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?

right people, surely time to put this one to bed. Mike Selig is a qualified ref, red_stag is a qualified ref, and they both say it's a RC, and AR got it spot on with regards to applying the law. On a rugby refereeing forum, a poll was conducted and 85% agree with the decision. The NZ commentators were also in agreement with AR (in fact their first reaction was "Warburton's in trouble here, and I don't mean YC trouble").

There's the article in the NZHerald, there's also (for what it's worth) Paul Ackford's column in the Telegraph. Ultimately, AR made the right call with regards to the Laws of the game. Anything else is irrelevant. You cannot slate a referee for correctly applying the laws. Direct your ire at the IRB, at Hook, Jones, Halfpenny, whoever was orchestrating play on that last move, but do NOT blame AR.

Lastly, to those saying the decision ruined the game, a one point victory with the winning team being able to defend for 26 phases (or whatever it was) in the last play of the game? Seemed pretty exciting to me...

PJ - as I've said already I wasn't impressed at all with how Rolland handled the scrum. In this single incident I can't fault him. He picked up Clerc, turned him and dropped him. It was not intentional. It was reckless - he showed no regard for safety. Clerc landed on his neck and shoulder. Its a red.

First paragraph: "[Rolland] was operating to the letter of the IRB's laws". Apologies for paraphrasing.

for PJ, first paragraph:

"When Alain Rolland reached into his pocket in the 18th minute to bring out the red card for Welsh captain Sam Warburton, he was operating to the letter of the IRB's laws" seems pretty clear to me...

snap

Ok all, its 11.30 and I've a nice fixture tomorrow afternoon. Need a nice nights sleep

85% agree with the decision

But would it be a decision they would have made ? and 15% not agreeing is a lot when it's supposed to have been a clear cut decision.

Was the question asked if a yellow should have been awarded ?

Refs?

I've sh!t 'em.

Better not feeding the trolls, especially when they haven't got anything to back their arguments up. I'll stick with the facts if that's alright.

To the layman it may appear that the letter of the law leaves some form of ambiguity in terms of 'with regards to the player's safety.' I am not sure how you have been told to interpret it Stag but I was basically told that unless you set a player back down on their feet then the ref is to regard it as being dangerous. In others words, players are heavily discouraged from lifting a player off the ground. That is what the IRB want. Better than the continual lawsuits at underage levels from young players in wheelchairs due to dump tackles. I can totally see where the poster gets his 'from a height' interpretation from. However, when you are told in certainly rather than in an opinion that that is not the interpretation from the IRB and you still cannot comprehend this basic fact then there is no hope for you. From your way of thinking, using your interpretation of the laws rather than the interpretation that the IRB requite of referees then you have a valid point. No doubt. But that is not how the law is to be interpreted. 'From a height' is not part of the consideration. Can you please understand this point, it does not matter. For the love of God. We have been sat down and had this explained. We consider;
1) Was the player dropped? Yes
2) Did he do it 'without regard for the players safety?' Unless he placed the player on his feet then yes. The referee has no choice to give a red card.

Intent, height whatever else ARE NOT factors.

Now look at Warburton? Was Clerc dropped? Yes. You believe that the referee must look at the height. This is not the case. Again, let me be clear. The IRB do not take this into consideration. It is not a term of reference. Now you believe it is because of the wording of the law. Again, let me repeat. It isn't. Referees are not instructed to take that into account. If that was to be looked at as a term of mitigation then we would be told. We have never been told that. Height is irrelevant. It may be, in your opinion, poorly worded. Fair enough. But once again, 'from a height' or making an objective call as to if the player was lifted high enough for it to be dangerous, it irrelevant. Once a player is lifted from the ground, be it perhaps 3 feet like Clerc or considerably more, then the player is on dangerous ground.

2)The solution is to return the player with his safety in mind. What is this? According to referee interpretation it basically means you must return the player to his feet. I think this is ridiculous frankly, and with momentum, practically impossible to do. Therefore, and this is what the IRB want effectively, tacklers should not lift a player from the ground.

You might a problem with how the law is interpreted from higher up the IRB. Fair enough. But I am telling you categorically, as others also have, the terms of reference do not include and reference to height. That is how the IRB have instructed referees to view these incidents. 'Why then include that wording?' you may ask. I have no idea, but it is not part of the consideration to make when looking at these incidents. This is not an opinion of mine. This is a fact. It has been told to me and many others at various referees meetings and courses as desired by the IRB.

Cymroglan wrote: 85% agree with the decision

But would it be a decision they would have made ? and 15% not agreeing is a lot when it's supposed to have been a clear cut decision.

Was the question asked if a yellow should have been awarded ?

The options are RC, YC, PK or play on. The percentages are currently 88.5 for RC, 8.5 for YC and 3 for PK. 0 for play on.

I take it Rolland won't be reffing a wales home match in the 6 nations? lol

He shouldn't have done it. He got away with one in an earlier match because Charteris caught the player in the air. He put himself in the lap of the Gods. If it were one of ours on the receiving end...

Mike Selig wrote:

Cymroglan wrote: 85% agree with the decision

But would it be a decision they would have made ? and 15% not agreeing is a lot when it's supposed to have been a clear cut decision.

Was the question asked if a yellow should have been awarded ?

The options are RC, YC, PK or play on. The percentages are currently 88.5 for RC, 8.5 for YC and 3 for PK. 0 for play on.

seems pretty conclusive to me...

Just incase anyone has been following this thread all the way through, I won my match

Hookisms and Hyperbole
So you all have been explained the rules you all understand them so there should be no confusion on what the rules mean.
Why is there so much inconsistency then ? more often than not a player would only have had a yellow for that kind of tackle and very often no punishment at all.

I have no idea what you're talking about robbo, but well done anyway

Obviously Rolland was just jealous that Sam has his own song.

Cymroglan wrote:Hookisms and Hyperbole
So you all have been explained the rules you all understand them so there should be no confusion on what the rules mean.
Why is there so much inconsistency then ? more often than not a player would only have had a yellow for that kind of tackle and very often no punishment at all.

Been working on that one all day Cymro, but I ain't done yet, trust me - he'll feck off like all the other paper tigers - no offense Leicester fans.

robbo277 wrote:

One thing I will add, if the actual players are saying that they believe it was not a red card offence and a ridiculous decision, maybe they actually know the game better than any of us spectators, as well as the risks that come with it.

I play the game, I've got a fixture later this afternoon. And if anyone picks me up, tips me up and lets me drop to the ground I'll expect them to be sent off.

Dallaglio's arguments seemed to centre around the idea that "it's a World Cup semi-final" and if a yellow card was given he could be cited later (which is ridiculous). Pienaar at least spoke some sense, but he hasn't played the game in over 10 years. The rules have changed.

^^^ That.

No-one did pick me up and drop me, but I did get headbutted.

robbo277 wrote:
No-one did pick me up and drop me, but I did get headbutted.

You weren't playing in the game I was reffing were you? I don't think I missed a headbutt but... Actually very enjoyable game today for me, for some strange reason I was very relaxed.

Cymroglan wrote:Hookisms and Hyperbole
So you all have been explained the rules you all understand them so there should be no confusion on what the rules mean.
Why is there so much inconsistency then ? more often than not a player would only have had a yellow for that kind of tackle and very often no punishment at all.

You make a really good and fair point. Didn't ITV show other examples that weren't even penalised? I don't think anyone can disagree that referees have been inconsistent, though citing officials have corrected some of those mistakes, not that will be of any comfort for you and other Welsh fans.

Referees need to be consistent. But they must be consistently right. According to the letters of the law the referee was right today. The fact that other referees have got it wrong, and two were admonished by citing officials, is irrelevant to todays decision. Are you really going to argue that because other referees have got it wrong then Roland too should have got it wrong? I believe the referees were warned after the group stages about cracking down on these offences. Roland got it right. It is up to other referees to get it consistently right. That is harder to achieve.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:Better not feeding the trolls, especially when they haven't got anything to back their arguments up. I'll stick with the facts if that's alright.

To the layman it may appear that the letter of the law leaves some form of ambiguity in terms of 'with regards to the player's safety.' I am not sure how you have been told to interpret it Stag but I was basically told that unless you set a player back down on their feet then the ref is to regard it as being dangerous. In others words, players are heavily discouraged from lifting a player off the ground. That is what the IRB want. Better than the continual lawsuits at underage levels from young players in wheelchairs due to dump tackles. I can totally see where the poster gets his 'from a height' interpretation from. However, when you are told in certainly rather than in an opinion that that is not the interpretation from the IRB and you still cannot comprehend this basic fact then there is no hope for you. From your way of thinking, using your interpretation of the laws rather than the interpretation that the IRB requite of referees then you have a valid point. No doubt. But that is not how the law is to be interpreted. 'From a height' is not part of the consideration. Can you please understand this point, it does not matter. For the love of God. We have been sat down and had this explained. We consider;
1) Was the player dropped? Yes
2) Did he do it 'without regard for the players safety?' Unless he placed the player on his feet then yes. The referee has no choice to give a red card.

Intent, height whatever else ARE NOT factors.

Now look at Warburton? Was Clerc dropped? Yes. You believe that the referee must look at the height. This is not the case. Again, let me be clear. The IRB do not take this into consideration. It is not a term of reference. Now you believe it is because of the wording of the law. Again, let me repeat. It isn't. Referees are not instructed to take that into account. If that was to be looked at as a term of mitigation then we would be told. We have never been told that. Height is irrelevant. It may be, in your opinion, poorly worded. Fair enough. But once again, 'from a height' or making an objective call as to if the player was lifted high enough for it to be dangerous, it irrelevant. Once a player is lifted from the ground, be it perhaps 3 feet like Clerc or considerably more, then the player is on dangerous ground.

2)The solution is to return the player with his safety in mind. What is this? According to referee interpretation it basically means you must return the player to his feet. I think this is ridiculous frankly, and with momentum, practically impossible to do. Therefore, and this is what the IRB want effectively, tacklers should not lift a player from the ground.

You might a problem with how the law is interpreted from higher up the IRB. Fair enough. But I am telling you categorically, as others also have, the terms of reference do not include and reference to height. That is how the IRB have instructed referees to view these incidents. 'Why then include that wording?' you may ask. I have no idea, but it is not part of the consideration to make when looking at these incidents. This is not an opinion of mine. This is a fact. It has been told to me and many others at various referees meetings and courses as desired by the IRB.

Quit with the trolls reference. that's offensive. If you need someone to point out the error of your refereeing ways, I'm your go-to-man for front foot ball and here it is:

You made an elementary mistake in separating the two questions of:

1) Was the player dropped?

AND

2) Was it without regard to the players safety?

Here's the IRB deal:

"The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the players safety"

Can't you see that it isn't two questions?

It's a single question.

i) Was the lifted player dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player's safety?

The rest of your post and all others before are as equally invalid as you are not capable of assembling all of the IRB referees directive into a single question.

Honestly, I can keep this up for weeks.

to me the answer is yes though PJ, he was dropped from a height (as he was lifted) and with no regards to his safety (given that he was dropped and landed on his upper body/neck).

"The player is lifted with their head below horizontal and tackled to the ground. At a minimum a yellow card should be issued, with an ejection a possible result depending on the circumstances of the tackle. "

This is the directive you'd have liked to see AR apply, ie he could have only given a yellow. The key word is "tackled" though. Clerc wasn't "tackled to the ground", he was dropped. Hence RC.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to me the answer is yes though PJ, he was dropped from a height (as he was lifted) and with no regards to his safety (given that he was dropped and landed on his upper body/neck).

"The player is lifted with their head below horizontal and tackled to the ground. At a minimum a yellow card should be issued, with an ejection a possible result depending on the circumstances of the tackle. "

This is the directive you'd have liked to see AR apply, ie he could have only given a yellow. The key word is "tackled" though. Clerc wasn't "tackled to the ground", he was dropped. Hence RC.

Nope. He should have worked backwards from a red, used all the other options at his disposal and arrived at a yellow.

He didn't do that, so I can only assume that he thought Clerc was driven to the ground and decided it was an instant red card.

PJHolybloke wrote:

i) Was the lifted player dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player's safety?

The rest of your post and all others before are as equally invalid as you are not capable of assembling all of the IRB referees directive into a single question.

Honestly, I can keep this up for weeks.

Actually no, though I can see where you are coming from when you state this. To determine where there was 'regard to the player's safety' you have to determine how the player was dropped. So lets say somehow, as it can only happen through magic I reckon, that Warbuton lifts Clerc in the air. Realising he is in danger of giving away an infringement, he drops Clerc onto his feet again. Therefore, under the IRB interpretation there is no infringement here. Does that make sense. Strictly speaking it isn't two separate questions, more like two checkpoints to the one issue. It is possible to drop a player with regard to the players safety. I have to say, I have never seen it happen. The key issue is that of player safety here. That is the only area where a referee can be objective and even in that, in very narrow parameters.

robbo277 wrote:Just incase anyone has been following this thread all the way through, I won my match

Well played Robbo.

PJHolybloke wrote:

He didn't do that, so I can only assume that he thought Clerc was driven to the ground and decided it was an instant red card.

Or that he considers that when you drop someone so that he lands on his neck and shoulders you haven't shown any regard for his safety. In which case a RC is not only correct, it is mandated.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to me the answer is yes though PJ, he was dropped from a height (as he was lifted) and with no regards to his safety (given that he was dropped and landed on his upper body/neck).

"The player is lifted with their head below horizontal and tackled to the ground. At a minimum a yellow card should be issued, with an ejection a possible result depending on the circumstances of the tackle. "

This is the directive you'd have liked to see AR apply, ie he could have only given a yellow. The key word is "tackled" though. Clerc wasn't "tackled to the ground", he was dropped. Hence RC.

Nope. He should have worked backwards from a red, used all the other options at his disposal and arrived at a yellow.

He didn't do that, so I can only assume that he thought Clerc was driven to the ground and decided it was an instant red card.

But you still haven't explained where he would have found the leniency to arrive at a YC from. Here's the directive he's acting on
"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. "
Let's go through it bit by bit:
1) "The lifted player" - check.
2) "is dropped to the ground" - check.
3) "from a height" - check, though this could be the one you disagree on (Clerc was about three or four feet off the ground when he was dropped - constitutes a height for me).
4) "with no regard to the player's safety" - check, Clerc was dropped on his neck/upper body, this is dangerous and shows no regard for his safety.

So the only thing you can be quibbling about is point 3 I guess, I assume Rolland decided that three to four feet consitutes "from a height" (otherwise what does? five feet? six? or does he need to be lifted up above his own height?), so nothing to warrant him going backwards from a red, thus RC.

What MfC says. Good night all, I have a young'uns game tomorrow.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

i) Was the lifted player dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player's safety?

The rest of your post and all others before are as equally invalid as you are not capable of assembling all of the IRB referees directive into a single question.

Honestly, I can keep this up for weeks.

Actually no, though I can see where you are coming from when you state this. To determine where there was 'regard to the player's safety' you have to determine how the player was dropped. So lets say somehow, as it can only happen through magic I reckon, that Warbuton lifts Clerc in the air. Realising he is in danger of giving away an infringement, he drops Clerc onto his feet again. Therefore, under the IRB interpretation there is no infringement here. Does that make sense. Strictly speaking it isn't two separate questions, more like two checkpoints to the one issue. It is possible to drop a player with regard to the players safety. I have to say, I have never seen it happen. The key issue is that of player safety here. That is the only area where a referee can be objective and even in that, in very narrow parameters.

Let's just stick with the facts and accept that once a tackled player's hips rise above his head it's a tip-tackle and therefore is a zero-tolerance penalty offence, cut the magic shoite, players hips above his head = penalty, if you put him down feet first it's still JUST a penalty - do you really need me to explain this? That is DEFINITELY an infringement under IRB ruling and I would have thought that a qualified referee would know that by rote.

Let's assume that the IRB have the situation well sorted out in advance and what they actually mean, is that the player has to be "dropped from a height witn no regard to his safety" for it to be a red card offence, thereby allowing tacklers to drop a player if the only alternative is to keep hold of the player and drive him into the turf under the joint forces of gravity and potential energy and by holding on to said player increase the possibility of said player suffering an injury?

That would surely leave a little leeway for the tackler to decide that a penalty offence has already occured, and that there is an option to either let go and reduce the risk of injury to the player, or alternatively accept that it's a red card regardless and stuuff the player head-first into the turf until the only way of knowing who it was, is to check the name tag on his socks or take names of the survivors?

If this is an honest way of trying to clear the game of reckless and dangerous tackles of the tipping nature, there has to be a way out for the tackler once the tackle goes a bit Pete, it's the only way forward.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to me the answer is yes though PJ, he was dropped from a height (as he was lifted) and with no regards to his safety (given that he was dropped and landed on his upper body/neck).

"The player is lifted with their head below horizontal and tackled to the ground. At a minimum a yellow card should be issued, with an ejection a possible result depending on the circumstances of the tackle. "

This is the directive you'd have liked to see AR apply, ie he could have only given a yellow. The key word is "tackled" though. Clerc wasn't "tackled to the ground", he was dropped. Hence RC.

Nope. He should have worked backwards from a red, used all the other options at his disposal and arrived at a yellow.

He didn't do that, so I can only assume that he thought Clerc was driven to the ground and decided it was an instant red card.

But you still haven't explained where he would have found the leniency to arrive at a YC from. Here's the directive he's acting on
"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. "
Let's go through it bit by bit:
1) "The lifted player" - check.
2) "is dropped to the ground" - check.
3) "from a height" - check, though this could be the one you disagree on (Clerc was about three or four feet off the ground when he was dropped - constitutes a height for me).
4) "with no regard to the player's safety" - check, Clerc was dropped on his neck/upper body, this is dangerous and shows no regard for his safety.

So the only thing you can be quibbling about is point 3 I guess, I assume Rolland decided that three to four feet consitutes "from a height" (otherwise what does? five feet? six? or does he need to be lifted up above his own height?), so nothing to warrant him going backwards from a red, thus RC.

Nope, the point we're "quibbling" about is that you can't actually separate points 2, 3 and 4 as they all fall into the same single red card clarification regarding tip tackles in a memo issued by the IRB, and more specifically by Paddy O' Brien, the IRB's refereeing guru, capo di capo, head honcho, grande fromage etc. etc.

According to that memo all three elements have to be concurrent for it to be a red card offence, otherwise the referee should work backwards from a red card and arrive at the minimum sanction - clearly in this case a yelllow card.

PJHolybloke wrote:Let's just stick with the facts and accept that once a tackled player's hips rise above his head it's a tip-tackle and therefore is a zero-tolerance penalty offence, cut the magic shoite, players hips above his head = penalty, if you put him down feet first it's still JUST a penalty - do you really need me to explain this? That is DEFINITELY an infringement under IRB ruling and I would have thought that a qualified referee would know that by rote.

Let's assume that the IRB have the situation well sorted out in advance and what they actually mean, is that the player has to be "dropped from a height witn no regard to his safety" for it to be a red card offence, thereby allowing tacklers to drop a player if the only alternative is to keep hold of the player and drive him into the turf under the joint forces of gravity and potential energy and by holding on to said player increase the possibility of said player suffering an injury?

That would surely leave a little leeway for the tackler to decide that a penalty offence has already occured, and that there is an option to either let go and reduce the risk of injury to the player, or alternatively accept that it's a red card regardless and stuuff the player head-first into the turf until the only way of knowing who it was, is to check the name tag on his socks or take names of the survivors?

If this is an honest way of trying to clear the game of reckless and dangerous tackles of the tipping nature, there has to be a way out for the tackler once the tackle goes a bit Pete, it's the only way forward.

Any chance you could just keep a civil tone without swearing at people? Thanks

I reread what I previously stated and I left the words 'red card' before infringement, ie, if you set the player down on his feet then it is not a red card infringement. I see where the confusion between us on this point is as at first I had no idea why you were arguing when we clearly agree on this point!

The IRB do not want players lifted off the ground. Simple. If you drive him into the ground, its a spear tackle and its a red card. If you drop him on any other way but onto his feet it is a red card. if you agree on this, then how could Warburton not be red carded?

The only way forward is for players to not lift a player off his way.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:to me the answer is yes though PJ, he was dropped from a height (as he was lifted) and with no regards to his safety (given that he was dropped and landed on his upper body/neck).

"The player is lifted with their head below horizontal and tackled to the ground. At a minimum a yellow card should be issued, with an ejection a possible result depending on the circumstances of the tackle. "

This is the directive you'd have liked to see AR apply, ie he could have only given a yellow. The key word is "tackled" though. Clerc wasn't "tackled to the ground", he was dropped. Hence RC.

Nope. He should have worked backwards from a red, used all the other options at his disposal and arrived at a yellow.

He didn't do that, so I can only assume that he thought Clerc was driven to the ground and decided it was an instant red card.

But you still haven't explained where he would have found the leniency to arrive at a YC from. Here's the directive he's acting on
"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. "
Let's go through it bit by bit:
1) "The lifted player" - check.
2) "is dropped to the ground" - check.
3) "from a height" - check, though this could be the one you disagree on (Clerc was about three or four feet off the ground when he was dropped - constitutes a height for me).
4) "with no regard to the player's safety" - check, Clerc was dropped on his neck/upper body, this is dangerous and shows no regard for his safety.

So the only thing you can be quibbling about is point 3 I guess, I assume Rolland decided that three to four feet consitutes "from a height" (otherwise what does? five feet? six? or does he need to be lifted up above his own height?), so nothing to warrant him going backwards from a red, thus RC.

Nope, the point we're "quibbling" about is that you can't actually separate points 2, 3 and 4 as they all fall into the same single red card clarification regarding tip tackles in a memo issued by the IRB, and more specifically by Paddy O' Brien, the IRB's refereeing guru, capo di capo, head honcho, grande fromage etc. etc.

According to that memo all three elements have to be concurrent for it to be a red card offence, otherwise the referee should work backwards from a red card and arrive at the minimum sanction - clearly in this case a yelllow card.

Erm I'm saying the same as you here I think, ie that if points 1 through to 4 are all satisfied then it's a red card. As this was the case, AR made the right decision. I never said you should separate points 2,3 and 4. I only did it to try to understand where you think AR should have found it in him NOT to give a red card, as specifically told to do by this very directive in this case.

PS: I like the verb quibble...

In relation to the application of the law:

My understanding is that it was a dangerous tackle and therefore a red card was shown, did rolland have the discretion, as match referee, to use the yellow or just award the pen

no regard for the players safety is the only issue under contention in this case, MFC's 3 others are all present. The only way to show you have regard is that the tackler would have obviously done there best to either alter the angle of fall to be more on the back than the neck or try to minimize the force they went down with.

Warburton had the opportunity to to drive him down which would have caused serious injury but he let go and let gravity do its work. So it could be argued he did something in the position he was in but Rolland interpreted this as not enough to show regard for safety.

Rolland started at red and saw no reason to reduce it to anything else. Dangerous tackles have been refereed more strongly and the players and referees were both told of the position during the cup. Yes, inconsistancies are highly frustrating but if all ref's were lenient then there would be a lot more of these instances which is bad for the game as a whole.

I don't believe Sam is the type of player to act dangerously and it was an unfortunate incident in the worst possible moment.

There was much more in the game that changed things and it all could have finished better. For me, Jones' reluctance to take the drop goal was a major factor. We could have gone ahead and even with a man down we looked strong and could have had the greatest WC story in Wales' history.

There's always next time.

There is an option for a yellow card. I have read it today after the game, but I don't know it of the top of my head.

There are three laws pretty much: Driving them into the ground - RC
Dropping them with no regard for the players safety - RC
Any other dangerous tackle at the referee's discretion - YC/RC/Penalty

It all depends what you saw it as.

As someone noted, Sam did the exact same thing against Ireland(?), but was saved by Charteris coming in and easing the player to the ground. It was not malicious - my guess is he was setting himself for a hit on a much bigger player and didn't realise it was the pint-sized Clerc - but he shouldn't have dropped him. He should have set him down.

Looked red to me.
First of all. Lifted him up.
In tackling you dont lift up
second. Dropped him from a height onto his back.
Third. His open hand went smack into his face when it hit the ground.
In a split second decision, made the right one.
Dont know what the point of all this over analysis is.
Denial perhaps?
Let it go.
There were other reasons for the loss, none of which are getting anywhere near as much attention.

It's interesting that a few people have said that the letter of the law shouldn't have been applied because it detracted from the spectacle of a WC SF. I certainly understand that sentiment and could be inclined to agree, but in terms of getting the message across that such tackles aren't acceptable and changing player behaviour, as much as it may spoil the event, it is exactly this sort of high profile match where enforcement should be strict and the standard set.

Hopefully a positive outcome of the incident will be that it acts as a watershed, as players really have no excuse now for not knowing how serious correct enforcement of the directive can be. If you pick a player up they must be brought down in a safe and controlled manner, no matter your intent or the result of the act on the player.

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?

I think so. There have been several citings and bans so far, so you'd have to say yes, there has been a more stupid piece of play. To the letter of the law it's a red card, but how many red cards have you seen given for it? For me, it's none. Funny time to start. If he gave a yellow there wouldn't have been a single complaint and it would be long forgotten.

The quick pen decisions for not releasing, scrums and coming in from the side when attacking were all harsh - especially when France did the same and got away with them.

It's all done and dusted.


Move on.

Taylorman wrote:Looked red to me.
First of all. Lifted him up.
In tackling you dont lift up
second. Dropped him from a height onto his back.
Third. His open hand went smack into his face when it hit the ground.
In a split second decision, made the right one.
Dont know what the point of all this over analysis is.
Denial perhaps?
Let it go.
There were other reasons for the loss, none of which are getting anywhere near as much attention.

shut up it isn't denial i am asking a question for a coach/ref to answer and if you aren't then don't stir it.

my question remains did the ref have discretion to use a lesser penalty, you don't know so why don't you let it go.

Gatts this has already been answered by red stag who is a ref on several threads....do we really need another?

The instructions from the IRB have been posted and discussed several times, they are quite explicit.
The players were warned at the start of the compeition that such tackles would be red cards.
The previous dump tackles in the cup led to medium length bans for the players.

Go visit rugbyrefs.com their poll of refs said 85% beleived it was a red.

Please get over it for your own sake as well as everyone elses.

Higher_Ground wrote:

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?

I think so. There have been several citings and bans so far, so you'd have to say yes, there has been a more stupid piece of play. To the letter of the law it's a red card, but how many red cards have you seen given for it? For me, it's none. Funny time to start. If he gave a yellow there wouldn't have been a single complaint and it would be long forgotten.

higher....thats pretty much the way i was thinking.......initially i thought it was yellow but i can understand how he decided to give a red after playing back the incident a few times....as you say a funny time ti start dishing out red cards...i wonder if the semi final refs had been given notice to tighten up on a few things by paddy o'brien such as this type of tackle?? you would have thought that if they wanted a clear message that refs would have instructed to be stricter with these types of tackles from the first game and thus we would have had a few red cards in the early stages.....strange how none gets penalised with red cad until the semi final.

Higher_Ground wrote:

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?

I think so. There have been several citings and bans so far, so you'd have to say yes, there has been a more stupid piece of play. To the letter of the law it's a red card, but how many red cards have you seen given for it? For me, it's none. Funny time to start. If he gave a yellow there wouldn't have been a single complaint and it would be long forgotten.

Id be more suprissed if the refs hadnt been given a rocket after round 4 when two players were yellowed for red card offences and the citing comissions decided on fairly tough bans. Given the IRB had instructed the refs to be tough on these, but had failed to do so, it wouldnt be beyond reason for them to reiterate this to the refs before the knockouts and say to them do your job.
It takes a brave man nbot toc hicken out and hedge your bets. How many times do we hear people say " if that had been at the end it wouldve been a card". Finaly a ref stands up and does his job and he gets hung out to dry by media hype? Its wrong plain wrong.

Was warburton unlucky to get the card? Possibly yes, bur it was correct
Should such offfences be red cards? The players dont seem to think so. They recognise such things can easily happen by accident, but the problem is how is the ref to distinguish in the heat of the batttle? If refs always have to option to hedge their bets they will almost always do so and we will continue to have dangerous practises and unnaceptably high serious injury rates. Once the IRB was told by its own expensive research that these tackles held a signiuificant risk of permanent injury what were they to do othe rthan try and ensure they were permannently eliminated form the game. Players have to adjust their technique and look to drive rather than perform static lifts.
Would wales have won the game without it ? Im certain of that
Did it ruin the game? If anything it made the game, it wouldve been a boring walkover without it ..instead we had an outstanding romantic game with a heartbreaking finish. Perhaps ruined the result
Is it unreasoanble for fans to be dissapointed? No its a sickening way to get out and whilst i dont like to see the ref slaughtered by the media for this im glad warburton isnt getting the Beckham treatment

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Gatts this has already been answered by red stag who is a ref on several threads....do we really need another?

The instructions from the IRB have been posted and discussed several times, they are quite explicit.
The players were warned at the start of the compeition that such tackles would be red cards.
The previous dump tackles in the cup led to medium length bans for the players.

Go visit rugbyrefs.com their poll of refs said 85% beleived it was a red.

Please get over it for your own sake as well as everyone elses.

Quipt patronising, if you don't know the answer don't post; all i needed is on the link, i don't need advice from the likes of you

I gave you the answer Gatts, its been given several times.

All good gatts.
You just keep asking till you get the answer that appeals to you.
Obviously none of the many given on many posts agrees with you yet.
Good luck.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I gave you the answer Gatts, its been given several times.

i just wanted someone knowledgeable to clarify, you aren't so butt out.