Sam Warburton Red Card

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?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

red_stag wrote:Intent doesnt matter. Bekng reckless is enough. This is a very easy call for a ref to make. Can anyone give a valid reason why red shouldnt have been given? The way refs are.trained.to deal with this is start at red and work backwards. I am seeing a lot of peopls who are just trying to make square pegs fit in round holes.

Staggy, I believe that I can. The following phrase is obviously the key: "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." I've emphasised what I think are the two key phases, the first in italics and the second in bold. Both phrases offer the ref some latitude as regards interpretation imo As you know, I'm neutral as to the outcome of this particular match, but still feel the red was harsh

I know you well enough to know I won't change you mind. The Scots are like that

I think you'd want several instant replays and be trying to force the issue to arrive at that conclusion personally.

The facts are that he lifted and turned Clerc beyond the horizontal, let go off him and the player fell dangerously to the ground landing not on his legs or lower body, but rather his neck, shoulder and back.

A red card all day long for me. However, the best answer I've seen in favour of Warburtons actions - no silly references to the 'spectacle' or the fact it was early or intent or anything else lofty.

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

Totally, I predicted England losing in a QF against France as far back as August, I never really had any confidence in this England expedition as WC contenders and thought prior to the tournament that a semi-final place would be a relative success.

France weren't special in the way they beat England, the sad fact is they didn't have to be, but they won fair and square and Walsh had a very good game also.

PJHolybloke wrote: [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?

I mention that I am a qualified referee because I understand what the rule actually means and how it is to be interpreted. The fact that height is mentioned is to define the type of tackle. In order to leave players, coaches and referees in doubt as to what a 'spear' or 'tip' tackle is it is reiterated in the laws that it must be 'from a height', otherwise the tackle itself cannot a 'spear' or 'tip' tackle. That description that you continually cling to defines what that type of tackle is. Was Warburton's tackle from a height? Yes. Did he land the player with disregard for his safety? Yes as he dropped him. The fact that Clerc fell from 3 feet, 3 inches, 3 miles is totally irrelevant. You brought it up, not me. If you are unable to conduct yourself in a civilised way without resorting to childishness then so be it. You are being deliberately obtuse, your argument is totally flawed.

red_stag wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

red_stag wrote:Intent doesnt matter. Bekng reckless is enough. This is a very easy call for a ref to make. Can anyone give a valid reason why red shouldnt have been given? The way refs are.trained.to deal with this is start at red and work backwards. I am seeing a lot of peopls who are just trying to make square pegs fit in round holes.

Staggy, I believe that I can. The following phrase is obviously the key: "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." I've emphasised what I think are the two key phases, the first in italics and the second in bold. Both phrases offer the ref some latitude as regards interpretation imo As you know, I'm neutral as to the outcome of this particular match, but still feel the red was harsh

I know you well enough to know I won't change you mind. The Scots are like that

I think you'd want several instant replays and be trying to force the issue to arrive at that conclusion personally.

The facts are that he lifted and turned Clerc beyond the horizontal, let go off him and the player fell dangerously to the ground landing not on his legs or lower body, but rather his neck, shoulder and back.

A red card all day long for me. However, the best answer I've seen in favour of Warburtons actions - no silly references to the 'spectacle' or the fact it was early or intent or anything else lofty.

A long winded post that would hold some water if this 'interpretation' of the rule had been enforced for a period in the run up to the RWC.

To suddenly throw a red card in during a RWC semi? When far worse tackles had gone unpunished in the pool games?

Rugby was the loser.

And Rolland should hang up his whistle. He should have had the courage of his convictions to ignore the last-minute management directive.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote: [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?

I mention that I am a qualified referee because I understand what the rule actually means and how it is to be interpreted. The fact that height is mentioned is to define the type of tackle. In order to leave players, coaches and referees in doubt as to what a 'spear' or 'tip' tackle is it is reiterated in the laws that it must be 'from a height', otherwise the tackle itself cannot a 'spear' or 'tip' tackle. That description that you continually cling to defines what that type of tackle is. Was Warburton's tackle from a height? Yes. Did he land the player with disregard for his safety? Yes as he dropped him. The fact that Clerc fell from 3 feet, 3 inches, 3 miles is totally irrelevant. You brought it up, not me. If you are unable to conduct yourself in a civilised way without resorting to childishness then so be it. You are being deliberately obtuse, your argument is totally flawed.

Seriously? Do me a favour! A tip tackle is actually defined not by height but by the fact that the tackled players HIPS MUST be ABOVE his HEAD AND his feet be off the ground, the fact that the player is OFF the GROUND dictates that there is HEIGHT involved, so why would POB mention HEIGHT at all if it wasn't a question of degress?

I'm pretty sure the definition of a tip tackle is understood very well by players and coaches by the hips above the head definition.

Incidentally, the memo we're all referring to was adressed to Referees, Citing Comissioners, Judicial Officers and Non-Legal Judical Committee Members and not players or coaches, here's a copy of it for future reference:

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

As for me being childish? I'll admit to being a child just as soon as you admit you're not a referee - can't say fairer than that.

PJ Holy Bloke - theres a website called www.rugbyrefs.com

It is a referees only website and the poll on the "was it a red card" stands at 85% Yes - I'd recommend you check it out for the reasoning as many of you seem to have notions on what it should, could or might be.

However it is a red card offence - a very straightforward decision for Rolland.

Yes, of course, a ref should hang up his whistle for getting it right?

red_stag wrote:PJ Holy Bloke - theres a website called www.rugbyrefs.com

It is a referees only website and the poll on the "was it a red card" stands at 85% Yes - I'd recommend you check it out for the reasoning as many of you seem to have notions on what it should, could or might be.

However it is a red card offence - a very straightforward decision for Rolland.

you are 100% correct...

*Note - I don't believe Warburton meant to cause any harm. He isn't a dirty player.

red_stag wrote:PJ Holy Bloke - theres a website called www.rugbyrefs.com

It is a referees only website and the poll on the "was it a red card" stands at 85% Yes - I'd recommend you check it out for the reasoning as many of you seem to have notions on what it should, could or might be.

However it is a red card offence - a very straightforward decision for Rolland.

Did the "rugbyrefs" website carry out a poll on all the spear/tip/beyond horizontal tackles in this RWC?

Can't believe this is still running TBH.

By the law and directives it is a RC.

All arguments are therefore based around things like "since refs have gotten it wrong in previous matches Rolland should have given the wrong decision today", "it ruined the match", etc...

Whatever. If you don't think that that tackle deserved a RC (and I would strongly disagree with you, it could have done serious damage to Clerc) then write to your union and ask them to lobby the IRB for a law change.

Don't take out your anger on AR who deserves nothing but praise for disregarding the situation and applying the law correctly. Gutsy but right call.

Good man Mike.

This argument is nonsense.

i. similar (and worse) tackles will go unpunished before the end of RWC and will continue to go unpunished in future.

ii. implementing a change in the interpretation of the law during a tournament is insane.

red_stag wrote:PJ Holy Bloke - theres a website called www.rugbyrefs.com

It is a referees only website and the poll on the "was it a red card" stands at 85% Yes - I'd recommend you check it out for the reasoning as many of you seem to have notions on what it should, could or might be.

However it is a red card offence - a very straightforward decision for Rolland.

Honestly? Refs on a ref only forum - backing a ref? Who'd have thought that?

Why not take this opportunity to drop the "straightforward decision" angle and enlighten me on the wording of POB's memo and how it applied so precisely to Rolland's decsion?

I think that would be far more "straightforward" in terms of debating.

I was a player, and in terms of playing I would say Warburton deserved a yellow card for a tackle based on the current legislation rather than what I really think as a player. I've actually backed up my "objective" opinion by using the very memo and the letter of Law laid down in that memo to support my opinion, why don't you do the same?

PJHolybloke wrote: Seriously? Do me a favour! A tip tackle is actually defined not by height but by the fact that the tackled players HIPS MUST be ABOVE his HEAD AND his feet be off the ground, the fact that the player is OFF the GROUND dictates that there is HEIGHT involved, so why would POB mention HEIGHT at all if it wasn't a question of degress?

I'm pretty sure the definition of a tip tackle is understood very well by players and coaches by the hips above the head definition.

Incidentally, the memo we're all referring to was adressed to Referees, Citing Comissioners, Judicial Officers and Non-Legal Judical Committee Members and not players or coaches, here's a copy of it for future reference:

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

As for me being childish? I'll admit to being a child just as soon as you admit you're not a referee - can't say fairer than that.

And why is it a question of degrees? Has this been mentioned in any subsequent rules or regulations? The statement said it has to be done from a height. Was this the case in Warburton's tackle? Yes. What exactly is difficult for you to understand here? If you can tell me how a player can be dropped without doing it from a height then I would love to hear it. As I have reiterated again and again and others have clearly stated and if you bother to go to the referee's forum which is exceptionally useful you will discover that when it comes to interpretation in the match then 'height' is not a question of degrees. Height is anything off the ground. It's very simple. It is not a question of degrees. If want to hold onto the notion that it must be because it is implied then so be it. I am not giving you an opinion, I and others are categorically telling you that 'height' is not a matter of degrees when it comes to this law. Clear enough for you, or do I need to use caps lock like you so usefully do?

And no, the 'tip' tackle was not well understood. Maybe Red_Stag can help me out here if I have the right example but I think the IRFU questioned the interpretation after a series of incidents whereby a player's hips were perceived not to be above his head yet it caused serious injury thus a call for it to be clarified. I might not have the right union here, but it was certainly the case that it needed to be reevaluated. It had to be restated what was a dangerous tackle such as a 'spear' or 'tip' and what was merely a dangerous lifting tackle. One club, again I'm sure it was within the IRFU had players essentially 'bodyslamming' players, ie, picking them up, not lifting them past horizontal and then making the tackle. Referee's deemed they could not act as the player was not 'speared' into the ground. But sure how would I know that since I'm not a referee according to you.

You realise the Earth's not flat either right?

Casartelli wrote:This argument is nonsense.

i. similar (and worse) tackles will go unpunished before the end of RWC and will continue to go unpunished in future.

ii. implementing a change in the interpretation of the law during a tournament is insane.

i. While similar tackles were not red carded earlier in the tournament those tackles did result in bans for the tacklers, suggesting that they should have received reds.

ii. The law and interpretation was changed well before the tournament.

(j) 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.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Taken directly from IRBlaws.com No mention of a red card at all

As a matter of balance, my subjective opinion is that referees can ruin games of rugby, Warburton went in hot, checked himself and Clerc deserves a BAFTA.

That's how objective I've been so far...

PJHolybloke wrote:

Honestly? Refs on a ref only forum - backing a ref? Who'd have thought that?

You should see some of the comments on Bryce Lawrence's handling of Aus-SA...

mckay1402 wrote:(j) 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.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Taken directly from IRBlaws.com No mention of a red card at all

Goodness me I seem to have linked to this a few times today on various forums, facebook, etc.., but here goes:
http://www.deepsouthrugbyunion.com/images/IRB_Memorandum_re_Dangerous_Tackles.pdf
The relevant bits are:
"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 what happened.
Another relevant bit is:
"Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player."
That deals with arguments of "he didn't mean no harm", "it wasn't malicious", etc.

thats more like it PJ...just stop the pretence of trying to argue against the correct decision. You are being subjective and irrational...its perfectly normal to feel like that.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote: Seriously? Do me a favour! A tip tackle is actually defined not by height but by the fact that the tackled players HIPS MUST be ABOVE his HEAD AND his feet be off the ground, the fact that the player is OFF the GROUND dictates that there is HEIGHT involved, so why would POB mention HEIGHT at all if it wasn't a question of degress?

I'm pretty sure the definition of a tip tackle is understood very well by players and coaches by the hips above the head definition.

Incidentally, the memo we're all referring to was adressed to Referees, Citing Comissioners, Judicial Officers and Non-Legal Judical Committee Members and not players or coaches, here's a copy of it for future reference:

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

As for me being childish? I'll admit to being a child just as soon as you admit you're not a referee - can't say fairer than that.

And why is it a question of degrees? Has this been mentioned in any subsequent rules or regulations? The statement said it has to be done from a height. Was this the case in Warburton's tackle? Yes. What exactly is difficult for you to understand here? If you can tell me how a player can be dropped without doing it from a height then I would love to hear it. As I have reiterated again and again and others have clearly stated and if you bother to go to the referee's forum which is exceptionally useful you will discover that when it comes to interpretation in the match then 'height' is not a question of degrees. Height is anything off the ground. It's very simple. It is not a question of degrees. If want to hold onto the notion that it must be because it is implied then so be it. I am not giving you an opinion, I and others are categorically telling you that 'height' is not a matter of degrees when it comes to this law. Clear enough for you, or do I need to use caps lock like you so usefully do?

And no, the 'tip' tackle was not well understood. Maybe Red_Stag can help me out here if I have the right example but I think the IRFU questioned the interpretation after a series of incidents whereby a player's hips were perceived not to be above his head yet it caused serious injury thus a call for it to be clarified. I might not have the right union here, but it was certainly the case that it needed to be reevaluated. It had to be restated what was a dangerous tackle such as a 'spear' or 'tip' and what was merely a dangerous lifting tackle. One club, again I'm sure it was within the IRFU had players essentially 'bodyslamming' players, ie, picking them up, not lifting them past horizontal and then making the tackle. Referee's deemed they could not act as the player was not 'speared' into the ground. But sure how would I know that since I'm not a referee according to you.

You realise the Earth's not flat either right?

ITS A QUESTION OF DEGREES BECAUSE IF IT WEREN'T, IT WOULD MERELY STATE THAT DROPPING A PLAYER FROM A TIP TACKLE WOULD BE A RED CARD OFFENCE WOULDN'T IT?

AS FOR YOUR REACHING FOR HELP RE THE HIPS OVER THE HEAD DEFINITION? TRY THIS - LAND ON THE FLOOR UPPER-BODY FIRST WITH YOUR BRAIN SITUATED ABOVE YOUR A£$E, on second thoughts I guess that would be simultaneous impact in every case.

I know the Earth's not flat, it wasn't any form of realisation to be honest as I never formulated any opinion to the contrary. Are you aware there's no such thing as a straight line?

DOD wrote:thats more like it PJ...just stop the pretence of trying to argue against the correct decision. You are being subjective and irrational...its perfectly normal to feel like that.

Sorry, don't get that at all, my gut instinct was that Warburton needed a yellow card, that was subjective. Since then I've been told by the world and his brother that I'm wrong and Rolland had no choice but to red card Warburton, after looking at all the evidence in an objective manner, not only am I convinced that Rolland had plenty of leeway to NOT red card Warburton, but I am also struggling to find any justification whatsoever as to why he did.

Hey, I wonder why there are so many Irish posters on here backing up Rolland?

Now that's subjective for you.

Yes of course he had a choice but the directive was clear and he could have bottled it and not given a rc but he did what was required.

It tends to be one of the stories with Roland as to why certain teams/supporters dont like him its because he is a good ref and pretty clear.

As for why many Irish are backing up Roland I dont think there are particularly many but most are just pointing out the rules and the fact that there is no real ambiguity there even though some people are trying to see ambiguity where there is none.

But the rules DO have ambiguity DOD, and the only fact I can see is that Rolland had plenty of leeway from POB's memo to offer a yellow, he had plenty of opportunity to consult with his AR's as to what would be the best action to take based on someone else's opinion of the incident, but instead of either of those options Rolland chose the red card.

My opinion is that it was a bad choice based on both the evidence and options available.

From the memo and the information put forward by a couple of refs on this thread there didnt appear to be any ambiguity. So I think you are incorrect there as has been pointed out on a number of occassions.

It is a discussion site and everyone has an opinion but in this case there appears to be very little leeway in terms of the decision. Sure he could have not made the decision but he did...

I'm confused by the "consulting his assistant's" argument TBH: Rolland was the ref, his assistants weren't. He had a good view of the incident and decided what sanction would be appropriate. If an AR had said "sorry Allain for me it's only YC" (they wouldn't as if Rolland leads the conversation with "for me, red card" no AR would contradict him) why should he take their view (from further away) over his?

Personally I could tell from the whistle Rolland's first thought was RC, so he was sure.

But then TBH I'm a bit confused by this whole argument so...

Watch the speed of Rolands whistle at the first scrum. Watch his speed to send of Sam. He wanted France to win.....and if he is not a cheat he is an idiot. That was never a red card. He ruined the WC. France are now the worst team to ever reach a final and that is sad for rugby and New Zealand. My money is definitely on Roland retiring soon and going of to live in the south of France. The man is a ****.

I think it's time to stop feeding the troll. Clearly this guy in unable to comprehend the laws right in front of him despite people who are qualified referees telling him otherwise. It can't possibly he his total lack of intellect- it must be that it's a pan-Irish conspiracy to protect an Irish referee. But hold on, he's half French. The French must have been in on it too.

As previously stated it is not a question of degrees. This is not a shades of grey area- its black and white. It is not an opinion whether it is or not, it isn't. Again, can you please enlighten up how you can drop someone if it is not from a height? You can't. All you can do is be childish and revert to conspiracy theories and taunts. That's all you have on your side here- you don't have facts or knowledge or anything to back your point up. In your opinion you are saying it is a matter of degrees. If this was merely my a difference of opinions then so be it. I respect other people's opinions in here even when I feel they are wrong. You are categorically wrong. This is not a subjective discussion. It is 100% not a matter of degrees. Does that make sense to you. I repeat, it is a fact, black and white, categorically not a matter of degrees. Now you may believe you have found a loophole in law. That will be be for the IRB to sort out if it is. Perhaps you might want to defend the next player cited for such an offence. As far as I am aware, and if I am incorrect I stand open to being corrected, that this 'loophole' that you believe exists, has not been used as a defence in any ERC disciplinary hearing on dangerous tackles. So the question is this, are you clearly right and the entire refereeing panel, the ERC, the IRB and every lawyer who has defended a player where on has been used, or club official wrong? I'll leave that up to everyone else to decide. You see ambiguity where lawyers, people paid to find loopholes for God's sake in order to get players off with the least amount of suspension time possible, see none. I know who my money is on to be right. But as things stand, as stated by the IRB, as handed down to referees around the globe it is not a matter of degrees. And even, EVEN if you are right about a possible loophole existing, no one else of any significance believes it exists. Not the IRB, not the referees. Simply put you are wrong. If there was a subjective decision for referees to be made it would be among the various factors we would use to mitigate against a red card. I have not seen one memo, I have not been to one meeting, not have I heard in one course that we are to take height into consideration. Have any other referees heard or been told different? I would interested to hear from anyone that has.

But hey, I guess being juvenile and typing in caps lock makes you right. I and many, many, many others have given you several explanations of what the height is referring to and that it is not a factor of mitigation. Go and check out at some of the citing officers reports dealing on these matters retrospectively to see how it is interpreted. No doubt, despite not having an facts to back up your assertions, you will stick stoicly to your position. Good luck to you

Mike Selig wrote:I'm confused by the "consulting his assistant's" argument TBH: Rolland was the ref, his assistants weren't. He had a good view of the incident and decided what sanction would be appropriate. If an AR had said "sorry Allain for me it's only YC" (they wouldn't as if Rolland leads the conversation with "for me, red card" no AR would contradict him) why should he take their view (from further away) over his?

Personally I could tell from the whistle Rolland's first thought was RC, so he was sure.

But then TBH I'm a bit confused by this whole argument so...

But isn't the instruction to start at a red card and then work it backwards?

By the evidence I saw, there was never a question in Rolland's mind that backwards was an option, he saw something and called it without any hesitation whatsoever, the option of consulting his AR's would have assisted him in working the problem backwards if he felt there was any leeway, the fact that Rolland didn't seem to consider there was an option leads me to believe that Rolland thought Warburton stuffed Clerc into the deck, that is a red card with no ambiguity.

If Warburton had done that, I would agree. If Rolland thought that, it would explain everything.

However, Warburton did NOT stuff Clerc into the deck, so if Rolland thought he did it was a mistake - he was wrong, and if Rolland thought Warburton made a tackle then just dropped Clerc with no regard to his personal safety, he didn't explore the options far enough, so for me, wrong on both counts.

Bad call.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby-world-cup-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=522&objectid=10759399

PJHolybloke wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:I'm confused by the "consulting his assistant's" argument TBH: Rolland was the ref, his assistants weren't. He had a good view of the incident and decided what sanction would be appropriate. If an AR had said "sorry Allain for me it's only YC" (they wouldn't as if Rolland leads the conversation with "for me, red card" no AR would contradict him) why should he take their view (from further away) over his?

Personally I could tell from the whistle Rolland's first thought was RC, so he was sure.

But then TBH I'm a bit confused by this whole argument so...

But isn't the instruction to start at a red card and then work it backwards?

By the evidence I saw, there was never a question in Rolland's mind that backwards was an option, he saw something and called it without any hesitation whatsoever, the option of consulting his AR's would have assisted him in working the problem backwards if he felt there was any leeway, the fact that Rolland didn't seem to consider there was an option leads me to believe that Rolland thought Warburton stuffed Clerc into the deck, that is a red card with no ambiguity.

If Warburton had done that, I would agree. If Rolland thought that, it would explain everything.

However, Warburton did NOT stuff Clerc into the deck, so if Rolland thought he did it was a mistake - he was wrong, and if Rolland thought Warburton made a tackle then just dropped Clerc with no regard to his personal safety, he didn't explore the options far enough, so for me, wrong on both counts.

Bad call.

Rolland actually took a little while to issue the RC (he first checked briefly on the injured player after separating the two teams). Not very long, but long enough to look for mitigation. He found none because there was none to be found. The tackle was a drop from a height with no regard for the player's safety which warrants a RC.

Ospreydragon wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby-world-cup-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=522&objectid=10759399

Well, whilst that doesn't prove any of the points I've been trying to make all day Osprey, it does at least provide some form of solace that I'm not a lone voice, Rolland made a bad decision in my opinion, and I still will not accept that the "letter of the Law" condemned him to a red with no other options available.

The letter of the Law is ambiguous with regard to "dropping" a player who has been tip-tackled, Rolland did not explore all of the options.

Bad call, for all my days a bad call.

Right PJHolybloke and the upset Welsh fans are right. The referees, the neutrals, the RFU Referee Manager are all wrong.

PJ your argument is based on the spear tackle driving the tackled player but the directive is not ambiguous on that the rest of your arguement is facetious.

This is getting pretty boring now. People give out when refs don't play the laws and when the do they also give out.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Ospreydragon wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby-world-cup-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=522&objectid=10759399

Well, whilst that doesn't prove any of the points I've been trying to make all day Osprey, it does at least provide some form of solace that I'm not a lone voice, Rolland made a bad decision in my opinion, and I still will not accept that the "letter of the Law" condemned him to a red with no other options available.

The letter of the Law is ambiguous with regard to "dropping" a player who has been tip-tackled, Rolland did not explore all of the options.

Bad call, for all my days a bad call.

I think you are clutching at straws. The article states (quite correctly) that AR was right, but the law was wrong. The first is a matter of fact, the second a matter of opinion (which I don't share).

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:I think it's time to stop feeding the troll. Clearly this guy in unable to comprehend the laws right in front of him despite people who are qualified referees telling him otherwise. It can't possibly he his total lack of intellect- it must be that it's a pan-Irish conspiracy to protect an Irish referee. But hold on, he's half French. The French must have been in on it too.

As previously stated it is not a question of degrees. This is not a shades of grey area- its black and white. It is not an opinion whether it is or not, it isn't. Again, can you please enlighten up how you can drop someone if it is not from a height? You can't. All you can do is be childish and revert to conspiracy theories and taunts. That's all you have on your side here- you don't have facts or knowledge or anything to back your point up. In your opinion you are saying it is a matter of degrees. If this was merely my a difference of opinions then so be it. I respect other people's opinions in here even when I feel they are wrong. You are categorically wrong. This is not a subjective discussion. It is 100% not a matter of degrees. Does that make sense to you. I repeat, it is a fact, black and white, categorically not a matter of degrees. Now you may believe you have found a loophole in law. That will be be for the IRB to sort out if it is. Perhaps you might want to defend the next player cited for such an offence. As far as I am aware, and if I am incorrect I stand open to being corrected, that this 'loophole' that you believe exists, has not been used as a defence in any ERC disciplinary hearing on dangerous tackles. So the question is this, are you clearly right and the entire refereeing panel, the ERC, the IRB and every lawyer who has defended a player where on has been used, or club official wrong? I'll leave that up to everyone else to decide. You see ambiguity where lawyers, people paid to find loopholes for God's sake in order to get players off with the least amount of suspension time possible, see none. I know who my money is on to be right. But as things stand, as stated by the IRB, as handed down to referees around the globe it is not a matter of degrees. And even, EVEN if you are right about a possible loophole existing, no one else of any significance believes it exists. Not the IRB, not the referees. Simply put you are wrong. If there was a subjective decision for referees to be made it would be among the various factors we would use to mitigate against a red card. I have not seen one memo, I have not been to one meeting, not have I heard in one course that we are to take height into consideration. Have any other referees heard or been told different? I would interested to hear from anyone that has.

But hey, I guess being juvenile and typing in caps lock makes you right. I and many, many, many others have given you several explanations of what the height is referring to and that it is not a factor of mitigation. Go and check out at some of the citing officers reports dealing on these matters retrospectively to see how it is interpreted. No doubt, despite not having an facts to back up your assertions, you will stick stoicly to your position. Good luck to you

I started off by highlighting all of your mistakes in this post in bold type, I went for everything to be honest, I'm a pedantic terwat when I want to be, spooling, grammer, simantics, repetition of points I've already made to make MY case, errors of "fact" in YOUR case, your use of the word "loophole", your insinuations that I lack either intellect or the ability to comprehend, further insinuations of childishness or juvilinity, I absolutely meant to destroy your rant piece-by-piece - unfortunately for me my PC ran out of bold type...

Luck's got nothing to do with it mate, all the best.

Anyway I'm bored of making the same arguments. I came on here with the goal of explaining people that by the law and directives AR got the call spot on.

Let's make one thing clear: nearly all refs (more than 85% on a sample poll) think that the RC was correct. What non-refs (players and fans alike) should take from this is to expect a RC for this type of tackle, not be surprised or outraged if and when it next happens and ignore ITV commentators.

If you don't think this type of tackle merits a RC then direct your ire at the IRB. If you think that AR got it wrong then I am afraid I cannot understand where you are coming from.

red_stag wrote:Right PJHolybloke and the upset Welsh fans are right. The referees, the neutrals, the RFU Referee Manager are all wrong.

Like I said Red_Stag, be objective and use the same terms of reference I have to prove your point.

There's the call-out, pick it up man.

Mike Selig wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Ospreydragon wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby-world-cup-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=522&objectid=10759399

Well, whilst that doesn't prove any of the points I've been trying to make all day Osprey, it does at least provide some form of solace that I'm not a lone voice, Rolland made a bad decision in my opinion, and I still will not accept that the "letter of the Law" condemned him to a red with no other options available.

The letter of the Law is ambiguous with regard to "dropping" a player who has been tip-tackled, Rolland did not explore all of the options.

Bad call, for all my days a bad call.

I think you are clutching at straws. The article states (quite correctly) that AR was right, but the law was wrong. The first is a matter of fact, the second a matter of opinion (which I don't share).

So, "Rolland can't be blamed fully" is your interpretation of "the article states (quite correctly) that AR was right, but the law was wrong?

Shoite mate, absolute shoite, I hope you're better at reffing than you are at reading.

Bad call, for all my days that was a stinker.

I cant believe someone has accused Red_Stag of not being objective....

isnt that close to blasphemy or a mortal sin in some parts?

PJ - sad to say that the refs are behind Rolland. Some fan pouring over the annals of the law are clutching at straws. I accept we won't convince you but I know Rolland wouldn't change his call.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Ospreydragon wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby-world-cup-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=522&objectid=10759399

Well, whilst that doesn't prove any of the points I've been trying to make all day Osprey, it does at least provide some form of solace that I'm not a lone voice, Rolland made a bad decision in my opinion, and I still will not accept that the "letter of the Law" condemned him to a red with no other options available.

The letter of the Law is ambiguous with regard to "dropping" a player who has been tip-tackled, Rolland did not explore all of the options.

Bad call, for all my days a bad call.

I think you are clutching at straws. The article states (quite correctly) that AR was right, but the law was wrong. The first is a matter of fact, the second a matter of opinion (which I don't share).

So, "Rolland can't be blamed fully" is your interpretation of "the article states (quite correctly) that AR was right, but the law was wrong?

Shoite mate, absolute shoite, I hope you're better at reffing than you are at reading.

Bad call, for all my days that was a stinker.

The article states that AR applied the law correctly. When people resort to personal attacks I stop debating with them. Good night.

When Stag is wrong about something when it comes to refereeing, the apocalypse is near.

Thomond - Mike Selig knows more than I. Luckily we are in agreement on this!

As I posted on another thread;imagine if Richie Mcaw carries out a similar tackle and only gets a yellow card or less tomorrow.Would make things a bit spicy!

red_stag wrote:Thomond - Mike Selig knows more than I. Luckily we are in agreement on this!

I'm not sure that's true (the first part) but thanks anyway!

Like I said Red_Stag, drop your union card and answer the call-out as an honest ref, use the same terms of reference I have to argue your point, I have done so using the very memo that Rolland was supposed to have referenced, but apparently didn't.

You're telling me nothing, how am I clutching at straws if you can't pull them from my drowning grasp? Surely if I'm grasping so desperately, picking those straws off should be a piece of pish?

Stop trying to shore up Rolland with blind faith and make a case for him if you can.

if you can't do that as a fellow ref of his, surely you can't just judge me purely on the basis that I'm not?

I wouldn't want to accuse you of being a wetter now.

Mike Selig wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Ospreydragon wrote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby-world-cup-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=522&objectid=10759399

Well, whilst that doesn't prove any of the points I've been trying to make all day Osprey, it does at least provide some form of solace that I'm not a lone voice, Rolland made a bad decision in my opinion, and I still will not accept that the "letter of the Law" condemned him to a red with no other options available.

The letter of the Law is ambiguous with regard to "dropping" a player who has been tip-tackled, Rolland did not explore all of the options.

Bad call, for all my days a bad call.

I think you are clutching at straws. The article states (quite correctly) that AR was right, but the law was wrong. The first is a matter of fact, the second a matter of opinion (which I don't share).

So, "Rolland can't be blamed fully" is your interpretation of "the article states (quite correctly) that AR was right, but the law was wrong?

Shoite mate, absolute shoite, I hope you're better at reffing than you are at reading.

Bad call, for all my days that was a stinker.

The article states that AR applied the law correctly. When people resort to personal attacks I stop debating with them. Good night.

So, point that bit out to me then - the bit where it says "Alain Rolland applied the law correctly", any time you want soldier, any time you want.