The card thread *mod warning post 1*

molloyjh

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

MungBean wrote: »

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.

So then you are saying that because other referees haven't always done what they were meant to do that all referees should follow suit? Surely that's a dangerous and foolish path to take?

If we applaud Rolland then should we not be banning other refs for endangering players by not doing their jobs ?

Well for one instance a ban may be a bit much, depending on the scenario I suppose, but yes I believe some sort of action should also be taken against referees who fail to uphold certain rules, such as dangerous play. They do have assessor meetings and every refereeing performance is reviewed so I would hope that this is dealt with then. Being honest I don't know if it is or isn't. You have to realise though that officials can only deal with what they see. And they can't see everything.

Refs have leeway when dealing with anything borderline and that tackle was borderline to me.

To you maybe it was but the laws are very specific re the positioning of the legs versus the rest of the body, the subsequent action be it driving or dropping the player and the punishment required. It is a matter of simple fact that what Warburton did was in fact dangerous play, a fact he has readily admitted himself I believe. And it is a fact that refs have been told to red card such dangerous play.

Now maybe there's a case for the IRB to answer re the consistency of implementation of this law, but I fail to see how by doing his job Rolland has anything at all to answer for.

I also disagree that it was a red card based on Warburtons actions in regards to the law.

Why? The memorandum says the following must happen for it to be a red card. So which of the following is untrue:

1. Warburton lifted the player horizontally
2. Warburton dropped the player with no regard to his safety

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.

Accept what from the players exactly? We've all said that those laws re players safety must be enforced fully at all times. I don't think anyone has ever said only certain dangerous tackles should be punished. There are other incidents in the game which aren't as serious (a player being a little offside) that can be ignored if it has no impact on the game as it isn't hurting any one or anything. These are the decisions that can be left to the individual refs interpretations.

Podge_irl

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

MungBean wrote: »

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.

It was on the lighter end of the scale, but any player who is found guilty at a disciplinary hearing and banned should have got a red card. That is technically the standard that is supposed to be adhered to.

I don't like the idea of refs giving yellows "and letting the citing commissioner" sort it out, as certain plays, such as these tackles, deserve a straight red in order to stamp them out of the game. Rolland's problem is that he is one of the few refs with enough confidence and balls to deal with it properly. I'm not surprised to see him as the Touch judge and reserve ref for the final as it's a tacit admission that he was in the right.

MungBean

Only a foul

molloyjh wrote: »

So then you are saying that because other referees haven't always done what they were meant to do that all referees should follow suit? Surely that's a dangerous and foolish path to take?

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying there room to interpret as other refs have done and taking that away in reference to a sending off in a semi final because the law must be obeyed to the letter is what I have the issue with.

Well for one instance a ban may be a bit much, depending on the scenario I suppose, but yes I believe some sort of action should also be taken against referees who fail to uphold certain rules, such as dangerous play. They do have assessor meetings and every refereeing performance is reviewed so I would hope that this is dealt with then. Being honest I don't know if it is or isn't. You have to realise though that officials can only deal with what they see. And they can't see everything.

Well they cant see everything but the IRB must have judged that the ref and two touch judged is sufficient to deal with everything so everything should be dealt with. In the other instances of these tackles I think penalties and yellows were given so somebody must have seen something but it must have been interpreted to be not severe enough to warrant a red.

To you maybe it was but the laws are very specific re the positioning of the legs versus the rest of the body, the subsequent action be it driving or dropping the player and the punishment required. It is a matter of simple fact that what Warburton did was in fact dangerous play, a fact he has readily admitted himself I believe. And it is a fact that refs have been told to red card such dangerous play.

Reds are not just handed out for dangerous play though, dangerous play is open to the refs interpretation and may warrant a red, yellow or penalty/warning depending on the severity. Its was a particular lifting and dropping with no regard that Warburton was done for. The midway point between a dangerous tackle and a spear. But regardless seeing as the IRB have no said thats exactly what it was then thats what it was. At the time though if Rolland had of given a yellow I think it would have been consistent with the law.

Now maybe there's a case for the IRB to answer re the consistency of implementation of this law, but I fail to see how by doing his job Rolland has anything at all to answer for.

I have never said he has anything to answer for. Its not a witch hunt I just disagree with his decision.

Why? The memorandum says the following must happen for it to be a red card. So which of the following is untrue:

1. Warburton lifted the player horizontally
2. Warburton dropped the player with no regard to his safety

I think Warburton released him before he was in a dangerous position and his momentum put him on his back. I think the time between lifting and releasing was very fast showing that a spear was not intended ( I know I know laws does not mention intent) but I think the ref could have justified a yellow at the time. A red was consistent with the law but I think a yellow would have been too. I think the ref had options.

Accept what from the players exactly? We've all said that those laws re players safety must be enforced fully at all times. I don't think anyone has ever said only certain dangerous tackles should be punished. There are other incidents in the game which aren't as serious (a player being a little offside) that can be ignored if it has no impact on the game as it isn't hurting any one or anything. These are the decisions that can be left to the individual refs interpretations.

Accept inconsistencies with tackles if your going to accept referee's being inconsistent when dealing with them. Its player safety and the should be no inconsistency on either side. And as I said earlier I think allowing a ref to ignore any law undermines the laws in general and refs must be consistent across the board if you want their judgements to be consistent in any specific area.


These posts are very long so I'm sorry if I've missed something or confused any point.

Eoin

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

MungBean wrote: »

I think Warburton released him before he was in a dangerous position and his momentum put him on his back. I think the time between lifting and releasing was very fast showing that a spear was not intended ( I know I know laws does not mention intent)

Warburton inverted him though, it wasn't just a case of lifting him up and dropping him. That's why he landed on his neck, not just his back.

Podge_irl

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

There is no technical difference between what Warburton did and a "spear" in the laws. He turned the player past horizontal and then didn't see him safely to ground. Now he dropped him rather then driving him into the turf, but the same law covers both actions and the same penalties apply for both.

It's akin to the made-up difference between "contact with the eye area" and "gouging" - they're both the same thing in the laws.

MungBean

Only a foul

Podge_irl wrote: »

It was on the lighter end of the scale, but any player who is found guilty at a disciplinary hearing and banned should have got a red card. That is technically the standard that is supposed to be adhered to.

I don't like the idea of refs giving yellows "and letting the citing commissioner" sort it out, as certain plays, such as these tackles, deserve a straight red in order to stamp them out of the game. Rolland's problem is that he is one of the few refs with enough confidence and balls to deal with it properly. I'm not surprised to see him as the Touch judge and reserve ref for the final as it's a tacit admission that he was in the right.

I know it shouldnt be a case of giving a yellow and letting the citing commission take care of it I'm looking at it from the refs view on the day. But he could have given a yellow and been consistant with the laws imo and have done his job correctly.

If its a case of he's the only ref with the balls to do the job right then the IRB in the interest of the players safety should be sacking refs who wont hand out those decisions. As it is I think the IRB have cultivated a certain ambiguity about referees decisions and what they should and shouldnt be doing. Which has left them with a lot of different ways a game will be reffed depending on which ref you get and what way he wants the game played. Not good when you want to stick to the law book in an effort to stamp out dangerous play.

Eoin

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

MungBean wrote: »

I know it shouldnt be a case of giving a yellow and letting the citing commission take care of it I'm looking at it from the refs view on the day. But he could have given a yellow and been consistant with the laws imo and have done his job correctly.

Reading the memo in the OP, I don't see the ambiguity. It says the following:

"The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player's safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle".

Warburton picked up Clerc. He not only dropped him from a height, but inverted him in the process, and made no attempt to let him down. I don't see the grey area here.

Podge_irl

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

MungBean wrote: »

If its a case of he's the only ref with the balls to do the job right then the IRB in the interest of the players safety should be sacking refs who wont hand out those decisions. As it is I think the IRB have cultivated a certain ambiguity about referees decisions and what they should and shouldnt be doing. Which has left them with a lot of different ways a game will be reffed depending on which ref you get and what way he wants the game played. Not good when you want to stick to the law book in an effort to stamp out dangerous play.

There aren't enough refs to go sacking one of the top 10 in the world. Neither should one be sacked for one high profile error - players make them all the time.

There is an issue in that the IRB will never publicly berate a ref (unless someone has the temerity to penalise NZ), but there is a very definite procedure in place that has all refs assessed and they're told what they did wrong. The players can complain about the inconsistency, and I would have some sympathy for them, but they were told, quite clearly, on a number of occasions that these kind of tackles just weren't on anymore. I imagine we'll see refs becoming even more harsh on these tackles in the wake of this as the IRB will let it be known (through the right channels) that Rollers was right and everyone else very much wrong.

Anyway, there is nothing set out in the laws about when to give yellow or red cards (as far as I'm aware). This stems from a directive from the IRB which all refs received and all teams received.

MungBean

Only a foul

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is no technical difference between what Warburton did and a "spear" in the laws. He turned the player past horizontal and then didn't see him safely to ground. Now he dropped him rather then driving him into the turf, but the same law covers both actions and the same penalties apply for both.

It's akin to the made-up difference between "contact with the eye area" and "gouging" - they're both the same thing in the laws.

Theres a spear and a lift and drop with no regard, both punishable the same but differentiated in the directive.

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

This one being the get out clause. I think he lifted him before he was vertical, released him, momentum took him over to land on his upper body. I think it could just as easily have been called a dangerous lifting tackle and given a yellow as it could have been called a lift and drop and given a red.

MungBean

Only a foul

Eoin wrote: »

Reading the memo in the OP, I don't see the ambiguity. It says the following:

"The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player's safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle".

Warburton picked up Clerc. He not only dropped him from a height, but inverted him in the process, and made no attempt to let him down. I don't see the grey area here.

Ambiguity in regards to the inconsistency of the decisions made by the referees not in the law itself.

Eoin

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

MungBean wrote: »

Ambiguity in regards to the inconsistency of the decisions made by the referees not in the law itself.

But that means that a ref who gave a yellow was not doing his job. It doesn't mean that Rolland would have been doing his by giving a yellow.

MungBean wrote:

This one being the get out clause
...
I think it could just as easily have been called a dangerous lifting tackle and given a yellow as it could have been called a lift and drop and given a red.

Warburton's tackle was very clearly covered by the red card offence. The third lesser offence might be where a standard dump tackle ends up with the defender lifting the attacker's legs that little bit too high while putting him on his back - i.e. where a tackle is NOT specifically covered by the two first offences.

There's no get out clause, because this tackle met every one of the criteria for a red card.

Podge_irl

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

MungBean wrote: »

Theres a spear and a lift and drop with no regard, both punishable the same but differentiated in the directive.

Different in the directive, but still the same law. I think they were only separated in the directive to clarify that it was a red even if the player wasn't driven into the ground but regardless I would view the tackle as falling under the definition of the second point and still a red card.

Ultimately it has to come down to whether you think Warburton let go of Clerc before or after he passed the horizontal. I think after, and in that scenario the red card was the only correct option. You think before, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree. But if we can't decide based on video and pictures then it's obviously a close enough thing and Rolland could hardly be blamed even if he did get it wrong.

However, if someone's opinion is that it should have been a yellow only because it was a semi-final, or only 20 minutes into the game or some other consideration that has nothing to do with the tackle itself then I vehemently disagree.

MungBean

Only a foul

Podge_irl wrote: »

There aren't enough refs to go sacking one of the top 10 in the world. Neither should one be sacked for one high profile error - players make them all the time.

Perhaps sacking was a bit extreme. And I certainly wouldnt agree with sacking anyone for one high profile error. I just meant that if you cannot guarantee the safety of the players because the ref cannot implement the laws that are there for the safety of the players your doing something wrong and it needs to be fixed.

There is an issue in that the IRB will never publicly berate a ref (unless someone has the temerity to penalise NZ), but there is a very definite procedure in place that has all refs assessed and they're told what they did wrong. The players can complain about the inconsistency, and I would have some sympathy for them, but they were told, quite clearly, on a number of occasions that these kind of tackles just weren't on anymore. I imagine we'll see refs becoming even more harsh on these tackles in the wake of this as the IRB will let it be known (through the right channels) that Rollers was right and everyone else very much wrong.

I hope whatever measures they have for dealing with it work and we start to see some consistency after this.

Anyway, there is nothing set out in the laws about when to give yellow or red cards (as far as I'm aware). This stems from a directive from the IRB which all refs received and all teams received.

The directive is a declaration of how the law should be interpreted though right ? And as such as good as a law itself ?

MungBean

Only a foul

Eoin wrote: »

But that means that a ref who gave a yellow was not doing his job. It doesn't mean that Rolland would have been doing his by giving a yellow.

Your after confusing me now, I made that point about the IRB not going about stamping out dangerous play the best way. Dont think I meant it directly in relation to the red card. Refs have been let interpret so they interpret and no matter what call they make they are still doing their jobs. May have been the point I was trying to make.

Warburton's tackle was very clearly covered by the red card offence. The third lesser offence might be where a standard dump tackle ends up with the defender lifting the attacker's legs that little bit too high while putting him on his back - i.e. where a tackle is NOT specifically covered by the two first offences.

There's no get out clause, because this tackle met every one of the criteria for a red card.

A standard dump tackle isnt considered dangerous play and penalised though is it ? If you lift a player and bring him down theres no problem. So the other point in the directive could be applied to Warburtons tackle and the ref could have seen it as a dangerous lifting tackle rather han a lifting, drop with no regard. The no regard being an odd thing to have there if the ref cannot determine it which to do he has to have an opinion on it.

tolosenc

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

MungBean wrote: »

The no regard being an odd thing to have there if the ref cannot determine it which to do he has to have an opinion on it.

TBH, dropping someone on their head/neck/shoulder from a height shows no regard for their safety, IMO.

MungBean

Only a foul

Podge_irl wrote: »

Different in the directive, but still the same law. I think they were only separated in the directive to clarify that it was a red even if the player wasn't driven into the ground but regardless I would view the tackle as falling under the definition of the second point and still a red card.

Ultimately it has to come down to whether you think Warburton let go of Clerc before or after he passed the horizontal. I think after, and in that scenario the red card was the only correct option. You think before, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree. But if we can't decide based on video and pictures then it's obviously a close enough thing and Rolland could hardly be blamed even if he did get it wrong.

However, if someone's opinion is that it should have been a yellow only because it was a semi-final, or only 20 minutes into the game or some other consideration that has nothing to do with the tackle itself then I vehemently disagree.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74956854&postcount=65

Not a great pic but that leads me to believe he had released him and momentum had carried him into the dangerous fall. Making it a dangerous tackle but not a spear as you say it would be under in the law.

I dont blame Rolland for anything I just disagree and certainly wouldnt want him to make a wrong decision just because its a semi final.

MungBean

Only a foul

tolosenc wrote: »

TBH, dropping someone on their head/neck/shoulder from a height shows no regard for their safety, IMO.

I'd agree but I dont think he dropped him from a height onto his neck/shoulder I think he released in the tackle before he had put him in a dangerous position and momentum landed him on his shoulders which leads me to believe it was just a dangerous tackle.

tolosenc

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

MungBean wrote: »

I'd agree but I dont think he dropped him from a height onto his neck/shoulder I think he released in the tackle before he had put him in a dangerous position and momentum landed him on his shoulders which leads me to believe it was just a dangerous tackle.

He was inverted before he was dropped. Momentum made him rotate further.

Who applied the momentum?

MungBean

Only a foul

tolosenc wrote: »

He was inverted before he was dropped. Momentum made him rotate further.

Who applied the momentum?

I think he was released before he was inverted and the momentum coupled with the fact that he wasnt brought down makes it a dangerous tackle.

If he was held and landed on his back it was a valid dump tackle. If he was inverted and dropped or driven it was a spear tackle. I think it was in between and was just a dangerous lifting tackle. Lifted not brought down but not inverted before being released.

tolosenc

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

MungBean wrote: »

I think he was released before he was inverted and the momentum coupled with the fact that he wasnt brought down makes it a dangerous tackle.

The following is an image you posted in the other thread supporting your assertion that he was released before inversion. I have made an edit to include the angle of his legs (red), the angle of his torso (green), and the angle you're perceiving as his torso due to the fact that he is pulling his upper body towards his legs to avoid a serious neck injury (white).



The line to judge Warburton on is the green one, and not the white one.

MungBean

Only a foul

tolosenc wrote: »

The line to judge Warburton on is the green one, and not the white one.

Is that the official line on it as according to the IRB ? I take the point of inverting a player being lifting him so that his head and upper body are aimed towards the ground.

The law only states that if his head and upper body hit the ground when the feet are in the air its a spear. If he was brought down at that angle his back would make contact and not his head making it a valid dump wouldnt it ? Or possibly only the hight of it classing it as dangerous perhaps.

So if he let go with Clercs Back and head parallel to the ground it was the momentum that inverted him in my eyes.

Is there mention of the angle of the back in relation to the legs in the laws or statements from the IRB ?

Trojan

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

For me I can't believe there's even a debate - it's a clear cut, 100% ambiguity-free, straight red. Fair play Alain Rolland.

tolosenc

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

MungBean wrote: »

I take the point of inverting a player being lifting him so that his head and upper body are aimed towards the ground.

Hips above shoulders.

The fact the Clerc positioned himself in such a way as to avoid injury or even death shouldn't come into it.

If you're face down, bending your body can't turn a otherwise fine tackle into a red card offence just because you put yourself in harm's way, in the same way that how Clerc behaved doesn't make the tackle any less ridiculous or the referee wrong.

As the poster above says, there really is no debate here. It's one of the more clear cut reds you'll see.

MungBean

Only a foul

tolosenc wrote: »

Hips above shoulders.

The fact the Clerc positioned himself in such a way as to avoid injury or even death shouldn't come into it.

If you're face down, bending your body can't turn a otherwise fine tackle into a red card offence just because you put yourself in harm's way, in the same way that how Clerc behaved doesn't make the tackle any less ridiculous or the referee wrong.

As the poster above says, there really is no debate here. It's one of the more clear cut reds you'll see.

If its hips above shoulders I stand by my point that he was released before reaching that point making it just a dangerous tackle. The nature of a dangerous tackle is a tackle that could cause harm, if the tackled player moved themselves into a position to lessen the harm then the tackle is less dangerous.

Swing and a miss does not equate to a punch in the face. Theres no high tackle if the player dodges it. Theres no invert if Clerc avoided being inverted. The ref cant make a decision based on what could have happened, he makes his decision on what did happen and how it should be dealt with according to the laws which only deal with the landing of the player on his head or upper body while the feet are in the air and whether or not regard was shown for the players safety.

I also disagree that there is no debate because I have just exhausted myself debating it.

castie

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

MungBean wrote: »

So if he let go with Clercs Back and head parallel to the ground it was the momentum that inverted him in my eyes.

Momentum caused by Warburton.
If he picked up the corner flag and tossed it across the field would you argue that because he let go before it hit anyone he wasnt to blame for the guy that got hit because the momentum of the flag forced it to continue on its path?

Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

Did he lift him from the ground? yes
did he drop him into the ground whilst his feer were still off the ground such that his UPPER body came in contact with thr ground? yes

MungBean

Only a foul

castie wrote: »

Momentum caused by Warburton.
If he picked up the corner flag and tossed it across the field would you argue that because he let go before it hit anyone he wasnt to blame for the guy that got hit because the momentum of the flag forced it to continue on its path?

And if the wind blew it into someone eye do you card the wind for gouging ? The momentum was caused by the tackle which was stopped before the player was put into a dangerous position imo, the momentum coupled with the fact that he wasnt brought back down was what made it dangerous.

Did he lift him from the ground? yes
did he drop him into the ground whilst his feer were still off the ground such that his UPPER body came in contact with thr ground? yes

Was it dangerous? yes. Does that equate to a red card not always.

I'm not saying it wasnt dangerous, I'm not saying Warburton shouldnt have been pinged for it. All I'm saying is that it could have been yellow.

castie

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

MungBean wrote: »

And if the wind blew it into someone eye do you card the wind for gouging ? The momentum was caused by the tackle which was stopped before the player was put into a dangerous position imo, the momentum coupled with the fact that he wasnt brought back down was what made it dangerous.




Was it dangerous? yes. Does that equate to a red card not always.

I'm not saying it wasnt dangerous, I'm not saying Warburton shouldnt have been pinged for it. All I'm saying is that it could have been yellow.

If the wind was a player you certainly could.

Your arguement is momentum caused him to invert and you admit that the tackle caused the momentum hence it should be obvious that whatever caused the tackle is responsible for both.

Im no lawyer but pretty sure the above amounts to some sort of causation against Warburton.

MungBean

Only a foul

castie wrote: »

If the wind was a player you certainly could.

Your arguement is momentum caused him to invert and you admit that the tackle caused the momentum hence it should be obvious that whatever caused the tackle is responsible for both.

Im no lawyer but pretty sure the above amounts to some sort of causation against Warburton.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Warburton made the tackle and the tackle was dangerous. But I personally think the fact that he released before the tackler was inverted shows regard for the players safety or can be seen that way.

The law just speaks of dangerous tackles and what constitutes a dangerous tackle but makes no mention of how they should be handled other than to say they should be penalised. Its the directive that bring the IRB's view of how they should be dealt with into it.

To me its looks like point one is referring to lifting and driving the player into the ground (Spear tackle)

Point two looks to be referring to lifting and dropping with no regard (Spear tackle where player is dropped instead of driven)

And the third on looks to be referring to any dangerous play involving lifting a player that doesnt fall under the first two points.

I think what Warburton did was a dangerous lifting tackle but not such that its a spear tackle (lifting, inverting, driving/dropping). And falls under the third point.

castie

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

MungBean wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you, Warburton made the tackle and the tackle was dangerous. But I personally think the fact that he released before the tackler was inverted shows regard for the players safety or can be seen that way.

Hes turned him upside down and released. This shows no regard at all for Clerc's safety as at this point Clerc was fighting to keep his head from hitting the ground first and seemed to be suceeding until he was dropped.

Also I think your assumption that Warburton released him is flawed as I think he didnt have a choice in the matter.

MungBean

Only a foul

castie wrote: »

Hes turned him upside down and released. This shows no regard at all for Clerc's safety as at this point Clerc was fighting to keep his head from hitting the ground first and seemed to be suceeding until he was dropped.

Also I think your assumption that Warburton released him is flawed as I think he didnt have a choice in the matter.

Then so is yours and he wasnt dropped with no regard at all leading back to the third point in the directive anyway.

But I disagree, Warburton seemed to be going for a dump tackle. He took his legs and released to compete. It just wasnt executed well and Clerc landed dangerously as a result. But the fact he released showed regard for Clerc safety as it showed he was attempting a valid tackle and not just upending him for the sake of it or in the heat of the moment.

GerM

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

MungBean wrote: »

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.

MungBean, the red card is in place here exactly because of what might happen. Spear tackles are generally accidental, unintentional and non-malicious. If there was zero chance of injury then there would be no cards for them at all as they're generally accidental. It's a red card because it can seriously injure or even kill a person.

GerM

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

To summarise, I think that it hinges on MB takes the tackle to be only a yellow card on the basis that Warburton released Clerc before he was inverted and it was momentum and not Warburton that caused Clerc to land on his upper back/lower neck.

The rest of us are saying that Warburton had indeed turned Clerc beyond the point of horizontal (which I think is shown fairly clearly in pictures) before dropping him and any momentum that occurred was as a result of Warburton's actions and he has a duty of care to the player he tackles.

I don't think either side is for turning.

irishbucsfan

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

In summary, MB would be ok if Warburton lifted Clerc 6 feet in the air horizontally and dropped him, even if Clerc landed on his neck and was paralyzed, because it would be his own momentum that caused it. Shame on Clerc for being top heavy.

There's a reason its supposed be a red and there's a reason everyone whose done it in this tournament has been banned. Having had a teammate taken from the field in an ambulance last season I'm delighted this rule is in place to protect us. Fair play Rolland for getting it right. It's a shame the other refs didn't see their infringements properly.

irishbucsfan

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

And to be very clear, whether or not Clerc was inverted before or after Warburton released is completely irrelevant, is not mentioned in any rule or directive and has nothing to do with the severity of the tackle. What is relevant is that Warburton picked Clerc up and released him in such a way that Clerc was a matter of degrees away from a severe injury.

Jawgap

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

tolosenc wrote: »

The following is an image you posted in the other thread supporting your assertion that he was released before inversion. I have made an edit to include the angle of his legs (red), the angle of his torso (green), and the angle you're perceiving as his torso due to the fact that he is pulling his upper body towards his legs to avoid a serious neck injury (white).



The line to judge Warburton on is the green one, and not the white one.

Sorry for the big quote - but this thread looks like it's turning into a episode of CSI Auckland......

......refs get a heartbeat to make a decision like that - the best advice I ever got from a more experienced colleague, when I was starting out was that if, when an incident happens, you say to yourself "Oh sh1t!" - it's a yellow card.....

if you say "Oh fcuk!!!!!" - it's a red card.

The tackle, when I saw it first, made me go "Oh fcuk!!" - much to the kids' amusement - ergo, the red was justified:D

Eoin

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

MungBean wrote: »

A standard dump tackle isnt considered dangerous play and penalised though is it ? If you lift a player and bring him down theres no problem. So the other point in the directive could be applied to Warburtons tackle and the ref could have seen it as a dangerous lifting tackle rather han a lifting, drop with no regard. The no regard being an odd thing to have there if the ref cannot determine it which to do he has to have an opinion on it.

A standard dump tackle can go a little bit too far and end up with the tackler landing too far past horizontal. That's where it might be a penalty and possibly a yellow card. That wasn't the case here.

Again, Warburton's tackle met every single one of the criteria for it to be a red card.

WeeBushy

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

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry for the big quote - but this thread looks like it's turning into a episode of CSI Auckland......

......refs get a heartbeat to make a decision like that - the best advice I ever got from a more experienced colleague, when I was starting out was that if, when an incident happens, you say to yourself "Oh sh1t!" - it's a yellow card.....

if you say "Oh fcuk!!!!!" - it's a red card.

The tackle, when I saw it first, made me go "Oh fcuk!!" - much to the kids' amusement - ergo, the red was justified:D

That's not a bad point at all tbh..

Paparazzo

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

Anyone that thinks it was a yellow because:

• There was no "intention"
• Warburton isn't a dirty player
• It was early in the match
• Clerc walked away (eventually)
• It was a world cup semi final

are talking rubbish. None of those things matter and they certainly don't excuse it. The rule is simple and warburton broke it. End of. If the Welsh want to blame someone, blame Warburton! Gatland seems to be going for the "it was a world cup semi final, so it should have been a yellow" escuse. Is it ok in a Heineken Cup group game? A 6 Nations decider? A WC quarter? When do games get important enough so you can break the rules? And does it mean if he actually drove him into the ground, but it was a WC final it would be ok? What about if Clerc was badly injured, but there was no intention, and it was in a final ? That's why there are clear rules to follow.

The ITV panel should do a piece before the final and all apologise for getting it completely wrong. Ciaran Fitz on Setanta called it, any clip I've seen online that wasn't British called it.
Delighted to see the poll being so one sided!

Webbs

It was only ever a yellow

Deleted my post (must remember to read all the thread before posting in future)

.ak

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

MungBean wrote: »

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.

I didn't misread what you said - as you've just repeated it above [in bold]. The reason it was a red is because of what MIGHT have happened. Just to follow on what GerM said above... The rules are in place to stop players doing this. The red card is to avoid other players attempting this, as it has a HIGH PERCENTAGE of possibly seriously injuring a player; hence why this kind of tackle is called a DANGEROUS TACKLE, and why other tackles are not called dangerous tackles (even though they also run the risk of injuring players, it's not in the same percentage of probability).

Otherwise you're basically saying these tackles are okay, try it out, if you don't injure/kill the other player you'll just get 10 minutes in the sin bin. No biggie, whatevs.

Also, just to put it into context: Why are penalty tries given? That is a call that is based on what 'might' happen. Because there's a huge possibility that if the foul in the in goal area did not happen the player would get a try (or a scrum 5m), but it's not 100%, who knows what might've happened, but there is a HIGH PROBABILITY the team would've scored a try, but were denied illegally. It's exactly the same here; Warburton's tackle had a HIGH PROBABILITY of dangerously injuring Clerc, but didn't.


Also, on a side note, I'd just like to say fair play to MungBean for debating this reasonably and objectively, when a lot of people in his position would probably just turn this into a flame war.

MungBean

Only a foul

GerM wrote: »

MungBean, the red card is in place here exactly because of what might happen. Spear tackles are generally accidental, unintentional and non-malicious. If there was zero chance of injury then there would be no cards for them at all as they're generally accidental. It's a red card because it can seriously injure or even kill a person.

.ak wrote: »

I didn't misread what you said - as you've just repeated it above [in bold]. The reason it was a red is because of what MIGHT have happened. Just to follow on what GerM said above... The rules are in place to stop players doing this. The red card is to avoid other players attempting this, as it has a HIGH PERCENTAGE of possibly seriously injuring a player; hence why this kind of tackle is called a DANGEROUS TACKLE, and why other tackles are not called dangerous tackles (even though they also run the risk of injuring players, it's not in the same percentage of probability).

Otherwise you're basically saying these tackles are okay, try it out, if you don't injure/kill the other player you'll just get 10 minutes in the sin bin. No biggie, whatevs.

Just like to try and clarify this point before I leave it as I dont want to end up with people thinking that the safety of the player doesnt enter into my argument after all this.

"The ref cant give a red based on what "might" have happened".

In the context I was using it refers to the refs choice as regards to the law. The referee cannot base a decision on anything other than what the laws says he can and how those laws relate to an incident. Its the laws themselves that cover eventualities. In this instance he gave a red because the directive said a red was warranted for his type of tackle, it also says other dangerous tackles may be dealt with yellow or a penalty. My point being the ref makes decisions based on the law. For instances with your point of view I could have said "The ref couldnt make a decision based on the tackler not being hurt, the law says its dangerous and deserves a red". If the law said that tackle was ok despite the possibility of it leading to injury then it would be wrong to penalise it. The law and not the refs opinion is what governs the game is what I meant.

I'm not condoning this incident, dont think tackles should be allowed simply because nobody was hurt and certainly dont think they should be tried out until someone gets seriously hurt.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

In summary, MB would be ok if Warburton lifted Clerc 6 feet in the air horizontally and dropped him, even if Clerc landed on his neck and was paralyzed, because it would be his own momentum that caused it. Shame on Clerc for being top heavy.

I'm jumping ship before I'm accused of murder. Shame that after trying to argue a point respectfully and civilly people just jump to the conclusion that I dont give a damn about the players safety. The last thing I want to see is a player getting hurt, but its the nature of the game. To protect players 100% it would have to be a non contact sport. So in arguing against a decision made on a dangerous tackle I'm not condoning dangerous tackles only questioning how they are differentiated.


I think I've said all I can on the subject now anyway and there looks to be a little animosity growing in the red camp so I'll go before I'm lynched.

danthefan

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

Sweet, we won!

Podge_irl

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

MungBean wrote: »

I dont blame Rolland for anything I just disagree and certainly wouldnt want him to make a wrong decision just because its a semi final.

I know, and I can respect that it's just a difference of opinion.


I am just appalled at certain quarters - ITV, Gatland and others - who somehow think that the fact it was a semi-final and it ruined the spectacle should have any bearing whatsoever. Debate the merits of those tackles being red carded if you will, but the amount of times I've seen "destroying the game as a contest" or it "being a semi-final" thrown out as reasons for a yellow astound me. And quite frankly I expected better from some of these people.

gearoidc

tolosenc wrote: »

Hips above shoulders.

The fact the Clerc positioned himself in such a way as to avoid injury or even death shouldn't come into it.

If you're face down, bending your body can't turn a otherwise fine tackle into a red card offence just because you put yourself in harm's way, in the same way that how Clerc behaved doesn't make the tackle any less ridiculous or the referee wrong.

As the poster above says, there really is no debate here. It's one of the more clear cut reds you'll see.

Exactly how much rugby have you watched in your lifetime? By using the term the term "one of the more clearcut reds" it suggests that you see them handed out on a regular basis.
Well I've been watching rugby for about 35 years and in all that time, I'd say I've seen no more than ten red cards in total!!!
The result of the poll really is laughable. If a yellow card had been issued, 99% of the red-card brigade wouldn't have batted an eyelid.
"Clearcut" my backside.

Hindsight.
Hindsight.
Hindsight.

CatFromHue

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

Warburton
Heaslip against the ABs
Drew Mitchell for two yellows against the ABs
John Hayes against Leinster
Scott Murray against Wales
Tuilagi and possible Cueto or Moody in a England Samoa game a few years ago
Eric Miller against Munster

danthefan

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

CatFromHue wrote: »

Warburton
Heaslip against the ABs
Drew Mitchell for two yellows against the ABs
John Hayes against Leinster
Scott Murray against Wales
Tuilagi and possible Cueto or Moody in a England Samoa game a few years ago
Eric Miller against Munster

Florian Fritz against Wasps.
Paul Williams against SA.

GerM

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

gearoidc wrote: »

Exactly how much rugby have you watched in your lifetime? By using the term the term "one of the more clearcut reds" it suggests that you see them handed out on a regular basis.
Well I've been watching rugby for about 35 years and in all that time, I'd say I've seen no more than five in total!!!
The result of the poll really is laughable. If a yellow card had been issued, 99% of the red-card brigade wouldn't have batted an eyelid.
"Clearcut" my backside.

Hindsight.
Hindsight.
Hindsight.

I've seen 5 this year. POC against the Ospreys, Xavier Rush in the HEC (can't remember who against), Sam Warburton, Florian Fritz against Wasps and another horrible spear in the S15. There were also a few others given at international level but I only saw them on YouTube so I'm not counting them.

It was a red card. It wasn't clearcut on first viewing but watching the replay with the angle that Rolland had it was clearcut i.e. it was clearcut to the referee.

gearoidc

GerM wrote: »

I've seen 5 this year. POC against the Ospreys, Xavier Rush in the HEC (can't remember who against), Sam Warburton, Florian Fritz against Wasps and another horrible spear in the S15. There were also a few others given at international level but I only saw them on YouTube so I'm not counting them.

It was a red card. It wasn't clearcut on first viewing but watching the replay with the angle that Rolland had it was clearcut i.e. it was clearcut to the referee.

I've changed my total to ten but the point remains.
Nobody in the stadium or watching on TV expected a red card for that tackle.

People who say they did are spoofers.

Eoin

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

gearoidc wrote: »

I've changed my total to ten but the point remains.
Nobody in the stadium or watching on TV expected a red card for that tackle.

People who say they did are spoofers.

People may not have expected a red card before they saw the replays, but that's both irrelevant and possibly a reflection that it's an area that is not refereed enough.

The question being debated is if it was a red card offence, nothing wrong with watching it in slo-mo to decide.

GerM

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

gearoidc wrote: »

I've changed my total to ten but the point remains.
Nobody in the stadium or watching on TV expected a red card for that tackle.

People who say they did are spoofers.

That's completely erroneous. Nobody watching on television or in the stadium aside from the players and the referee had a view to be able to decide if it warranted a red card; none of the players complained whatsoever about the decision you'll notice.

The number of red cards you're aware of in the game over 35 years has doubled in a matter of minutes without anyone having to think hard about it so, in fairness, your point has been severely undermined if you believe it remains.