Post MATCH discussion THREAD - Wales vs France

[maestegmafia]

First topic message reminder :

Well played France a deserved winner... great effort by Wales but silly mistakes cost us a better result...

Good luck to Australia and New Zealand tomorrow

[Standulstermen]

Have to say i thought Williams and Roberts were excellent in interview especially with Bayfields questioning. They are looking for a reaction. His questioning of Yachvili was ridiculous.

Jamie Roberts is fast becoming my hero... sorry Mr Ferris

[Cowshot]

Tenez: Any way you get to a final is a good way.

Like England in 2007, I'm not quite sure how you've managed it.

Will the true, magic France turn up in the final?????

[EnglishReign]

My opinion, is that it was a red. A moment of madness from an inspirational player, absolutely no malice but dangerous all the same. Warburton has been a big inspiration this RWC and has set a fine example to youngsters and pros playing the game all over the world; take note Haskell et al. I know he will come back stronger and become a massive player for Wales, for years to come.

It was unfortunate to happen in a semi, but Hook missed a couple of kicks, Halfpenny came close and Jones missed a conversion. Just one of these going over would've won the game.

Bad luck Wales, you've shown everyone how rugby should be played and how a team must approach a tournament like this. You leave with your head held high and a chance to cement a well deserved ranking with a 3rd place play-off, even though it should've been more. Good luck

[Taylorman]

Geez. Wales lost warburton in less than 20 minutes.
Following that 4 kicks were missed totalling 11 points.
Key players didnt front when they needed to.

[valjester]

If only the Welsh fans on here showed half the class that Jamie Roberts just showed in his post match interview,

Does no-one know the rules on dangerous play here? The referee was perfectly entitled to give Warburton a red card- it was dangerous play. If it was an Irish player that did it I would be angry at the referee but after calm consideration I would be angry at the player for such a idiotic player. There was no need to spear tackle the player whatsoever.

Wales can be proud of those players. A tremendous effort by the whole team, the pack was magnificent after Warburton was sent off but ultimately a lack of composure cost them the win.

Well I can only speak for myself here, but until and unless anyone can correct me - the only obligation on Rolland was to award a penalty for Dangerous Play.

The tip tackle was included in an IRB Law update memo about 18 months ago ensuring that it was regulated as Dangerous Play under Law 10.4, the minimum requirement for a tip tackle is a penalty under Law 10.4. Further action taken by the referee regarding a yellow or red card is entirely at his discretion.

Given that POB stated in his referees briefing prior to the WC that tip tackling would be under very close scrutiny, a penalty only (ie no further action) should be considered a let-off; there have been a number of "let-offs" and also a number of yellow cards that have then attracted further punishment in the way of suspensions, however there has been only one red card, and if anyone can point out to me where that was the worst example of a tip tackle during this WC I'll stand corrected.

For the avoidance of doubt, holding a player whilst driving him forcefully downwards with his legs above his waist is a worse offence than dropping a player in the same position.

As I've posted before the IRB directive said "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."

Just because other referees have bottled it doesn't mean Rolland was wrong. The fact that the other players have received bans after getting away with yellows shows that the other refs were wrong.

[rodders]

Well I can only speak for myself here, but until and unless anyone can correct me - the only obligation on Rolland was to award a penalty for Dangerous Play.

The tip tackle was included in an IRB Law update memo about 18 months ago ensuring that it was regulated as Dangerous Play under Law 10.4, the minimum requirement for a tip tackle is a penalty under Law 10.4. Further action taken by the referee regarding a yellow or red card is entirely at his discretion.

The laws were amended in december to put player welfare 1st. There is to be zero tolerance for spear or tip tackles and that includes dropping the player.

[Gatts]

IMO reds must be backed up by TMO confirmation, bu tI am not going to criticise rolland, he's a good ref and we need them. fact is we coudl have won it but there was no intensity after SW left the pitch until MP fabulous score. Hook and Jones lost us the game. France were impotent and AUS will murder them

[Hookisms and Hyperbole]

valjester, you beat me too it. To my mind the decision might have been harsh certainly. But it was not wrong. It was not biased. It was not because the referee is half French or that he is corrupt. So many Welsh fans last week were gracious in victory when they beat us, as we were gracious in defeat. The reaction of some Welsh fans has been a disgrace in the aftermath of the game and does a great disservice to the heroic and brave efforts of their players.

[Gatts]

valjester, you beat me too it. To my mind the decision might have been harsh certainly. But it was not wrong. It was not biased. It was not because the referee is half French or that he is corrupt. So many Welsh fans last week were gracious in victory when they beat us, as we were gracious in defeat. The reaction of some Welsh fans has been a disgrace in the aftermath of the game and does a great disservice to the heroic and brave efforts of their players.

not sure who you are referring too but i am just bery proud of them. rolland's decision was tackle out and you can't deny it was consistent with the book.

did rolland kill the game , warbs, france or hook/jones kicking?

We still ought to have won

[valjester]

IMO reds must be backed up by TMO confirmation, bu tI am not going to criticise rolland, he's a good ref and we need them. fact is we coudl have won it but there was no intensity after SW left the pitch until MP fabulous score. Hook and Jones lost us the game. France were impotent and AUS will murder them

France never play the same two weeks in a row, or two havles in a row. On the tmo confirmation, I think its best to leave it to the ref, there is no need to bring the tmo in to the decision unless the ref is unsure.

[Gatts]

its a moot point, problem is if the decision is wrong its game over, if right TMO confirms it. you cant win a game of rugby with no 7. Lineout is fecked, scrum fecked and no real compettion in tackle area. i do not disgaree that Rolland was right though and I am not going to go all Saffa on his behind

[valjester]

valjester, you beat me too it. To my mind the decision might have been harsh certainly. But it was not wrong. It was not biased. It was not because the referee is half French or that he is corrupt. So many Welsh fans last week were gracious in victory when they beat us, as we were gracious in defeat. The reaction of some Welsh fans has been a disgrace in the aftermath of the game and does a great disservice to the heroic and brave efforts of their players.

On the Welsh fans, I wouldn't blame them too much, in the heat of the moment with all the emotion people overreact. I'm sure when they calm down they will be okay. I still feel that wales should have won the game and that there tactics were poor in the second half. They were a man down and kept kicking the ball away. They needed to keep the ball and just truck it up the middle and wear the French down instead of letting the opposite happen.

I'm in France and its like a morgue over here, they feel disgusted at the french performance and the negativity. Its not the french way and they are very afraid of the final.

On the tackle inself, its dangerous and can result in injury, as I know, but it definitely wasn't intentional or dirty.

[Guest]

valjester, you beat me too it. To my mind the decision might have been harsh certainly. But it was not wrong. It was not biased. It was not because the referee is half French or that he is corrupt. So many Welsh fans last week were gracious in victory when they beat us, as we were gracious in defeat. The reaction of some Welsh fans has been a disgrace in the aftermath of the game and does a great disservice to the heroic and brave efforts of their players.

Agreed, but with regard to the reaction of some Welsh fans, not trying to excuse them but lots of things get said in the heat of the moment and with emotions running so high. The cold light of day will no doubt clear the head of many of these fans.

[BlueNote]

"with no regard to the player’s safety" are the reason Roland was wrong to issue a red (in my view), once Warbs realised what had happened he tried to come out of it with the least harm to the player.

Anyway, it's over; good luck France. At the moment they seem to be less than the sum of their very talented parts, hopefully they'll find the formula and make a real go of the final.

[TycroesOsprey]

Geez. Wales lost warburton in less than 20 minutes.
Following that 4 kicks were missed totalling 11 points.
Key players didnt front when they needed to.

Absolutly spot on although if you count Wellies first failed attempt at a drop then failure to go for the drop when it was on later then that 17 points that went a begging.

We can go on about how brave we were and yep Im totally proud of this squad in the world cup but as for the game a couple of senior players didnt front up and let their younger counterparts down. Despite the red we had clear chances to win and lacked the composure to do it.

This is where we prove were not the village idiots anymore. There is no need to wail about the red card we just need to learn from what went wrong today and move forward, happily I think this group of players are the type who will have unfinished business with Bill and have the discipline and intellegence to grow from this defeat.

[EnglishReign]

The fact that we are still analysing it and trying to work out Warburton's motives speaks volumes. The tackle happened in seconds, the ref had just as long to make a decision. Honestly, let it go.

[BlueNote]

Actually, I think we are trying to explain/analyse what you observe in a very short space of time. Plus there are all sorts of motives for people in commenting on this issue, one way or another (it's an indirect way for the very few small-minded who want to sneer at Wales, for one thing). However, you are right that he had to make the call as he saw it in a split second, I am sure he did so honestly, I just think his judgment was wrong and he should have taken more time to consider (and was possibly swayed by the reaction of the French players).

[valjester]

Actually, I think we are trying to explain/analyse what you observe in a very short space of time. Plus there are all sorts of motives for people in commenting on this issue, one way or another (it's an indirect way for the very few small-minded who want to sneer at Wales, for one thing). However, you are right that he had to make the call as he saw it in a split second, I am sure he did so honestly, I just think his judgment was wrong and he should have taken more time to consider (and was possibly swayed by the reaction of the French players).

Rolland is never swayed by the reaction of the players. Warburtons motives or intent doesn't matter. He dropped the player on his neck, this is dangerous and it is a red card as there is no regard for the players safety.

[Goosestepper]

I remember speaking to a Welsh cousin of mine who ref'd wendy ball at a pretty high level. On red cards he said that it should be the easiest decision a referee can make.

People talk about consistency -rightly. The IRB have been tinkering with the rules (ELV's etc) for years. This tinkering must now come to an end and should never happen DURING a world cup. Rolland was merely doing his job, that is why he went straight for a red without hesitation or consulting the assistant or TMO. If anyone has an axe to grind it should be with the IRB.

In case anyone reading this is wondering let me say I am completely P*ss*d off Wales will not be in the final, but look beyond the red card, put it in the hurt locker with BOD's spear tackie in NZ, Burgers yellow for the gouge on Fitz and Steve Walsh not giving Geordan Murphy the advantage when we could have beaten France in 6N 07..... and and and.....

Warburton is a class player he is skilled and athletic but also comes across as mature well beyond his years, I feel he has a massive future for Wales and the lions. Hopefully this episode will not be the thing we're discussing on 606 50 years from now when talking about him!

[PJHolybloke]

If only the Welsh fans on here showed half the class that Jamie Roberts just showed in his post match interview,

Does no-one know the rules on dangerous play here? The referee was perfectly entitled to give Warburton a red card- it was dangerous play. If it was an Irish player that did it I would be angry at the referee but after calm consideration I would be angry at the player for such a idiotic player. There was no need to spear tackle the player whatsoever.

Wales can be proud of those players. A tremendous effort by the whole team, the pack was magnificent after Warburton was sent off but ultimately a lack of composure cost them the win.

Well I can only speak for myself here, but until and unless anyone can correct me - the only obligation on Rolland was to award a penalty for Dangerous Play.

The tip tackle was included in an IRB Law update memo about 18 months ago ensuring that it was regulated as Dangerous Play under Law 10.4, the minimum requirement for a tip tackle is a penalty under Law 10.4. Further action taken by the referee regarding a yellow or red card is entirely at his discretion.

Given that POB stated in his referees briefing prior to the WC that tip tackling would be under very close scrutiny, a penalty only (ie no further action) should be considered a let-off; there have been a number of "let-offs" and also a number of yellow cards that have then attracted further punishment in the way of suspensions, however there has been only one red card, and if anyone can point out to me where that was the worst example of a tip tackle during this WC I'll stand corrected.

For the avoidance of doubt, holding a player whilst driving him forcefully downwards with his legs above his waist is a worse offence than dropping a player in the same position.

As I've posted before the IRB directive said "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."Just because other referees have bottled it doesn't mean Rolland was wrong. The fact that the other players have received bans after getting away with yellows shows that the other refs were wrong.

Proof please, I think you made that bit up.

If this were the case there would have been a number of problems with refs in previous games, surely they would know that the tip tackle demands a red card?

[valjester]

If only the Welsh fans on here showed half the class that Jamie Roberts just showed in his post match interview,

Does no-one know the rules on dangerous play here? The referee was perfectly entitled to give Warburton a red card- it was dangerous play. If it was an Irish player that did it I would be angry at the referee but after calm consideration I would be angry at the player for such a idiotic player. There was no need to spear tackle the player whatsoever.

Wales can be proud of those players. A tremendous effort by the whole team, the pack was magnificent after Warburton was sent off but ultimately a lack of composure cost them the win.

Well I can only speak for myself here, but until and unless anyone can correct me - the only obligation on Rolland was to award a penalty for Dangerous Play.

The tip tackle was included in an IRB Law update memo about 18 months ago ensuring that it was regulated as Dangerous Play under Law 10.4, the minimum requirement for a tip tackle is a penalty under Law 10.4. Further action taken by the referee regarding a yellow or red card is entirely at his discretion.

Given that POB stated in his referees briefing prior to the WC that tip tackling would be under very close scrutiny, a penalty only (ie no further action) should be considered a let-off; there have been a number of "let-offs" and also a number of yellow cards that have then attracted further punishment in the way of suspensions, however there has been only one red card, and if anyone can point out to me where that was the worst example of a tip tackle during this WC I'll stand corrected.

For the avoidance of doubt, holding a player whilst driving him forcefully downwards with his legs above his waist is a worse offence than dropping a player in the same position.

As I've posted before the IRB directive said "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."Just because other referees have bottled it doesn't mean Rolland was wrong. The fact that the other players have received bans after getting away with yellows shows that the other refs were wrong.

Proof please, I think you made that bit up.

If this were the case there would have been a number of problems with refs in previous games, surely they would know that the tip tackle demands a red card?

Its from a letter sent by paddy o'brien, who is in charge of the referees, to referees two years ago, outlining the new directive on dangerous tackling. Why would I make it up? Just because the other referees have made mistakes doesn't mean rolland is wrong. Other referees have been happy to give a yellow in the knowledge that the citing commissioner will do his job for him. Rolland actually has the balls to make the decision himself and not take the easy way out. He should be applauded for that especially as it was the correct decision.

[Standulstermen]

http://p.twimg.com/AbyShhqCQAI1G62.jpg:large

[lostinwales]

Has there been any clarification on why Wales were awarded the penalty that 1/2p missed? Was there something else happening - otherwise it was pretty obvious Charteris was handling on the ground and it was right in front of AR

[PJHolybloke]

Well I can only speak for myself here, but until and unless anyone can correct me - the only obligation on Rolland was to award a penalty for Dangerous Play.

The tip tackle was included in an IRB Law update memo about 18 months ago ensuring that it was regulated as Dangerous Play under Law 10.4, the minimum requirement for a tip tackle is a penalty under Law 10.4. Further action taken by the referee regarding a yellow or red card is entirely at his discretion.

The laws were amended in december to put player welfare 1st. There is to be zero tolerance for spear or tip tackles and that includes dropping the player.

I'm perfectly aware of the Law change rodders, the zero tolerance that you refer to was that tip tackles were to be regulated by Law 10.4 Dangerous Play, and therefore in every instance of a tip tackle the referee is obliged by the Law to punish it with a penalty. It does not mean that tip tackles were to be punished with a red card, any carding is down to the referees discretion and should be in line with the severity of the offence.

If there was an opportunity to get this right it was in the group games where such tackles either resulted in a penalty only, or in a penalty and yellow card. I don't recall any demands for players to be red-carded in those games and I don't recall anyone quoting any Laws about zero-tolerance then either.

Here's the fact, everybody would like to play on a level field and the referees are largely responsible for that being the case, given that this is not the worst tip tackle of the WC and yet the only one that has been deemed worthy of a red card, is grossly unfair to Wales as other teams have gotten off lightly.

Incidentally, where Rolland's previous refereeing of the tip tackle is concerned, why not check out his sending off of Florian Fitz for dumping Varndell in the HC, then come back and give your honest opinion of how similar the two tackles are?

In my opinion Rolland got the Fitz decision right and the Warburton one wrong, I also have no axe to grind based on nationality as I'm English.

[Standulstermen]

Has there been any clarification on why Wales were awarded the penalty that 1/2p missed? Was there something else happening - otherwise it was pretty obvious Charteris was handling on the ground and it was right in front of AR

The french player did come in at the side after that but Rolland missed the first infringement. Very poor call as he was looking straight at it. You could see Charteris glance at him expecting the penalty against him

[englandglory4ever]

Has there been any clarification on why Wales were awarded the penalty that 1/2p missed? Was there something else happening - otherwise it was pretty obvious Charteris was handling on the ground and it was right in front of AR

I agree. That decision was mystifying. It looked like a Pen against Wales to me.

[Cymroglan]

Came in from the side

[PJHolybloke]

http://p.twimg.com/AbyShhqCQAI1G62.jpg:large

Thanks, that's very helpful. It states that a red card should be the start point and work backwards, in other words think red card and then think if there are any reasons that a red card should not be awarded, there are two.

1. Clerc was not forced into the ground.
2. Clerc was not dropped from height.

Warburton had clearly let go and therefore no force other than gravity was at play.

Clerc hit the ground from less than 4 feet, this is clearly not "height" this is perfectly normal and reasonable.

These are the two instances in which a red card "should be given".

Finally, the memo states that other instances of the tip tackle should incur a penalty OR yellow card as sufficient punishment.

Case closed, Rolland got it wrong.

[Standulstermen]

Sorry but Clerc was dropped from a height.

PJ you are incorrect on this one. You can dislike the rules or the memo from POB but Rolland made a fair call.

[A World Cup and 3 Finals]

After all the ridiculous and ignorant comments from the studio (Ryder and co hang your heads in shame), how refreshing to go to Shane Williams for the first considered and level headed assessment of the game - and he was playing in it Good lad!

[valjester]

http://p.twimg.com/AbyShhqCQAI1G62.jpg:large

Thanks, that's very helpful. It states that a red card should be the start point and work backwards, in other words think red card and then think if there are any reasons that a red card should not be awarded, there are two.

1. Clerc was not forced into the ground.
2. Clerc was not dropped from height.

Warburton had clearly let go and therefore no force other than gravity was at play.

Clerc hit the ground from less than 4 feet, this is clearly not "height" this is perfectly normal and reasonable.

These are the two instances in which a red card "should be given".

Finally, the memo states that other instances of the tip tackle should incur a penalty and yellow card as sufficient punishment.

Case closed, Rolland got it wrong.

He was dropped from a height and he had been twisted past the vertical, it is a dangerous tackle and it can cause serious injury. Just because other refs bottled the decision in the group stages doesn't mean rolland is wrong.

Four feet is quite a height to be dropped on your neck.

[Standulstermen]

http://p.twimg.com/AbyShhqCQAI1G62.jpg:large

Thanks, that's very helpful. It states that a red card should be the start point and work backwards, in other words think red card and then think if there are any reasons that a red card should not be awarded, there are two.

1. Clerc was not forced into the ground.
2. Clerc was not dropped from height.

Warburton had clearly let go and therefore no force other than gravity was at play.

Clerc hit the ground from less than 4 feet, this is clearly not "height" this is perfectly normal and reasonable.

These are the two instances in which a red card "should be given".

Finally, the memo states that other instances of the tip tackle should incur a penalty and yellow card as sufficient punishment.

Case closed, Rolland got it wrong.

He was dropped from a height and he had been twisted past the vertical, it is a dangerous tackle and it can cause serious injury. Just because other refs bottled the decision in the group stages doesn't mean rolland is wrong.

Four feet is quite a height to be dropped on your neck.

[PJHolybloke]

Sorry but Clerc was dropped from a height.

PJ you are incorrect on this one. You can dislike the rules or the memo from POB but Rolland made a fair call.

No I'm not wrong, how can 4 feet constitute a "height"?

By referring to a "height" it is clearly stating that just dropping a player is not sufficient to warrant a red card, it has to involve an element of "height" that is considered unreasonable or unusual. Clerc was dropped from no more than 4 feet - it was possibly closer to three when Warburton let go to ensure Clerc wasn't forced into the ground in a dangerous manner, so not only was height not a factor, Warburton's actions looked to be entirely in keeping with having Clerc's safety in mind, something which he later verbalised in the press conference.

Rolland got it wrong.

[robbo277]

Has there been any clarification on why Wales were awarded the penalty that 1/2p missed? Was there something else happening - otherwise it was pretty obvious Charteris was handling on the ground and it was right in front of AR

I agree. That decision was mystifying. It looked like a Pen against Wales to me.

Harinordiquay was legal and should have got the turnover had Charteris not played it on the ground. How the referee missed it is beyond me, but he did. As Harinordiquay had contested the ball, I believe Mas had to come from behind the back foot if he wanted to play at it, which he didn't.

Should have been penalty France, but there was a French infringement in there after the initial one by Charteris.

[PJHolybloke]

http://p.twimg.com/AbyShhqCQAI1G62.jpg:large

Thanks, that's very helpful. It states that a red card should be the start point and work backwards, in other words think red card and then think if there are any reasons that a red card should not be awarded, there are two.

1. Clerc was not forced into the ground.
2. Clerc was not dropped from height.

Warburton had clearly let go and therefore no force other than gravity was at play.

Clerc hit the ground from less than 4 feet, this is clearly not "height" this is perfectly normal and reasonable.

These are the two instances in which a red card "should be given".

Finally, the memo states that other instances of the tip tackle should incur a penalty and yellow card as sufficient punishment.

Case closed, Rolland got it wrong.

He was dropped from a height and he had been twisted past the vertical, it is a dangerous tackle and it can cause serious injury. Just because other refs bottled the decision in the group stages doesn't mean rolland is wrong.

Four feet is quite a height to be dropped on your neck.

But he wasn't dropped on his neck was he? Why try and sensationalise it? Clerc was dropped onto his shoulders and back from a height of four feet maximum.

[Standulstermen]

Sorry but Clerc was dropped from a height.

PJ you are incorrect on this one. You can dislike the rules or the memo from POB but Rolland made a fair call.

No I'm not wrong, how can 4 feet constitute a "height"?

By referring to a "height" it is clearly stating that just dropping a player is not sufficient to warrant a red card, it has to involve an element of "height" that is considered unreasonable or unusual. Clerc was dropped from no more than 4 feet - it was possibly closer to three when Warburton let go to ensure Clerc wasn't forced into the ground in a dangerous manner, so not only was height not a factor, Warburton's actions looked to be entirely in keeping with having Clerc's safety in mind, something which he later verbalised in the press conference.

Rolland got it wrong.

How is letting go of a guy who is upside down after you have turned him that way 'showing regard' for his safety? His neck hit the ground along with his shoulders! Im not going to argue anymore. Suffice to say i doubt the IRB will agree with you either. anyway im not going to argue in circle anymore.

[PJHolybloke]

Sorry but Clerc was dropped from a height.

PJ you are incorrect on this one. You can dislike the rules or the memo from POB but Rolland made a fair call.

No I'm not wrong, how can 4 feet constitute a "height"?

By referring to a "height" it is clearly stating that just dropping a player is not sufficient to warrant a red card, it has to involve an element of "height" that is considered unreasonable or unusual. Clerc was dropped from no more than 4 feet - it was possibly closer to three when Warburton let go to ensure Clerc wasn't forced into the ground in a dangerous manner, so not only was height not a factor, Warburton's actions looked to be entirely in keeping with having Clerc's safety in mind, something which he later verbalised in the press conference.

Rolland got it wrong.

How is letting go of a guy who is upside down after you have turned him that way 'showing regard' for his safety? Im not going to argue anymore. Suffice to say i doubt the IRB will agree with you either. anyway im not going to argue in circle anymore.

Because if he had held on to him he would have forced him into the ground using his own body momentum as well as the force of gravity, I would have thought that was obvious.

I'm off out anyway.

[Guest]

How is letting go of a guy who is upside down after you have turned him that way 'showing regard' for his safety?

Context, letting go at the point he did showed regard, as he could have driven him down would show disregard.

[valjester]

Sorry but Clerc was dropped from a height.

PJ you are incorrect on this one. You can dislike the rules or the memo from POB but Rolland made a fair call.

No I'm not wrong, how can 4 feet constitute a "height"?

By referring to a "height" it is clearly stating that just dropping a player is not sufficient to warrant a red card, it has to involve an element of "height" that is considered unreasonable or unusual. Clerc was dropped from no more than 4 feet - it was possibly closer to three when Warburton let go to ensure Clerc wasn't forced into the ground in a dangerous manner, so not only was height not a factor, Warburton's actions looked to be entirely in keeping with having Clerc's safety in mind, something which he later verbalised in the press conference.

Rolland got it wrong.

How is letting go of a guy who is upside down after you have turned him that way 'showing regard' for his safety? His neck hit the ground along with his shoulders! Im not going to argue anymore. Suffice to say i doubt the IRB will agree with you either. anyway im not going to argue in circle anymore.

I would say anyone who has been on the end of one of those type of tackles would agree that it was dangerous and be happy to see them stamped out of the game. The types of injuries you get from those types of tackles are serious and unless you're a professional, they are very difficult to recover from because you don't have the luxury of the best treatment nor the time to recover properly.

[Davie]

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if those who are still in denial over the rights of the red card have actually seen all the replays.

To be fair, the main camera angle/realtime footage didn't look THAT bad.

The other two angles clearly show that it was a red card offense

[Guest]

The other two angles clearly show that it was a red card offense

Personally I can see why a red was issued, due to the letter of the law, rolland was correct. I don't agree with the letter of the law, but I do respect why they are there. IMO refs should have more discretion (with or without the aid of technology or consultation with TJ's) in certain incidents.

[Irish Curry]

It was a red card there is no doubt, Clerc was extremly lucky though because he could have been left in a wheelchair for the rest of his life as a result of the tackle so no the rules are not wrong and I fully agree with them though it did appear that Warburton did not try to hurt him that does not matter.

Commiserations to Wales though, I'm feeling gutted for you for some reason What a game though it was very entertening.

[phildange]

Doesn't anybody wonder why Wales barely launched attacks in the wide side, why they consistently tried to penetrate though the center ? Many people said the French looked deficient in close defense and it seems the Welsh only tried that, although their terrific three-quarters could have passed sometime in a fully open game .
If I was Welsh I would regret this sort of incredible blindness .

[Cymroglan]

14 v 15 would give them a extra defender

[Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler]

Im posting this all oevr because Im sick of the smae cirular rubbish coming frm people. Rioolland applied teh letter of teh law correctly as per IRB instruction

Heres the latest memo :

IRB Memo:

In 2007, the IRB Council approved a Laws Designated Members Ruling which essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and constitute dangerous play.


At a subsequent IRB High Performance Referee Seminar at Lensbury referees were advised that for these types of tackles they were to start at red card as a sanction and work backwards.


Unfortunately these types of tackles are still being made and the purpose of this memorandum is to emphasize that they must be dealt with severely by referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.


Attached is a recent decision of the Judicial Officer Jannie Lubbe SC, in which the differences between the application of the red card test by referees and judicial personnel is highlighted.


In our view, this decision correctly highlights that the lifting of players in the tackle and then either forcing or dropping them to the ground is dangerous and must be dealt with severely.


To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the ground:


The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
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.
For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.


Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) of the circumstances of the tackle.

Rolland is being hung out to dry by the media and its just wrong. He did his job perfectly, critisize the law by all means but not him for doing his job.
And then go sask Warburton what the hell he thought he was doing.

[Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler]

The other two angles clearly show that it was a red card offense

Personally I can see why a red was issued, due to the letter of the law, rolland was correct. I don't agree with the letter of the law, but I do respect why they are there. IMO refs should have more discretion (with or without the aid of technology or consultation with TJ's) in certain incidents.

The perfect attitude, thankyou for being sane

[Thomond]

Wales you were unlucky today if the post were a bit shorter you may be there (bit of a deja vu from the 2009 GS game!). The 14 guys on the park didn't get enough credit they put in a massive effort and were it not for some poor goalkicking then who knows?

I believed it was a red and still do but it can't be the main complaint of the Welsh, they could have and should have won.

[Taffineastbourne]

If we had kicked our points we would have won comfortably.Our players missed the kicks,not the ref.If only one had gone over Sam's card would still have been harsh.I believe we would have appealed to enable Sam to play in the Final.
Ifs and buts and maybes!
Proud of the whole squad and I thank each and everyone for their efforts and endeavour.

[valjester]

If we had kicked our points we would have won comfortably.Our players missed the kicks,not the ref.If only one had gone over Sam's card would still have been harsh.I believe we would have appealed to enable Sam to play in the Final.
Ifs and buts and maybes!
Proud of the whole squad and I thank each and everyone for their efforts and endeavour.

I doubt you would have won any appeal, especially considering the bans handed out already in the tournament.

Priestland was a huge loss today, his kicking and general play have been crucial to wales play in the world cup up to the semi. I don't think anyone would have thought that before the summer.

[Sponsored content]