did, even for an instant, they would be letting tackles slide until someone breaks a neck.

No offence taken. But I never made that argument and it saddens me when people misread my comments and try to paint me out to be advocating dangerous play. The law is in place to cover the severity of an action. The ref cant give a red based on what "might" have happened. Rolland made a judgement (doesnt matter whether you think its right or wrong) on what happened and how it related to the law. He did not give a red because he though Clerc could have been hurt. A good legal tackle can seriously hurt someone but its not grounds for action because its legal.

As to you other point in regards to consistency: I agree. The ref's are inconsistent, but that is purely down to human nature. Just like Warburton's tackle was accidental to a degree, so are ref's subject to mistakes. The rest of the 'tip tackles' in the tournament warranted red cards, but ref's are not perfect - some of them bottled it, some of them just didn't see the tackles in nice slo-mo HD like we did. The point is their not perfect, but Allain Rolland's choice was just that - a perfect call, to the text of the IRB laws.

Well I'd disagree that it matched the law perfectly and I made the points about consistency because I felt that the refs interpretation applied to this as I thought it was a dangerous tackle but Rolland seen it in regard to the second point in the directive and thus gave a red. I know nobody is perfect but with such tackles as these being so dangerous a bit of consistency from the refs goes a long way in stamping them out. In the biggest match of your career bans dont enter your head, getting sent off the field enters your head.

Having said that, we have citing commissioners to pick up where ref's fail, but ref's should not rely on that.

I agree refs should not rely on it and the fact that they have or have missed these "top priority" tackles shows the inconsistency I'm talking about 3 year old directives and very little done by refs to stamp out these tackles.

MungBean

Only a foul

molloyjh wrote: »

Can I clarify so, do you mean that because others got away with it Warburton should have or do you mean the refs in all cases should give a red? Or do you care one way or the other as long as its consistent?

I mean that refs have been inconsistent when dealing with this so to me the letter of the law is not paramount and the ref has room for opinion.That how I see it. I would like it consistently dealt with in game but if its consistanlty not then I see it as a wrong decision to decide to do so in a crucial stage of a tournament.

At the end of the day we need to hold the refs to the highest standard, to do otherwise would be defeat the purpose. Therefore should we not be applauding Rolland for doing what others wouldn't or didn't?

If we applaud Rolland then should we not be banning other refs for endangering players by not doing their jobs ? Refs have leeway when dealing with anything borderline and that tackle was borderline to me. I respect him for making a decision against the grain because he thought it was the right decision. However I think it was the wrong decision for what Warburton did. My problem is not only with consistency I also disagree that it was a red card based on Warburtons actions in regards to the law.

We also then have to recognise that the officials can't see everything with perfect clarity and so must accept a certain level of inconsistency.

Then we should accept it from players. A ref is in charge of players safety just as much as other players are. If you cannot enforce the law to protect those players you are endangering them and have no place on the pitch. If you want the ruling based on the law then you adhere to the law and not pick and choose or turn a blind eye when it suits or to give a ref a bit of leeway.

Podge_irl

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

MungBean wrote: »

Thats my point. Its hasnt been dealt with by referees with any consistency which shows it hasnt been top priority.

I don't disagree. There has been too much inconsistency. But ultimately that was the other refs being wrong and Rolland being right, which isn't his fault. All he can do is be consistent himself and he red carded Fritz for a very similar tackle in the HEC a few months back.

The other refs were wrong, plain and simple. They'll be told this and, like players, they are assessed and graded and they will receive poor marks for their mistakes and it will impact on their future appointments.

MungBean

Only a foul

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't disagree. There has been too much inconsistency. But ultimately that was the other refs being wrong and Rolland being right, which isn't his fault. All he can do is be consistent himself and he red carded Fritz for a very similar tackle in the HEC a few months back.

The other refs were wrong, plain and simple. They'll be told this and, like players, they are assessed and graded and they will receive poor marks for their mistakes and it will impact on their future appointments.

From a viewpoint of Warburtons tackle being a legitimate red then your right in everything you say. Seeing as the IRB themselves says thats the way it then thats the way it is. You cant argue with the lawmakers.

But I think if it was a yellow the ref would still have been consistent with the law as I think there was room for his interpretation, as the citing commission themselves said it was on the lighter end of the scale in regards to the severity and I think its a shame that it reached the point when dealing with this issue in game actually has an adverse effect on the game.

If there was consistency maybe players would be more aware. You seen the reaction from a lot of past and current players who disagreed with the decision at the time. They were not aware of those actions warranting a red card. All down to the lack of consistency when dealing with it. In retrospect a lot of them have said it was correct and in line with the laws, which it was (even though I think it would have been in line with the laws as a yellow).