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?

Taylorman
If you cannot answer my question don't bother posting.
you are such a cliche...you assume i am looking to get on the saffa bandwagon for blaming refs, no evidence to support that, i asked a specific question but becaseu you are so lacking in the ability to discriminate you judge that to be a welsh whinge about the red, it wasn't. i have hardly read any of the other stuff, am only interested in the discretion point as i thought it was a red but just wanted to know if he could have used a lesser censure.
all i needed was a ref or coach to clarify for me or send me the link
Come on the wallabies!

Ozzy3213 wrote:Gatts, you have a PM

so do you

I do believe that the reason for the RED card and not the YELLOW
card was that he (Warburton) apart from lifting him off the ground he actualy LET GO of him and dropped him to the ground.

majesticimperialman wrote:I do believe that the reason for the RED card and not the YELLOW
card was that he (Warburton) apart from lifting him off the ground he actualy LET GO of him and dropped him to the ground.

Yep noted thankyou, the suggestion that you start with red and work backwards seems somewhat equivocal...what i am specifically trying to establish is does a ref have discretion to administer a lesser sanction or MUST he issue the red?

Gatts wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I do believe that the reason for the RED card and not the YELLOW
card was that he (Warburton) apart from lifting him off the ground he actualy LET GO of him and dropped him to the ground.

Yep noted thankyou, the suggestion that you start with red and work backwards seems somewhat equivocal...what i am specifically trying to establish is does a ref have discretion to administer a lesser sanction or MUST he issue the red?

Gatts, anyone who states Rolland had no choice is flogging a dead horse, Rolland just didn't work the situation back far enough.

He didn't give himself the chance to get the situation right, he didn't give his AR the chance to chip in either, he knee-jerked the entire affair and I think he gave the red card because he believed Warburton drove Clerc into the turf.

The only other explanation is that he thought Warburton dropped Clerc from a height with no regard to Clerc's safety, as far as I could see he dropped Clerc from no more than 3 feet and dropped him because the alternative of holding on would have hurt Clerc far more.

Never a red card in all my days, but I can't wait to see how long the IRB ban him for - that will be the litmus test - anything like 2 weeks or less will leave Rolland out to dry, and rightly so.

Wow, three weeks!

The IRB trotted that one out quickly enough, so, not nearly the worst tip-tackle of the World Cup, but the only one so far to merit a red card?

Well done Rolland, even the organisation responsible for telling you what to do can barely back you up.

Would have been 5 weeks had the IRB commission been convinced it was a good call.

Thanks for ruining one of my World Cup semi-finals.

The sanction was 6 weeks - reduced to 3 after the GUILTY plea and previous good behaviour

Davie wrote:The sanction was 6 weeks - reduced to 3 after the GUILTY plea and previous good behaviour

Like I said, if the IRB were convinced he'd get 5 weeks.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Davie wrote:The sanction was 6 weeks - reduced to 3 after the GUILTY plea and previous good behaviour

Like I said, if the IRB were convinced he'd get 5 weeks.

They were convinced thats why he got 6.

PJ you are just embaressing yourself now, klet it go ...you were wrong.

The reduction for previous good record is entuirely consistent with other bans.

The IRB should look at the application of the law again, but Rolland was perfectly correct as it stands and as it was clarified by the IRB before and after the incident.

Hey guys Wales lost the semi final you got what you wanted there is no need for you to keep trying to justify the red card with so much vigour.
If Rolland had issued a red against your side I'm positive you would be here now telling us all how much Rolland had overreacted.

Thanks for the support before the match but in most cases it was all plastic you would have far more respect off me if you had just continued with your ABW attitude..
Very few of us on here are genuine and actually mean it when we wish another side well.

Cymroglan wrote:Hey guys Wales lost the semi final you got what you wanted there is no need for you to keep trying to justify the red card with so much vigour.
If Rolland had issued a red against your side I'm positive you would be here now telling us all how much Rolland had overreacted.

Thanks for the support before the match but in most cases it was all plastic you would have far more respect off me if you had just continued with your ABW attitude..
Very few of us on here are genuine and actually mean it when we wish another side well.

Thats a pretty awful post. So if everyone else doesn't join in in slating the referee then they obviously hates Wales? A true Wales supporter should blame the ref?

I was 100% behind Wales but I'm not going to blame the referee for making the call that he is instructed to do.

The reason Wales lost was because Warburton made an illegal tackle and rightly got sent off, they didn't nail their place kicks and they blew several drop goal opportunities.

Cymroglan wrote:
If Rolland had issued a red against your side I'm positive you would be here now telling us all how much Rolland had overreacted.

You can be positive all you like. You'd be positively wrong

roddersm Yes as you keep telling us since yesterday but you would been fighting the case for a yellow if it was against your own team.

Cymroglan wrote:roddersm Yes as you keep telling us since yesterday but you would been fighting the case for a yellow if it was against your own team.

No I wouldn't. The rules are clear and if it was Stephen Ferris instead of Warburton, I would say it was unfortunate but the red card was fair which is exactly what I am saying here.

HolyBloke - you still banging that drum!

You have been told you are wrong by god knows how many people and some referees! The height is irrelevent, he liffed clerc of his feet and dropped him on his head, by dropping him he showed no regard for his safety!

The rules dictate a red, he had no need to consult anyone, it was a straight forward decision and there is no misinterpratation by anyone other thanb you, certainly not Rolland, get over it and move on, your kickers still missed 4 easy kicks, any one of which would still have won you the game!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:PJ you are just embaressing yourself now, klet it go ...you were wrong.

The reduction for previous good record is entuirely consistent with other bans.

The IRB should look at the application of the law again, but Rolland was perfectly correct as it stands and as it was clarified by the IRB before and after the incident.

But I don't feel in the slightest bit embarrassed Peter, how can I be wrong in having an opinion? Thanks for the concern but when I believe in something it's not a part-time thing I can just drop on a whim, Rolland was wrong to red card Warburton, he had a choice and picked the wrong one, "pefectly correct" could not be further from the truth.

If Rolland had yellow carded Warburton in exactly the same way as ALL the other refs in the tournament, the IRB would have arrived at exactly the same sanction because that is exactly what the offence deserved, a yellow card and a 3 week ban. Were ALL the other refs wrong? Of course not, if the letter of the Law were so black and white as everyone else is claiming, they would be idiots to have not shown a red card, they picked a yellow because the option is there to do so. They chose the correct option and Rolland did not.

The ban isn't entirely consistent with other bans, if it were he would have gotten 5 weeks like Gugana.

If the IRB were that concerned about tip-tackling it would be a red card offence with no option for interpretation by the referee, it would be the easiest thing to do and would take all the pressure off the refs having to make a judgement call.

Instead we have a situation where 5 players have been carded for tip-tackling, 4 yellows and 1 red, 3 yellows and the red have received bans of 3 weeks and the other yellow got 5 weeks, and I should be embarrassed? How so?

He got 6 weeks

You really are repeating yourself now and, in repeating yourself, you are just repeating all the same fallacies

Cymro please stop telling everyone they want Wales to lose and implying we are happy with the result. Youve said it to me to Davie to Rodders to Notch. Disagree with the red but dont go down that road. Its ill fitting of a rugby fan.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:PJ you are just embaressing yourself now, klet it go ...you were wrong.

The reduction for previous good record is entuirely consistent with other bans.

The IRB should look at the application of the law again, but Rolland was perfectly correct as it stands and as it was clarified by the IRB before and after the incident.

But I don't feel in the slightest bit embarrassed Peter, how can I be wrong in having an opinion? Thanks for the concern but when I believe in something it's not a part-time thing I can just drop on a whim, Rolland was wrong to red card Warburton, he had a choice and picked the wrong one, "pefectly correct" could not be further from the truth.

If Rolland had yellow carded Warburton in exactly the same way as ALL the other refs in the tournament, the IRB would have arrived at exactly the same sanction because that is exactly what the offence deserved, a yellow card and a 3 week ban. Were ALL the other refs wrong? Of course not, if the letter of the Law were so black and white as everyone else is claiming, they would be idiots to have not shown a red card, they picked a yellow because the option is there to do so. They chose the correct option and Rolland did not.

The ban isn't entirely consistent with other bans, if it were he would have gotten 5 weeks like Gugana.

If the IRB were that concerned about tip-tackling it would be a red card offence with no option for interpretation by the referee, it would be the easiest thing to do and would take all the pressure off the refs having to make a judgement call.

Instead we have a situation where 5 players have been carded for tip-tackling, 4 yellows and 1 red, 3 yellows and the red have received bans of 3 weeks and the other yellow got 5 weeks, and I should be embarrassed? How so?

Dear God, what is it you fail to understanbd, the rule is clear, yes you would probably have preferred a yellow but rule clearly dictate a red!

The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result I you keep banging on about, but at least 30 people have explained how you are wrong, stop embarrassing yourself, cos that is what u are doing!

Look Rodders unless you agree completely with them then there is no point arguing. The facts speak for themselves, if people want to fantasize about wordings of directives then let them to it

The entry point for a mid range offence here is six weeks. The citing official,
"found that there were no aggravating features and there were compelling on-field and/or off-field mitigating features including the player's admission, outstanding character and disciplinary record and remorse"

Simple enough for anyone to understand.

Originally I thought it harsh, but after the law and directives were explained I accepted Rolland was right. In particular the joined up thinking about very high risk of injury from this sort of incident justifies the harshness of the response and the sooner everyone accepts this the better.

red_stag wrote:Cymro please stop telling everyone they want Wales to lose and implying we are happy with the result. Youve said it to me to Davie to Rodders to Notch. Disagree with the red but dont go down that road. Its ill fitting of a rugby fan.

Stop telling me what to type, I'm fully entitled to my opinion and if you don't like it then take your own advice by using the red button.

He gave the red so why are you fighting his cause ? If he had not penalised him then I could understand people being up in arms.
Wales lost in a semi final they could have and should have won so cant you see why Welsh fans feel he overreacted.
We are told several times that us Welsh fans should accept it and move on and we will when the hurt eases but there are a few others on here who also need to move on.
Before I type anything about other teams I always try and think how I would feel if it was said about Wales,There are good posters on this site but even they at times will use incidents as this to do a bit of trolling.
So what I'm asking is that people try and be a bit more understanding,
If you feel the card was right that's fine but there is no need to go on about it because all it's doing is kicking me and a few others when we are already down.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are NOT entitled to ascribe incorrect thoughts to others

Cowshot wrote:Originally I thought it harsh, but after the law and directives were explained I accepted Rolland was right. In particular the joined up thinking about very high risk of injury from this sort of incident justifies the harshness of the response and the sooner everyone accepts this the better.

+1. I think the main problem is, is that usually we are used to seeing yellow's issued. A red perhaps is harsh, but its written there in the law. Sam has only himself to blame for putting himself in that situation.

Just back from my early morning game. Lovely kids these 13 year olds.

This still going?

Gatts: the ruling is here:
http://www.deepsouthrugbyunion.com/images/IRB_Memorandum_re_Dangerous_Tackles.pdf
The relevant passage is here:
"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."

By law and IRB directive a red card was not only correct but mandated. There is a quasi-unanimity amongst referees that Rolland got it right.

PJH: Warburton was given 6 weeks, reduced to 3 for mitigating circumstances (guilty plea, clean record, excellent character). The entry range was mid-end, not low-end. The disciplinary committee has therefore endorsed the red card. Ed Morrison who is the head of RFU refs has endorsed the red card. Brian Moore has said that the laws mandate a red card (he is also a qualified ref). There are articles in the NZ herald, the telegraph, the guardian for 3 which say a RC was correct by law. Media in New-Zealand and France immediately called it as a RC.

Cymroglan: I come on here not to bash the welsh, but to convince casual fans that a RC was correct and that they should ignore the bile being spouted by various commentators and players.

DOD wrote:Look Rodders unless you agree completely with them then there is no point arguing. The facts speak for themselves, if people want to fantasize about wordings of directives then let them to it

Unfortunately that seems to be the case DOD. Its a shame because the Welsh players have conducted themselves with such dignity but this soccer style witch hunt really is showing some Welsh fans up IMO, and not just on here. Some of the comments have been disgraceful.

Certain ex-players and sections of the media have a lot to answer for for stirring this up too.

Cymroglan wrote:
If you feel the card was right that's fine but there is no need to go on about it because all it's doing is kicking me and a few others when we are already down.

I'm genuinely sorry you see it that way. As I said the reason I am still on this thread is to dispell myths, and undo some of the work done by the ITV commentators that the RC was a ridiculous decision.

Davie wrote:You are entitled to your opinion but you are NOT entitled to ascribe incorrect thoughts to others

Davie any rules broken ? and how would you know that those thoughts are not in other peoples minds.
Nobody was named but if the cap fits.

Cymroglan wrote:He gave the red so why are you fighting his cause ? If he had not penalised him then I could understand people being up in arms.
Wales lost in a semi final they could have and should have won so cant you see why Welsh fans feel he overreacted.
We are told several times that us Welsh fans should accept it and move on and we will when the hurt eases but there are a few others on here who also need to move on.
Before I type anything about other teams I always try and think how I would feel if it was said about Wales,There are good posters on this site but even they at times will use incidents as this to do a bit of trolling.
So what I'm asking is that people try and be a bit more understanding,
If you feel the card was right that's fine but there is no need to go on about it because all it's doing is kicking me and a few others when we are already down.

As we have said, understandable reaction. But when constantly pointed out to you that the referee was absolutely right, when even pro-Welsh columnists (see the Times today) are saying the referee was right then what does that tell you? By the same token of your point there is no need for people like you to 'go on' about how it wasn't a red card, or question people who are stating facts not trolling opinions. We are using facts to support us, you are using unsupportable opinions. You might feel there is a problem with the law, and perhaps there is. But as the law stands the referee was correct. You show nothing more than bitterness and a total lack of class. Look at the reaction of the Welsh players after the match- they have class in defeat, you are displaying none. I wish Wales had won, I'm sorry they didn't. I'm hugely proud of the brave efforts of the players and I'm not even Welsh.

JDandfries wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:PJ you are just embaressing yourself now, klet it go ...you were wrong.

The reduction for previous good record is entuirely consistent with other bans.

The IRB should look at the application of the law again, but Rolland was perfectly correct as it stands and as it was clarified by the IRB before and after the incident.

But I don't feel in the slightest bit embarrassed Peter, how can I be wrong in having an opinion? Thanks for the concern but when I believe in something it's not a part-time thing I can just drop on a whim, Rolland was wrong to red card Warburton, he had a choice and picked the wrong one, "pefectly correct" could not be further from the truth.

If Rolland had yellow carded Warburton in exactly the same way as ALL the other refs in the tournament, the IRB would have arrived at exactly the same sanction because that is exactly what the offence deserved, a yellow card and a 3 week ban. Were ALL the other refs wrong? Of course not, if the letter of the Law were so black and white as everyone else is claiming, they would be idiots to have not shown a red card, they picked a yellow because the option is there to do so. They chose the correct option and Rolland did not.

The ban isn't entirely consistent with other bans, if it were he would have gotten 5 weeks like Gugana.

If the IRB were that concerned about tip-tackling it would be a red card offence with no option for interpretation by the referee, it would be the easiest thing to do and would take all the pressure off the refs having to make a judgement call.

Instead we have a situation where 5 players have been carded for tip-tackling, 4 yellows and 1 red, 3 yellows and the red have received bans of 3 weeks and the other yellow got 5 weeks, and I should be embarrassed? How so?

Dear God, what is it you fail to understanbd, the rule is clear, yes you would probably have preferred a yellow but rule clearly dictate a red!

The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result I you keep banging on about, but at least 30 people have explained how you are wrong, stop embarrassing yourself, cos that is what u are doing!

The rule is far from clear though isn't it, otherwise the other referees would not have had an option of showing a yellow card would they, is that so difficult to grasp?

Check out the definition for "dictate" and "clearly", and come back to me.

Honestly, I'm not in the slightest bit embarrassed, so save the patronising comments everybody, there's no need.

Cymroglan wrote:He gave the red so why are you fighting his cause ? If he had not penalised him then I could understand people being up in arms.
Wales lost in a semi final they could have and should have won so cant you see why Welsh fans feel he overreacted.
We are told several times that us Welsh fans should accept it and move on and we will when the hurt eases but there are a few others on here who also need to move on.
Before I type anything about other teams I always try and think how I would feel if it was said about Wales,There are good posters on this site but even they at times will use incidents as this to do a bit of trolling.
So what I'm asking is that people try and be a bit more understanding,
If you feel the card was right that's fine but there is no need to go on about it because all it's doing is kicking me and a few others when we are already down.

That is fair enough, but I was equally annoyed by Mr Barnes when my team lost to Argentina, I was told by a number of Welsh fans (not u) in no uncertain terms to move on, not blame the ref for my own teams ineptitude.

The same applies here, u missed 4 easy kicks, blame the ref for getting it right all u like, one of those kicks would still have seen u through!

Cymro lots of people have sympathy for wales. You seem to think everyone is having a go or backing Roland rather than the decision. Some of your countrymen are totally deluded thinking the rule is ambiguous.

Rodders +1

The referee can show a yellow card if a player is not tipped over the horizontal and dropped or if he is tipped and put down, but not driven.

Tip and drop and it should be red. Hopefully the IRB make a positive example of Rolland and other referees follow in his lead and clamp down on potentially career-ending tackles.

What people in the media have said is not our fault it's not us Welsh fans on here who said these things.

Yes the ref was right he acted within the letter of the law we all know that.
But more often than not it would have resulted in a yellow.
The red has been given no need for anybody to justify it.

Its been said time and time again all we won't as players and fans is consistency.

By the letter of the law that was a red card even if IMO it deserved a yellow, we have seen them given before and not.

I think th biggest turning point of game however was A Jones going off we were stuffed everytime then at scrum time.

[quote="PJHolybloke"]

JDandfries wrote: The rule is far from clear though isn't it, otherwise the other referees would not have had an option of showing a yellow card would they, is that so difficult to grasp?

Check out the definition for "dictate" and "clearly", and come back to me.

Honestly, I'm not in the slightest bit embarrassed, so save the patronising comments everybody, there's no need.

Incorrect interpretation of the laws by other referees is irrelevant to Warburton. The IRB reiterated their stance to referees and Rolland acted in accordance with how they want the rules to be interpreted. Rolland got his decision right, others got it wrong. Other examples have been retrospectively punished to similar levels as Warburton obviously depending on mitigating factors, some of which are listing by Quinlan in the case of Warburton.

There is an option to show a yellow card, but it wasn't present in Warburton's case. The issue of height that you have previously raised, despite what you believe, is not a mitigating factor. You believe it is because it is written in the law. Perhaps the IRB need to revisit this wording, but as explained to all referees, this is not a factor in considering how dangerous a tackle is. Warburton dropped the player with no regard to his safety. The only way to avoid that would have been to return him to his feet. Now, as you rightly state, dropping him may be safer than spearing him into the ground. I agree. I understand your point. The fact of the matter is though, as the IRB have explained to referees, that if a player is dropped in any other fashion than being returned onto his feet then it has no regard for player safety and is therefore a red card. The IRB do not want players lifted off their feet.

In the other examples given (Fijian and Tongan player) who only got yellow cards were both cited and subsequently received bans showing the original decision was incorrect in those instances. The argument put forward is that therefore AR should make an incorrect decision as well..that doesn't make sense. Roland is actually setting the standard by improving decision making for refs.

PJ - I don't think you should be embarassed in the slightest. I think you have succeeded in showing our disciplinary system to be inconsistent. I think you have interpreted the wording in a way that suis your argument. However we have attended workshops where this is explained to us. The arguments you put forward highlight what could/would/should be. We are highlighting how it is.

Cymro - I am really puzzled by you I have to say. I am surprised to see such disrespect over a disagreement. You send me a PM saying you were in a bad mood over result and now come out that we all hate Wales. I assure you its nothing of the sort.

A red card was given. You disagree, we agree. There is no need for name calling.

Cymro - I am really puzzled by you I have to say. I am surprised to see such disrespect over a disagreement. You send me a PM saying you were in a bad mood over result and now come out that we all hate Wales. I assure you its nothing of the sort



That is the last PM you get off me you are not to be trusted.

I did not name anybody so if the cap does not fit then there is no reason for you to feel guilty.
Name calling?

OK, the advice to refs is start at red and work backwards, if you start at red and end at red, the offence is clearly at the top end of the spectrum and is therefore backed up by the IRB sanction of a top end ban.

Logical enough for everyone?

So, the IRB decide it is a mid-range offense and hand out a 3 week ban.

Anyone spot the mistake?

The IRB are so certain that Rolland is right and choose to make an example of his bravery by rewarding his decision by - handing out the same bans as the other players who only got yellow cards for similar offences, except for one, who got 5 weeks.....

Anyone capable of following that logic and pointing out where I've got it wrong?

Why in God's name should I be embarrassed?

Sorry you feel I'm not to be trusted. I just feel puzzled by your angry reaction on this site and your attitude to several of us posters. There is being angry that your team has exited RWC and there is being disrespectful to others.

PJ - the simple answer to your post is that the other referees have not fronted up and we have inconsistentcy in refereeing. IRB have reiterated today the importance of red cards in this situation.

The whole X amount of weeks ban is a major minefield issue be it for eye contact, dangerous tackling, stamping, punching etc.

PJHolybloke wrote:OK, the advice to refs is start at red and work backwards, if you start at red and end at red, the offence is clearly at the top end of the spectrum and is therefore backed up by the IRB sanction of a top end ban.

Logical enough for everyone?

False logic. Any ban means it is a RC offence. RC sufficient (so no ban) means the RC was correct (and will appear on the player's disciplinary record at any future hearings). If the discipline committee had said RC rescinded then they would be saying AR got it wrong. They are not.

red_stag wrote:PJ - I don't think you should be embarassed in the slightest. I think you have succeeded in showing our disciplinary system to be inconsistent. I think you have interpreted the wording in a way that suis your argument. However we have attended workshops where this is explained to us. The arguments you put forward highlight what could/would/should be. We are highlighting how it is.

Cymro - I am really puzzled by you I have to say. I am surprised to see such disrespect over a disagreement. You send me a PM saying you were in a bad mood over result and now come out that we all hate Wales. I assure you its nothing of the sort.

A red card was given. You disagree, we agree. There is no need for name calling.

Fair do's Stag,

I've enjoyed the debate, and will end my days firm in my belief that Rolland could have AND should have shown Warburton a yellow, I now feel vindicated in so much as the IRB have decided it was only a mid-range offense and given Warburton the same ban as most of the other tip-tacklers, the fact that one of them actually got 5 weeks is further proof to me that Rolland made a bad call.

The IRB had the option to back Rolland and sting Warburton with a lengthy ban, but even they can see that that option would just heap further injustice on the man.

I think we can safely agree to disagree without any animosity whatsoever.

The citing commissioner comes in when he feels an incident hasn't been sufficiently punished on the pitch. So when a yellow card has been given for tackles and they've been cited, the citing commissioner is saying it deserves more than a yellow. When Warburton was giving a red and then been cited was saying that Warburton deserved "more than a red". The referee can only give a red, but the citing commissioner is saying that it deserves further punishment - backing up the call and adding a bit himself.

Just been watching the pundits on ITV and I think they do Wales a huge disservice saying the red card effectively ended the game and sealed the result. There was a lot of rugby to be played after the red card and on another day 14 man Wales could have got the job done. If you don't agree with the red card and therefore you don't believe the right result was reached that's one thing, but to say Wales' challenge was killed off in the 18th minute is a slap in the face to the 14 men who fought so hard for so long to come so close.

PJHolybloke wrote:I think we can safely agree to disagree without any animosity whatsoever.

I like this Any I must dash. My match kicks off at 1pm. Its been a quiet season so far. . .too quiet. Low penalty counts, no cards, no referee abuse, no blunders so far . . . .today could change that

PJHolybloke wrote:OK, the advice to refs is start at red and work backwards, if you start at red and end at red, the offence is clearly at the top end of the spectrum and is therefore backed up by the IRB sanction of a top end ban.

Logical enough for everyone?

So, the IRB decide it is a mid-range offense and hand out a 3 week ban.

Anyone spot the mistake?

The IRB are so certain that Rolland is right and choose to make an example of his bravery by rewarding his decision by - handing out the same bans as the other players who only got yellow cards for similar offences, except for one, who got 5 weeks.....

Anyone capable of following that logic and pointing out where I've got it wrong?

Why in God's name should I be embarrassed?

The citing official takes each case on it merits. If Clerc had been dropped on his neck and seriously injured then it is more likely to have been a offence towards the high end of the spectrum and therefore the ban would be longer.

Lekso Gugava and Warburton were both given six weeks as an entry point, and then the citing official has to look at various mitigating factors. Warburton had more and therefore had his ban reduced to 3 weeks. Go and look at http://www.irb.com/mm/document/tournament/mediazone/02/05/12/04/111003rwc11jodecisionleksogugava(georgia).pdf

That will inform you better of how the decision was arrived at in terms of the Georgian player