Sam Warburton Red Card

by formerly known as Sam Sat Oct 15, 2011 7:35 pm

First topic message reminder :

Good call from the ref a definite spear tackle. Has there been a more stupid piece of play this world cup?

by HammerofThunor Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:42 am

PJHolybloke wrote:Of course the IRB will have to ban him now wont they......?

No, they don't. It's an automatic citing to see if additional sanctions are required. If the IRB think it should have been yellow then he won't get any ban. It'll be an interesting citing report if it's released

by valjester Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:42 am

DOD wrote:Red stag thinks he is reffing a game..i have made my decision young man and there ends the discussion.

The directive is clear, he lifted him in the tackle, turned him and then dropped him and regardless of what happened next he was lucky he did not get seriously injured. If Clerc had broken his neck or shoulder would a red card be justified.

These tackles are being targeted its unfortunate it being a sf but thems the rules

The colour of the card should not depend on whether a player is injured or not. I'll admit I'm slightly biased on this issue as I've been involved in a similar incident. The player got away with a similar tackle because my teammate wasn't injured and only a penalty was awarded, same player did the same tackle on me and I wasn't so lucky and haven't played since. So for that reason I'm completely for red cards for these type of tackles and hopefully they'll disappear from the game forever.

edit PJHolybloke; Clerc was dropped on to his neck/shoulder, two feet is high enough to do significant damage. So it was from a height. If there was due regard to clerc's safety he wouldn't have fallen on his neck.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:45 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Biscuit, I think we'll agree to differ

By the way, why have you changed your location? Have you moved recently?

I have a Welsh grandparent I conviently remebered about halfway through England France, quickly shifted my loyalties.

Now a proud Welshman ( Ill wait and see how the 6 nations is shaping up before commiting my long term future)

ha, ha, good man

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:47 am

PJHolybloke wrote:Well, for the last time I'm going to throw my hat in the ring here.

If we can all agree that Warburton did not "force" Clerc into the ground, we must also all agree that the directive under which Rolland red-carded Warburton was the second of the red card mandates namely:

"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."

This is where the disagreement starts, and it's quite clear why - it's not an automatic red card to drop a player, so anyone who thinks Warburton was carded just because he "dropped" Clerc needs to look a little closer at the directive.

If it was a red card offence to drop a player, it would say so, it's a pretty clear fact of physics that if you drop a player there has to be an element of height involved as it's impossible to drop a player who is on the ground, in that case height would not need to be mentioned.

It says that it is a red card offence to "drop a player from a height with no regard to his personal safety".

It's quite plain, when you look at it as a piece of English grammar, that there's no punctuation in the sentence and therefore the two elements of height and personal safety are mutually inclusive.

In other words Rolland has decided that Warburton dropped Clerc from a dangerous height and did so with no thought for Clerc's safety.

Clerc was dropped by Warburton when he was about hip high, given Warburton's height of 6'2" is the same as mine, Clerc would have had about 39 inches of free fall, not enough height to cause any damage unless it was head first, Warburton did not drop Clerc head first. Furthermore, given that Warburton was going to ground at the point at which Clerc's hips went above his head, had Warburton kept hold of him, he would not have been able to put him down safely and would, if anything have had more potential to cause Clerc injury by holding on to him.

So, not only was the height negligible in terms of danger but also Warburton did the only thing he could do to minimise the risk of injury to Clerc and thereby ensure (to the best of his ability) Clerc's personal safety, he dropped him.

Personally, I reckon Rolland got it wrong and red carded Warburton because he thought Warburton had dumped Clerc with force.

If the IRB wanted tacklers to get a red just for "dropping" a player, they would have stated that in the memo.

Of course the IRB will have to ban him now wont they......?

+1

by Knowsit17 Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:48 am

PJHolybloke wrote:Of course the IRB will have to ban him now wont they......?

Maybe not if you'd be kind enough to mail that exact statement to the panel Shocked

I do agree, people keep citing the fact that Warburton dropped Clerc as the main danger, yet if he hadn't dropped him then logically wouldn't the momentum have caused him to drive Clerc into the ground, possibly at an even worse angle than he was already at?

by Guest Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:52 am

Knowsit17 wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:Of course the IRB will have to ban him now wont they......?

Maybe not if you'd be kind enough to mail that exact statement to the panel

I do agree, people keep citing the fact that Warburton dropped Clerc as the main danger, yet if he hadn't dropped him then logically wouldn't the momentum have caused him to drive Clerc into the ground, possibly at an even worse angle than he was already at?

This has been discussed ad nauseum, but why pick him up that high in the first place? You can smash players backwards without lifting their legs that high and tipping them. Warburton put himself (and Clerc) into a very difficult situation where it was almost impossible for it to end well. That's why he was carded.

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:53 am

This one's got red card written all over it - and guess what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCV_rRiCHvU&feature=player_detailpage

by lauriehow Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:54 am

I feel it best to look at it at actual speed...W took him down quite close to the ground and flat on his back, so not head or neck down, and not from a height....strong case to argue yes a dangerous tackle but in the yellow zone due to care taken NOT to hurt victim. Rolland I guess entitled to see it as either cat 1 or 2 with auto red card, but really should have consulted. Did anyone hear a ref-link consultation with the assistants?

by Guest Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:57 am

PJHolybloke wrote:This one's got red card written all over it - and guess what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCV_rRiCHvU&feature=player_detailpage

That doesn't make Warburton's offence any less serious though. It just means the ref was wrong to only award a yellow on the vid.

by ME-109 Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:06 am

Valjester...sorry to hear about what happened. I was only making that comment because I think it doesnt matter what injury happens. Its what could happen is the issue and as in your case apparently did.

The tackle was dangerous. Clerc was lucky he had his head tucked into his chin, a further rotation of a couple of inches would have seen him come down on his head.

The lawyeresque arguements by some are valid but misplaced. If the law only related to Spear tackling as it did in the past then this wasnt a red card. However there is no ambiguity and it doesnt matter if it was 2, 4 or 6+ feet that Clerc fell to the ground. He was tackled and upended and put in a dangerous position from which serious injury could happen. Dangerous and the sanction is clear.

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:08 am

It tells me they were the wrong way around SafeAs, and yes Warburton's tackle is way less serious than Ioane's.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:09 am

And that was before the latest memo and the extra instruction to the refs and warning to the players gven for the world cup

laurie....warburton himslef said that he didnt control the player down, and wasnt in control of the tackle at all. The way the law is written and explained you have to control the motion of the player. He did not lower him safely, therefor he should be red carded. Its a pretty simple and explicit instruction, trying to lawyer around it doesnt change what happened and the intent of the law clarification from the IRB.
They want all tip tackles removed form the game, if you tip a player its your responsibility to ensure they are lowered safely. Warburton didnt do that. The sanction of rfaliure is a reed crad. He got one.

A lot of players and coaches and refs dont like it, but its the way the game should be reffed untill the iRB issues further instruction.

by Cymroglan Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:10 am

If we are going to issue red cards for what could happen then should there not be far more reds issued for high tackles.

by BlueMuff Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:11 am

lauriehow wrote:I feel it best to look at it at actual speed...W took him down quite close to the ground and flat on his back, so not head or neck down, and not from a height....strong case to argue yes a dangerous tackle but in the yellow zone due to care taken NOT to hurt victim. Rolland I guess entitled to see it as either cat 1 or 2 with auto red card, but really should have consulted. Did anyone hear a ref-link consultation with the assistants?

Your not getting how dangerous that tackle is. It could easily have broken his neck. There is no grey area here. Players safety must come first. It was red no if or buts or need to consult with anybody.

by Cymroglan Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:15 am

BlueMuff so that means that every similar tackle should end up with the red card you know and I know that will never happen.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:16 am

Cymroglan wrote:If we are going to issue red cards for what could happen then should there not be far more reds issued for high tackles.

Maybe for fending off a player with outstretched fingers and raking across their eyes ( cough North cough )

They are trying to eradictae all these things. Ask Botha about charging, even the Lions players backed him on that. The sanctions on high tackjles are tougher than they used to be, fighting too ( ask Samoa, Wales were lucky to get out of their group because of that )
Not everyone in teh game likes it, thats pretty evident form the reaction of many pundits. But its happeneing.
Once the IRB got their safety review done what were they suppossed to do? Ignore the findings? Im just glad they havent yet depowered the scrum, that will probably come in the next few years though.

by **rodders** Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:17 am

Gees theres some serious straw clutching going on here. I can't believe people are seriously debating what "a height with no regard to his personal safety" means? WTF!

Are the IRB directives that hard to understand?

Is it so hard to admit that Rolland made the correct call as per the IRB directive which all the players were made aware of?

Some people seem to be struggling with their basic anatomy. Clerc landed on the back of his neck/shoulder area. To my knowledge that is nowhere near the flat of the back and dangerously close to the head. That fits the bill with the IRB's definition of head/upper body to me.

Some might feel the rule is harsh, I personally do, but Warburtons tackle ticks every single box for a red card offence as the rule stands.

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:21 am

DOD wrote:Valjester...sorry to hear about what happened. I was only making that comment because I think it doesnt matter what injury happens. Its what could happen is the issue and as in your case apparently did.

The tackle was dangerous. Clerc was lucky he had his head tucked into his chin, a further rotation of a couple of inches would have seen him come down on his head.

The lawyeresque arguements by some are valid but misplaced. If the law only related to Spear tackling as it did in the past then this wasnt a red card. However there is no ambiguity and it doesnt matter if it was 2, 4 or 6+ feet that Clerc fell to the ground. He was tackled and upended and put in a dangerous position from which serious injury could happen. Dangerous and the sanction is clear.

It matters entirely how high the fall was, it's called free fall acceleration and dictates the speed at which an object hits the deck, the higher the fall - the faster the impact and in humans the risk of injury will be proportionate to the height and therefore speed of impact.

The rotation of a further couple of inches is irrelevant, the tackle has to be judged on it's actual merits, not the merits of a hypothetical situation that didn't occur.

It's not a laweresque argument it's a statement of facts as opposed to conjecture as to what could have happened to Clerc had this, that or t'other happened.

by ME-109 Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:25 am

Ok...so the facts he had about a 4-6 foot fall head first, the kinetic energy from the lift and upending meant he hit the ground at a high speed, he wasnt lifted and held so that that energy was disippated. he could have broken his neck and was lucky his head was tucked in (regardless of rotation).

by **LondonTiger** Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:27 am

I can understand people close to the Wales team re-acting as they have, and yes the decision to send Warburton off had a major impact on the game (though no more than Hook/Jones kicking away so much possession). Frankly France were so poor they did not deserve to go through.

BUT in Robert Jones words on 5Live today "As the laws stand the referee made the only decision available to him". I wish the appalling commentary team on ITV had even a vague understanding of the laws.

Wales should still have won that match - but the only people they can blame are themselves.

by **rodders** Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:27 am

PJHolybloke wrote:
It matters entirely how high the fall was, it's called free fall acceleration and dictates the speed at which an object hits the deck, the higher the fall - the faster the impact and in humans the risk of injury will be proportionate to the height and therefore speed of impact.

Actually no it does not matter, not in terms of whether it is a red card or not. The rule applies to everyone equally irrespective of the players body dimensions.

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:32 am

roddersm wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:
It matters entirely how high the fall was, it's called free fall acceleration and dictates the speed at which an object hits the deck, the higher the fall - the faster the impact and in humans the risk of injury will be proportionate to the height and therefore speed of impact.

Actually no it does not matter, not in terms of whether it is a red card or not. The rule applies to everyone equally irrespective of the players body dimensions.

Given that the Law is there to protect players personal safety and the fact that a players safety will be more at risk the higher the fall how can you say the height has nothing to do with it?

As I made clear earlier, if height did not matter the memo would simply state that dropping a player from a tip tackle would be an instant red card offence, it doesn't do that because clearly height is a factor where personal safety is involved, and that IS the Law that applies to everyone equally.

by ME-109 Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:33 am

Pj if you arent a lawyer you are a loss to that profession.

by maestegmafia Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:36 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:Good call from the ref a definite spear tackle. Has there been a more stupid piece of play this world cup?

NO

As Ed Morrison England's chief referee, and an exceptional referee in his day, said on radio five today it was not a spear tackle but was dangerous and worthy of a red card.

The reason so many people can't believe it was that Warburton is such a brilliant player, a fair player, his candour has been excellent on and off the pitch and we are just shocked that it happened.

What a shame. But what a team, what a squad, what a great world cup.

Well done Wales you really made us proud of you.

by JDandfries Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:39 am

To all the Welsh fans moaning about the Referee...

Please take your mind back to when some people, including me, were complaining about Mr Barnes failing to notice Contepomi yards offside against Scotland, the majority of you scoffed at the complaints and said we shouldn't blame the ref and should have wonm the game anyway!

Well, how does it feel for the boot to be on the other foot?

Your complaints about the ref are invalid as you should have won the game anyway!

Hard luck!

by BlueNote Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:39 am

PJ is clearly right on height!

Interesting to see Robert Jones' view - he feels that the rule should give more discretion to the ref to make the call according to the circumstances, but that according to the rule as it stands the decision was the right one.

by **rodders** Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:39 am

PJHolybloke wrote:Given that the Law is there to protect players personal safety and the fact that a players safety will be more at risk the higher the fall how can you say the height has nothing to do with it?

As I made clear earlier, if height did not matter the memo would simply state that dropping a player from a tip tackle would be an instant red card offence, it doesn't do that because clearly height is a factor where personal safety is involved, and that IS the Law that applies to everyone equally.

PJ what are you talking about? The laws do state clearly that dropping a player from a tip tackle is a Red card! Stop being fecking obtuse it is obvious what "from a height means" and it is feck all to do with the actual height of the tackler. If a player lifts another player in the air and doesn't bring him down safely it is a red card.

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:57 am

roddersm wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:Given that the Law is there to protect players personal safety and the fact that a players safety will be more at risk the higher the fall how can you say the height has nothing to do with it?

As I made clear earlier, if height did not matter the memo would simply state that dropping a player from a tip tackle would be an instant red card offence, it doesn't do that because clearly height is a factor where personal safety is involved, and that IS the Law that applies to everyone equally.

PJ what are you talking about? The laws do state clearly that dropping a player from a tip tackle is a Red card! Stop being fecking obtuse it is obvious what "from a height means" and it is feck all to do with the actual height of the tackler. If a player lifts another player in the air and doesn't bring him down safely it is a red card.

The Laws DO NOT clearly state that dropping a player from a tip tackle is an automatic red card offence, I went to great pains of pointing that out earlier on.

I know it is obvious what "from a height" means, and I also explained quite carefully that if "a height" were the sole deciding factor it would infact be unecessary to mention it, as it isn't actually possible to drop anything unless it is first separated from the surface of the FECKING PLANET BY A MEASUREMENT OF FECKING HEIGHT!!! Very Happy

The key to the entire matter is that phrase "from a height with no regard to his personal safety" and the fact that the two elements are mutually inclusive, therefore the height from which a player is dropped has to be dangerous and the player has to be dropped with no regard to this danger bt the tackler.

Personally I don't see how either of these two required conditions for a red card were present.

by BlueNote Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:58 am

It looks as though the preponderance of more considered comment is that the ref was right by the letter of the law. If so, it seems wrong to me, given that it was an accidental situation from which SW tried to pull out when he realised what was happening. When you think of the straight red cards in international rugby over the years, for me it's just nothing like that. I would guess that is what was behind a lot of people's/pundits' initial reactions. That and knowing the player, who is anything but dirty.

Oh well, it'll make that victory in 2015 all the sweeter...

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:59 am

..... and for that reason - I'm oooot.

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:01 am

I can't see what the argument is, Warburton deserved his red for an awful tackle.

The posters on here look like really sore losers, at least we English can admit France deserved their victory.

Fair play to the Welsh lads who admit defeat and are looking forward to contesting for 3rd spot.

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:06 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't see what the argument is, Warburton deserved his red for an awful tackle.

The posters on here look like really sore losers, at least we English can admit France deserved their victory.

Fair play to the Welsh lads who admit defeat and are looking forward to contesting for 3rd spot.

I'm English, genius.

by John Cregan Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:09 am

Gutted for Wales, really gutted. Red card was right IMO and it took a brave referee to give it. Rolland is a fantastic referee. Would he have been brave enough to send off McCaw in similar circumstances..................

This sort of foul play obviously came to the fore when Mealamu & Umanga escaped a penalty, a sin bin, a red card and the 6 month bans(at least) they should have got for the O'Driscoll spear.

Today was no where as bad, nor was no worse than Lawes on Ladesma BUT it is the sort of tackle that endangers the well being of an opponent.

Warburton is a fantastic player and a good guy but Rolland was right and the message has gone out loud and clear that lifting and dropping a guy on to his head and leaving him with no means of protecting his fall is not allowed. Players must recognise they have a responsibility to take care of the tackled player in instances such as these.........................

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:21 am

PJHolybloke wrote:The key to the entire matter is that phrase "from a height with no regard to his personal safety" and the fact that the two elements are mutually inclusive, therefore the height from which a player is dropped has to be dangerous and the player has to be dropped with no regard to this danger bt the tackler.

Personally I don't see how either of these two required conditions for a red card were present.

Sorry PJHolybloke, I can't agree with you here. Height is simply not an issue in terms of what you mean. 'Height' under the current interpretation can mean an inch or dropping the player from row Z. The actual height is irrelevant. Momentum is equally important for you could do more damage dropping a player from two feet in the air if they are running at you at pace than if you are dropping from a standing position. Under your interpretation therefore if Luke Charteris tip tackled someone, because of his height, it is a red card. If Shane Williams did it then he could not due to the height from which they do it. That's a ridiculous situation. But then what do I know, I'm only a qualified referee.

The law was brought in to prevent players being lifted in the air AT ALL. The other way to safely return a player is onto their feet. Too many amateur players had been left in wheelchairs under the old rules. Sure, players may be harshly penalised for what essentially 'could' happen rather than what does. I personally am glad that such a rule exists.

In my eyes that was not a dangerous tackle. In the eyes of the law it is. Its simple unfortunately as much as I feel for Wales tonight. The referee has an obligation to player safety, not the spectacle or any other nonsense some other posters have spouted. Warburton had no need to lift Clerc off his feet. Warburton and Wales have one person to blame- Warburton.

by Taylorman Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:30 am

Yep. Agree.
Everyone had been complaining about refs being uninvolved, not stepping in when they should.
The message given to the semi final refs was clear...ACT!
Well rolaind acted. He made a call most refs would have made. Its not about context.
Its about dealing with the situation for the safety of other players.
Warburton probably pulled out too late. He had his arms around the legs and started lifting up upwards. Thats not how you tackle. By that point too late to pull out unless somehow he was quick enough prevent him from crashing.
Decisions all made in a split second.
After this, like the SA match wales failed to take their chances. 4 missed kickable goals.
No evidence to suggest warburton off directly affected their chances.
France were equally ineffective after the sending off.
Really gutted for wales as they did all the rugby. France did enough and did that poorly.
No chance of that team winning next week.

by bedfordwelsh Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:32 am

I think we have all seen those tackles get a yellow and some a red, by the letter of the law it was a red, though IMO a harsh one.

We often slate refs for not having the courage of their convictions etc but I would have at leats liked him to have a discussion with the touch judges etc get maybe their view on it.

BUT at the end of the day that wasn't the only incident that cost us the match, affected the game yes but not lost us the match in total.

by Casartelli Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:38 am

Consistency is the issue.

There have been half a dozen worse 'spear' tackles in this tournament - no red cards.

There will be hundreds more before the end of the current season - none will get red cards.

Warbs just happened to put one in the morning after a RWC Ref Pre-game Ruling Interpretation Presentation Cascade.

Rolland's day job is a financial adviser in Ireland(!). What did anyone expect.

Incompetence.

by John Cregan Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:42 am

Casartelli wrote:Consistency is the issue.

There have been half a dozen worse 'spear' tackles in this tournament - no red cards.

There will be hundreds more before the end of the current season - none will get red cards.

Warbs just happened to put one in the morning after a RWC Ref Pre-game Ruling Interpretation Presentation Cascade.

Rolland's day job is a financial adviser in Ireland(!). What did anyone expect.

Incompetence.

That's just a nonsensical comment.....................

i applaud Rolland for having the courage to make the call, and it is widely acknowledged that he is the best referee in the world..............

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:50 am

PJHolybloke wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't see what the argument is, Warburton deserved his red for an awful tackle.

The posters on here look like really sore losers, at least we English can admit France deserved their victory.

Fair play to the Welsh lads who admit defeat and are looking forward to contesting for 3rd spot.

I'm English, genius.

At what point did I direct that comment at you?

by Casartelli Sun Oct 16, 2011 5:54 am

John Cregan wrote:
Casartelli wrote:Consistency is the issue.

There have been half a dozen worse 'spear' tackles in this tournament - no red cards.

There will be hundreds more before the end of the current season - none will get red cards.

Warbs just happened to put one in the morning after a RWC Ref Pre-game Ruling Interpretation Presentation Cascade.

Rolland's day job is a financial adviser in Ireland(!). What did anyone expect.

Incompetence.

That's just a nonsensical comment.....................

i applaud Rolland for having the courage to make the call, and it is widely acknowledged that he is the best referee in the world..............

Think whatever you want.

Pienaar, Dallaglio and Ryder are legends of the game, and no fans of the Welsh, and they all stated that Rolland's call was that of an over-the-hill official, clinging on to the dregs of a refereeing career, in the spotlight of a RWC semi and unable to cope with the pressure of the situation.

And they know more than you.

by JDandfries Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:00 am

Casartelli wrote:
John Cregan wrote:
Casartelli wrote:Consistency is the issue.

There have been half a dozen worse 'spear' tackles in this tournament - no red cards.

There will be hundreds more before the end of the current season - none will get red cards.

Warbs just happened to put one in the morning after a RWC Ref Pre-game Ruling Interpretation Presentation Cascade.

Rolland's day job is a financial adviser in Ireland(!). What did anyone expect.

Incompetence.

That's just a nonsensical comment.....................

i applaud Rolland for having the courage to make the call, and it is widely acknowledged that he is the best referee in the world..............

Think whatever you want.

Pienaar, Dallaglio and Ryder are legends of the game, and no fans of the Welsh, and they all stated that Rolland's call was that of an over-the-hill official, clinging on to the dregs of a refereeing career, in the spotlight of a RWC semi and unable to cope with the pressure of the situation.

And they know more than you.

Suggest you go update yourselves on the rules along with Pienarr and Dayglo, who were all embarrassingly ignorant in their knowledge of the laws of the game!

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:01 am

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:The key to the entire matter is that phrase "from a height with no regard to his personal safety" and the fact that the two elements are mutually inclusive, therefore the height from which a player is dropped has to be dangerous and the player has to be dropped with no regard to this danger bt the tackler.

Personally I don't see how either of these two required conditions for a red card were present.

Sorry PJHolybloke, I can't agree with you here. Height is simply not an issue in terms of what you mean. 'Height' under the current interpretation can mean an inch or dropping the player from row Z. The actual height is irrelevant. Momentum is equally important for you could do more damage dropping a player from two feet in the air if they are running at you at pace than if you are dropping from a standing position. Under your interpretation therefore if Luke Charteris tip tackled someone, because of his height, it is a red card. If Shane Williams did it then he could not due to the height from which they do it. That's a ridiculous situation. But then what do I know, I'm only a qualified referee.

The law was brought in to prevent players being lifted in the air AT ALL. The other way to safely return a player is onto their feet. Too many amateur players had been left in wheelchairs under the old rules. Sure, players may be harshly penalised for what essentially 'could' happen rather than what does. I personally am glad that such a rule exists.

In my eyes that was not a dangerous tackle. In the eyes of the law it is. Its simple unfortunately as much as I feel for Wales tonight. The referee has an obligation to player safety, not the spectacle or any other nonsense some other posters have spouted. Warburton had no need to lift Clerc off his feet. Warburton and Wales have one person to blame- Warburton.

But you're not disagreeing with me are you? You're disagreeing with the memo from Paddy 'O Brien, if height weren't an issue the feckin memo would just say "if the tackler drops a player from a tip tackle situation it's a red feckin card, end of feckin story". The fact that it doesn't say that, is ABSOLUTELY FECKIN IMPLICIT in it's meaning that not only is the height important but it is also incontrovertibly linked to the tacklers lack of regard for the players safety.

As for you being a qualified ref, so what? Your interpretation of my so-called interpretation is absolute bollix, I never suggested for a second the tacklers height was important, I only mentioned Warburton's height as (it being the same as my own) it gave me a rough rule to establish that Clerc fell at best a little over three feet, go back and read it again - while you're at it read Paddy's memo again and ask yourself if height isn't important WHY THE FECK IS IT EVEN MENTIONED!!!

Honestly, O'Brien has nothing better to do than write memos to refs including information that's irrelevant? Doh

by Mick(TEFC) Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:02 am

Taylorman wrote:Yep. Agree.
Everyone had been complaining about refs being uninvolved, not stepping in when they should.
The message given to the semi final refs was clear...ACT!
Well rolaind acted. He made a call most refs would have made. Its not about context.
Its about dealing with the situation for the safety of other players.
Warburton probably pulled out too late. He had his arms around the legs and started lifting up upwards. Thats not how you tackle. By that point too late to pull out unless somehow he was quick enough prevent him from crashing.
Decisions all made in a split second.
After this, like the SA match wales failed to take their chances. 4 missed kickable goals.
No evidence to suggest warburton off directly affected their chances.
France were equally ineffective after the sending off.
Really gutted for wales as they did all the rugby. France did enough and did that poorly.
No chance of that team winning next week.

Last sentence;every team is due one big game,France are awaiting theirs;beware.

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:04 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:I can't see what the argument is, Warburton deserved his red for an awful tackle.

The posters on here look like really sore losers, at least we English can admit France deserved their victory.

Fair play to the Welsh lads who admit defeat and are looking forward to contesting for 3rd spot.

I'm English, genius.

At what point did I direct that comment at you?

At the point you used the expression "we English"? Very Happy

by BlueNote Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:06 am

"No evidence to suggest warburton off directly affected their chances."

Umm, obviously you can't run a replay of the match with him on the field to test it, but the stats are that a team down to 14 men for 10 mins due to yellow card ship on average 7 points, aren't they? Well, that kind of suggests losing a player typically does have an impact. This was for 60 mins, not 10. He was our captain and only openside and a very good player. I think we can safely infer it may have made quite a difference.

That's a different debate from whose fault it is, of course.

by Casartelli Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:06 am

Above all else, Rolland's incompetent rush of blood to the head and desire to be centre of attention has wrecked the tournament.

If NZ beat Aus, they'll put 50 on France (assuming they're allowed to play the full game with 15 players).

If Aus & France contest the final, we'll get the worst World Champions ever.

So annoying.

by Sgt_Pooly Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:11 am

So in the context it was put, do you not think we deserved to lose against France?

by Mick(TEFC) Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:11 am

Casartelli wrote:Above all else, Rolland's incompetent rush of blood to the head and desire to be centre of attention has wrecked the tournament.

If NZ beat Aus, they'll put 50 on France (assuming they're allowed to play the full game with 15 players).

If Aus & France contest the final, we'll get the worst World Champions ever.

So annoying.

I thought we were agreed that the decision was correct?
as for being the worst world champions ever, at least they will be world champions above the 92 other nations, and nothing or nobody can take that away.

by PJHolybloke Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:20 am

The bottom line for me is that Rolland acted very quickly, very decisively and without reference to his AR's - I reckon he "saw" Warburton drive Clerc down and carded him for the "spear" element rather than an "unsafe dropping from a height" element.

In either eventuality, my opinion is that he was entirely wrong to red card Warburton, and if he was "acting on the advice" of POB apparently dished out just before the semi-final stage began? I would suggest POB attempt the conundrum - door, stable, bolted, horse and get things in their proper order.

If there is a movement to crack down on certain elements of foul play during a World Cup tournament - do it from the start, nothing else makes sense.

by JDandfries Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:25 am

I find this really laughable, when infact it is really simple!

Under the laws was Warbvurtons tackle punishable by red card?

Yes, now move on!

by Sponsored content