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?

I do feel sympathy for Wales and their supporters. Absolutely gutting to have your captain removed when others have done worse in less important games and been less harshly treated. It doesn't help that the ref was doing his job correctly in a very hard place when other refs have shirked theirs, in terms of feeling bad, or that if they'd gone for the drop 8 mins out and got it they'd probably have won.

Next 6N ought to be interesting!

I also seen the same thing on TV but Pienaar does have a point regarding the letter of the law if the refs played to the letter of the law the game is finished but that does not mean that a card should not be issued for dangerous play

robbo277 The disciplinary panel were only supporting the ref as they always do and I have nothing against that.
One thing though if the ref had awarded a yellow I don't think any further action would have been taken.

One final note on this issue. Gatland said that if Paddy O'Brien and IRB said that if the red card was justified, he'd accept it.

IRB citing have ruled that card was justified and Warburton banned for three weeks.

Case closed. End of story.

Yet another long thread without a single mention of Gavin Henson.
Farking disgraceful.

3 week ban:

http://www.rugbyweek.com/news/article.asp?id=32498

Cymroglan wrote:
robbo277 The disciplinary panel were only supporting the ref as they always do and I have nothing against that.
One thing though if the ref had awarded a yellow I don't think any further action would have been taken.

1)No they don't, I have had a RC overturned by the discipline panel, as have plenty of other refs.
2) Previous citings for dangerous tackles in this WC which have led to similar suspensions would suggest otherwise.

1)Mike with all due respect we are talking about the IRB backing top international refs.

Like the discipline reports on the previous tip-tackles which explicitly stated the refs got it wrong in only awarding YCs? I don't think they were backing the top international refs there. Or when O'Brien came out after Dickinson's car-crash in the NZ vs Italy match and said that Dickinson got it very very wrong?

The IRB has recently not been shy of criticising referees. In this case all objective facts point to the RC being correct.

Something that seems to have gone un-noticed is the short term impact of the officiating.

Clearly and with hindsight other incidents where YC were issued and then bans issued clarify and support what the IRB and Rolland are doing.

Where there is a sense of injustice is that others were given the benefit of doubt (wrongly) and the game went on with 15 v 15 (14 v 15 for 10 mins) whereas for wales and france it was 14 v 15, and it impacted the game no doubt.

Yes we should have still gone on and won, but it was made that much more difficult.

Personally, I think Pieanar [sp] raised some valid points for dealing with incidents like this. RC have a major impact in a game, and I'd support the idea that a mini-inquiry be held by the ref, his assistants and in some cases the video ref. It doesn't have to take long, but having the opinions of his assistants would aleviate some of the pressure and perceived bad calls.

If applied when refs used YC's in other incidents it may have concluded in RC's and any sense of injustice or inconsistencies can be reduced.

I'm fairly sure that fans would accept a decision against their team far easier where it been seen to have been agreed by all officials after some debate between them.

Just an idea!

Richard Kahui picked Quade Cooper up ("beyond the horizontal") and smashed him to the ground in the other semi today and it wasn't even penalised.

Nobody would complain if the refereeing was consistent - but essentially this RWC has been ruined by a busy-body Irish/French show-boater who wanted to get an A* rating on his post-game evaluation summary report.

Absolute farce.

The All Blacks will stick 50 on the French in the final and it will go down as the most anti-climactic sports tournament in history.

Red_Dragon_Spirit wrote:Something that seems to have gone un-noticed is the short term impact of the officiating.

Clearly and with hindsight other incidents where YC were issued and then bans issued clarify and support what the IRB and Rolland are doing.

Where there is a sense of injustice is that others were given the benefit of doubt (wrongly) and the game went on with 15 v 15 (14 v 15 for 10 mins) whereas for wales and france it was 14 v 15, and it impacted the game no doubt.

Yes we should have still gone on and won, but it was made that much more difficult.

Personally, I think Pieanar [sp] raised some valid points for dealing with incidents like this. RC have a major impact in a game, and I'd support the idea that a mini-inquiry be held by the ref, his assistants and in some cases the video ref. It doesn't have to take long, but having the opinions of his assistants would aleviate some of the pressure and perceived bad calls.

If applied when refs used YC's in other incidents it may have concluded in RC's and any sense of injustice or inconsistencies can be reduced.

I'm fairly sure that fans would accept a decision against their team far easier where it been seen to have been agreed by all officials after some debate between them.

Just an idea!

I think a lot of people seem to have a problem with Rolland making the decision straight away, and I get where you're coming from, but re-watch the incident and look at where Rolland is. He sees it dead on and perfectly. He knew straight away what happened so he sent him off.

My whole feeling towards this is that I'm glad Rolland had the balls to make such a decision, but it needs to be implemented by other refs from now on. There's no point in Rolland doing what he's told by directives if the rest of the referees around the world don't follow his lead. I think it's fairly likely that we'll see a similar tackle at some point during the Heineken cup/Pro12/Premiership/Top 14 in the next few months, let's hope that we get some consistency from now on. I'm fairly confident we will judging by the fairly unanimous response from people who know the rules around the world. We'll only see in the fullness of time though I suppose...

On Wales, I can only imagine how heartbroken ye all are but you've really turned into a great team and, to be fair, how many of ye would say you would outplay France with 14 man in the semi final of the world cup a few months ago? Terrific transformation, and I hope that Wales, just like the referees, learn to be consistent come the six nations!

mrsuperclear wrote:

I think a lot of people seem to have a problem with Rolland making the decision straight away, and I get where you're coming from, but re-watch the incident and look at where Rolland is. He sees it dead on and perfectly. He knew straight away what happened so he sent him off.

Totally agree that he had no choice and yes to the letter of the law quite correct. Just wish he would have been allowed to consult, get the the backing of his colleagues, confirmed 100% Red, controversy over. I know its a bit simplistic but it could work?

mrsuperclear wrote: My whole feeling towards this is that I'm glad Rolland had the balls to make such a decision, but it needs to be implemented by other refs from now on. There's no point in Rolland doing what he's told by directives if the rest of the referees around the world don't follow his lead. I think it's fairly likely that we'll see a similar tackle at some point during the Heineken cup/Pro12/Premiership/Top 14 in the next few months, let's hope that we get some consistency from now on. I'm fairly confident we will judging by the fairly unanimous response from people who know the rules around the world. We'll only see in the fullness of time though I suppose...

Absolutley, you have to respect his guts for making and sticking to call that he has been directed to carry out by the governing body. I think it's disgusting that he is carrying the can for all the other refs and the abuse he is getting is really so unfair and uncalled for. Again, if he had the backing of his colleagues at the time, this could be aleviated, and he would not be being singled out.

mrsuperclear wrote: On Wales, I can only imagine how heartbroken ye all are but you've really turned into a great team and, to be fair, how many of ye would say you would outplay France with 14 man in the semi final of the world cup a few months ago? Terrific transformation, and I hope that Wales, just like the referees, learn to be consistent come the six nations!

Heartbreak doesn't even begin to cover it..... absolutley devastated. I said long before the comp started that Wales could win it outright.... OK I only said it to close friends and the mrs, they know I'm mad already, and to be honest France have been so dire at times in last years AI, and the 6'ns this year.. it was always a possibility!

Appreciate the kind words of consolation, but still quite inconsolable at the moment.... thank you though.

Dragon Spirit



Amongst all the hand wringing the players have been exemplary it must be said (in stark contrast to some other nations it must be said). i hope the team harness that pain and bring it with them to the 6N and beyond. i genuinely feel a strong Wales can lift Ireland (and the other 6N teams) and drag them along in an attempt to catch them

Standulstermen wrote:Dragon Spirit



Amongst all the hand wringing the players have been exemplary it must be said (in stark contrast to some other nations it must be said). i hope the team harness that pain and bring it with them to the 6N and beyond. i genuinely feel a strong Wales can lift Ireland (and the other 6N teams) and drag them along in an attempt to catch them

Agree 100% with this. Dragon Spirit your comment above was classy, well done.

Mike Selig wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:Dragon Spirit



Amongst all the hand wringing the players have been exemplary it must be said (in stark contrast to some other nations it must be said). i hope the team harness that pain and bring it with them to the 6N and beyond. i genuinely feel a strong Wales can lift Ireland (and the other 6N teams) and drag them along in an attempt to catch them

Agree 100% with this. Dragon Spirit your comment above was classy, well done.

Thanks guys.

Have to lift ourselves for that 3rd spot first, this will show what they are really made of, both players and coaching staff. It's gonna be so hard though.

As to the 6n's, well we've all had some success there over the last few years... well Wales, France and Ireland ( ) and the only thing better than a win is when you know you've beaten a really good side.

At this point who could be considered a better bet than Wales for that?

You have a tough game at lansdowne first up but will rightly be favourites. Do you have France at Cardiff?

Cant wait for the 6N it must be said. heineken first mind you

Yes - all blue teams in Cardiff x 3 - away to Ireland Sunday 5th Feb and England Fri 24th....last game at home v France 17 March. I and partner have flights to Dublin and a hotel booked for a nice long weekend....see you folk there?

Lets all move on and up!

So glad Sam W will be available for the first HC game on the 11th Nov - Blues at Racing Paris - just got our tickets - easy drive down to Paris for 4 days.

Casartelli wrote:but essentially this RWC has been ruined by a busy-body Irish/French show-boater who wanted to get an A* rating on his post-game evaluation summary report.

It really is a shame how many comments there are like this on the forum.

looking at the the tackle again in real time it looks like just a hard hit- i really wish the ref could have refered it as in full speed it just looks like a hard hit maybe a bit careless but i am still shocked there was no discussion at all with warburton, rolland just went straight in with the card, in all honesty i think he has reacted to how the french players reacted and sent warburton off as in real time it just looks like a big hit

Yeah, just watched again . Someone mentioned that AR was right in front - that's the problem - seen from the side you can see warburton had forward momentum.

AR just got it wrong. IRB have to back him. 3 match ban is a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMHfH5lXZqY&feature=related
if you look at it AR is blocked by french players- he reacts to the french reaction i think- the ban is a total joke aswell shouldnt have been a red in the first place plus a ban- IRB= joke

Farce.

Yes guys it was a farce. You are all right in your assessment . Anything to stop the well informed posts on here . You have it spot on

Casartelli wrote:Farce.

Indeed. You would think Shaun Edwards would have coached them in safe tackling technique.

Interesting David Wallace (unlike Frankie Sheahan & Shane Horgan), whiles sympathetic to Warburton, thought the ref got it right.

Sin é wrote:

Casartelli wrote:Farce.

Indeed. You would think Shaun Edwards would have coached them in safe tackling technique.

Interesting David Wallace (unlike Frankie Sheahan & Shane Horgan), whiles sympathetic to Warburton, thought the ref got it right.

Looks its not Sams fault Vincent Clerc doesnt know how to fall properly.

Should take up judo, that's how you'd be taught to land.

AR had a shocker - everyone says so. So it must be true.

i dont really know if the decision was harsh or not.

what i do know is that by the rules of the game- if you pick a player up and drop him , you can face a red card.

slartibartfast wrote:Should take up judo, that's how you'd be taught to land.

AR had a shocker - everyone says so. So it must be true.

Look at 10.4(j) then reconsider. Current guidance in that is straight red.

http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/story/152366.html

"So clear is the International Rugby Board (IRB) stance on 'dangerous tackles' that he has little reason for complaint. Determined to rid the game of one of its uglier elements, the governing body have issued repeated directives on the subject that offer little room for movement. The three options open to referees "when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the ground" are as follows:

A. The player is lifted and then forced or 'speared" into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle

B. 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.

C. For all other types of dangerous lifting tackle it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

While no-one is suggesting Warburton speared Clerc into the ground in a malicious attack on his relatively slight rival, there can be little doubt that the Frenchman's safety was jeopardised by the tackle even if there was no intent. The IRB are also keen to stress that "any player who puts a player in the air or caused a player to be put in the air has a responsibility to ensure that the player is brought to the ground safely". Warburton didn't and has paid the price.

Some may well point to the case of France's Fabrice Estabanez, who only saw yellow for a tip tackle during his side's defeat to Tonga, but he was subsequently suspended for three games when the judicial officer ruled that referee Steve Walsh has got that decision wrong. It appears that the law is not in question, it is the application, which is nothing new for the IRB or referees boss Paddy O'Brien. There is always a grey area on such matters and maybe a more lenient and not so hasty decision by Rolland would have resulted in a better contest but that is a dangerous road to venture down."

This all boils to to justice v legality.It was unjust thst Sam/Wales were treated more harshly than others,including France in the Tonga match.Like a copper letting 5/6 cars go by and picking you for speeding.
This quoting the law book really does my head in.Havent all the refs got the same law book???????How many red cards have been dished out for this act during this WC?How many spear tackles have been carried out?For fair play those figures should be identical.They are not and that is where the injustice lies.

It's not just Sam Warburton who is on trail here, it is the game of Rugby Union as a spectator sport.

Alain Roland applied the "letter of the law". As Pienaar said; "if you apply the letter of the law, every breakdown will result in a penalty". I would go further in that scrums and lineouts would be never ending if the Ref "applied the letter of the law"!

The IRB understand this, so they allow the Referees to interpret the Laws of the game, to ensure that the game remains an entertaining spectacle and commercial success!

So, if they allow the Referees to apply their own interpretations of the Laws at the breakdown, scrum and lineout, to maintain the flow of the game. .

Lets be honest, it was a dreadful tackle and could have seriously injured Clerc. But during this World Cup, there have been worse tackles, with clear malicious intent, that have resulted in players being injured and that have not been punished in any way, during or after the game.

If this appraoch to the Laws of the game is correct. Why isn't Alain Roland allowed to apply an interpretation of the law in Sam Warburtons case?

I am really struggling to understand the suggestion that AR should have consulted the T J.

We have all seen the tackle and the IRB directive. We know he applied the law correctly.

Why do people say he should have sought another opinion? So he would change his correct decision into an incorrect decision?

On another point.

The IRB directive referred to a citing ruling in a case where the ref and TJ had agreed that there had been no intent to harm and so only a yellow card was issued. It makes it very clear that intent has no bearing on the colour of the card which should be used and that it must be Red.

It was an unintentionally dangerous tackle made by a fantastic, young ambassador for the sport in a crucial RWC game. It was very unfortunate but still the correct decision.

Now go and play your hearts out again on Friday and get that huge win against a SH side down under that the whole rugby world has seen you are capable of!

Taffineastbourne wrote:This all boils to to justice v legality.It was unjust thst Sam/Wales were treated more harshly than others,including France in the Tonga match.Like a copper letting 5/6 cars go by and picking you for speeding.
This quoting the law book really does my head in.Havent all the refs got the same law book???????How many red cards have been dished out for this act during this WC?How many spear tackles have been carried out?For fair play those figures should be identical.They are not and that is where the injustice lies.

what really annoys me is the hypocrysey(maybe not by you) of some of the posters on here- when some of us were debateing how bad the reffing was during the sa v oz game, many fans ere banging on about it being part of the game. Waes gets a legitimate red card for a dangerous tackle- now we all know 100% that reffng for pretty much all team games has serious consitancy issues- and my vote is for all to go the cricket route(lol funny enough when things are fairer england get to no.1 )and utilise technolgy as much as possible- also especially in rugby rules need to not be guidance- what is a forawrd pass needs to be clear- how to deal with every situation needs to be clear!- refs cannot and shouldnt be judges duing a split second decision, no point balming indiviuals for lack of consitancy - blame the system as it stands. AND SECONDLY its very clear that wales would have 15 men on the field if the sam didnt illegaly tackle the french dude- so stop whinging, consitantcy or not- its illegal and you are LUCKY if you get away with it- not UNLUCKY for being punished.

MrsP wrote:I am really struggling to understand the suggestion that AR should have consulted the T J.

We have all seen the tackle and the IRB directive. We know he applied the law correctly.

Why do people say he should have sought another opinion? So he would change his correct decision into an incorrect decision?

On another point.

The IRB directive referred to a citing ruling in a case where the ref and TJ had agreed that there had been no intent to harm and so only a yellow card was issued. It makes it very clear that intent has no bearing on the colour of the card which should be used and that it must be Red.

It was an unintentionally dangerous tackle made by a fantastic, young ambassador for the sport in a crucial RWC game. It was very unfortunate but still the correct decision.

Now go and play your hearts out again on Friday and get that huge win against a SH side down under that the whole rugby world has seen you are capable of!

Please see my post a few up.Do you get my drift?

Definite Red Card for a tackle that could have left Clerc in a wheelchair.

But what I found most disgraceful was the reaction of ITV and, in particular, Nick Mullins. Not one of the ITV pundits checked the rules and all HT were banging on about 'intent'. If they checked the rules they would see intent has nothing to do with it.

While during the live commentary Nick Mullins said, "Well hang on, is that a red card? Is that a red card, rather than a yellow card, for this?!

Yes Mullins, it's a red card for turning a guy on his head, something that could have left Clerc in a wheelchair. ITV's coverage is so w**k it's untrue. Give it back to the BBC or even Sky.

mystiroakey wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:This all boils to to justice v legality.It was unjust thst Sam/Wales were treated more harshly than others,including France in the Tonga match.Like a copper letting 5/6 cars go by and picking you for speeding.
This quoting the law book really does my head in.Havent all the refs got the same law book???????How many red cards have been dished out for this act during this WC?How many spear tackles have been carried out?For fair play those figures should be identical.They are not and that is where the injustice lies.

what really annoys me is the hypocrysey(maybe not by you) of some of the posters on here- when some of us were debateing how bad the reffing was during the sa v oz game, many fans ere banging on about it being part of the game. Waes gets a legitimate red card for a dangerous tackle- now we all know 100% that reffng for pretty much all team games has serious consitancy issues- and my vote is for all to go the cricket route(lol funny enough when things are fairer england get to no.1 )and utilise technolgy as much as possible- also especially in rugby rules need to not be guidance- what is a forawrd pass needs to be clear- how to deal with every situation needs to be clear!- refs cannot and shouldnt be judges duing a split second decision, no point balming indiviuals for lack of consitancy - blame the system as it stands. AND SECONDLY its very clear that wales would have 15 men on the field if the sam didnt illegaly tackle the french dude- so stop whinging, consitantcy or not- its illegal and you are LUCKY if you get away with it- not UNLUCKY for being punished.

You are so wrong.
The fundamental essence of ALL sport is Fair Play,in other words,a level playing field.If all parties are not treated the same,what is the point?

I wouldn't have liked to have seen the hoohaa if the boot had been on the other foot.

Just say a French player had up-ended and dropped Shane Williams on his head/neck and not had a red card? If the score had ended the same there would have been calls for AR's head, probably from the same folks that are complaining now.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:This all boils to to justice v legality.It was unjust thst Sam/Wales were treated more harshly than others,including France in the Tonga match.Like a copper letting 5/6 cars go by and picking you for speeding.
This quoting the law book really does my head in.Havent all the refs got the same law book???????How many red cards have been dished out for this act during this WC?How many spear tackles have been carried out?For fair play those figures should be identical.They are not and that is where the injustice lies.

what really annoys me is the hypocrysey(maybe not by you) of some of the posters on here- when some of us were debateing how bad the reffing was during the sa v oz game, many fans ere banging on about it being part of the game. Waes gets a legitimate red card for a dangerous tackle- now we all know 100% that reffng for pretty much all team games has serious consitancy issues- and my vote is for all to go the cricket route(lol funny enough when things are fairer england get to no.1 )and utilise technolgy as much as possible- also especially in rugby rules need to not be guidance- what is a forawrd pass needs to be clear- how to deal with every situation needs to be clear!- refs cannot and shouldnt be judges duing a split second decision, no point balming indiviuals for lack of consitancy - blame the system as it stands. AND SECONDLY its very clear that wales would have 15 men on the field if the sam didnt illegaly tackle the french dude- so stop whinging, consitantcy or not- its illegal and you are LUCKY if you get away with it- not UNLUCKY for being punished.

You are so wrong.
The fundamental essence of ALL sport is Fair Play,in other words,a level playing field.If all parties are not treated the same,what is the point?

err try and read the post- then comment- I speak about sorting out consitancy and fair play all the time- I comment on how to fix this!!! you just hypocritically whinge when your team gets a red card- lol

MrsP wrote:I wouldn't have liked to have seen the hoohaa if the boot had been on the other foot.

Just say a French player had up-ended and dropped Shane Williams on his head/neck and not had a red card? If the score had ended the same there would have been calls for AR's head, probably from the same folks that are complaining now.

Are you then advocating that all the other games in which a red card was not issued should be nul and void?

mystiroakey wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:This all boils to to justice v legality.It was unjust thst Sam/Wales were treated more harshly than others,including France in the Tonga match.Like a copper letting 5/6 cars go by and picking you for speeding.
This quoting the law book really does my head in.Havent all the refs got the same law book???????How many red cards have been dished out for this act during this WC?How many spear tackles have been carried out?For fair play those figures should be identical.They are not and that is where the injustice lies.

what really annoys me is the hypocrysey(maybe not by you) of some of the posters on here- when some of us were debateing how bad the reffing was during the sa v oz game, many fans ere banging on about it being part of the game. Waes gets a legitimate red card for a dangerous tackle- now we all know 100% that reffng for pretty much all team games has serious consitancy issues- and my vote is for all to go the cricket route(lol funny enough when things are fairer england get to no.1 )and utilise technolgy as much as possible- also especially in rugby rules need to not be guidance- what is a forawrd pass needs to be clear- how to deal with every situation needs to be clear!- refs cannot and shouldnt be judges duing a split second decision, no point balming indiviuals for lack of consitancy - blame the system as it stands. AND SECONDLY its very clear that wales would have 15 men on the field if the sam didnt illegaly tackle the french dude- so stop whinging, consitantcy or not- its illegal and you are LUCKY if you get away with it- not UNLUCKY for being punished.

You are so wrong.
The fundamental essence of ALL sport is Fair Play,in other words,a level playing field.If all parties are not treated the same,what is the point?

err try and read the post- then comment- I speak about sorting out consitancy and fair play all the time- I comment on how to fix this!!! you just hypocritically whinge when your team gets a red card- lol

It was your instruction to stop whingeing that got to me.The issue at stake needs sorting and I will "whinge" all I want,thank you very much.

It is known that France has 2 players playing their level, Vincent Clerc and Julien Bonnaire. Maybe Bonnaire was too tough.

The IRB can simply such incidents by issuing a new directive, effective immediately:

No player can tackle another by deliberately lifting both feet off the ground. I just wish that were done. It will make the game safer and should reduce the incidence of tip tackles, though i'm not sure it will eliminate them compleementingh -- cos a much bigger, far more powerful player is capable of upending a player in the tackle.

Whilst consistency is a massive issue the IRB have done right here. the Estabanez tackle has been mentioned. Good example. In that instance Walsh gave a yellow and let the citing comissioner take care of it. He was therefore admonished by the IRB and consequently when the big games are being dished out he isnt in the mix. Im not sure what else the IRB can do to punish him.
Now i hate George Hook with the fire of a thousand suns but he made the (very valid) point that it isnt Rolland that should face this barrage of abuse and intrigue (no ref should) but rather the other refs who have failed to act on a clear directive. He referred to them as "chickens" and he would be right.

Rolland applied the letter of the law and was rightly backed by the IRB. He may well get another RWC final and in fairness to Rolland he has form for giving red cards for this kind of tackle (Florian Fritz v wasps). Thats consistency and thats the sort of refereeing we should be applauding.

Pienaar made a comment (backtracking furiously on his anti french sentiment from the day before) about applying the letter of the law at the breakdown. Fact is as a flanker he should know there are probably 2 or 3 infringements at every ruck so which one do referees pick up on?
Furthermore 'hands in the ruck' or such other breakdown offences arent going to cause injury to a player. The only breakdown offences that could have already been dealt with, like rucking and illegal charging (think the Lions tour and justice 4 bakkies).

Brent Pope went on about how it should be taken in context and Health and Safety is out of control etc. First of all context cant and shouldnt apply. To my mind it isnt out of control. We are seeing the game dominated by big guys that are getting bigger and at some point the governing body have a duty of care to protect those involved in the sport (a couple of years ago i believe someone was convicted of manslaughter for a spear tackle). warburtons tackle didnt result in serious injury (and there is no way a man of his integrity meant to harm) but that isnt the issue. It could have. In much the same way as rucking had to be punished severely so it was eradicated these sort of tackles also do. Its unfortunate that it had to happen to Wales and somewhat tragic that it had to happen to someone as likeable and inspiring as Warburton but it is the right call.

Can I suggest that this thread be left as a sort of mourning area for those who feel hard done by with regards to ARs decision . For the non hallucinating amongst us there comes a time when repeating the same argument ad nauseam gets boring.

The law is clear, the directive is clear, the decision was clear and the ban was unequivocal .

All the rest is bunk as someone once said

Ospreydragon wrote:The IRB can simply such incidents by issuing a new directive, effective immediately:

No player can tackle another by deliberately lifting both feet off the ground. I just wish that were done. It will make the game safer and should reduce the incidence of tip tackles, though i'm not sure it will eliminate them compleementingh -- cos a much bigger, far more powerful player is capable of upending a player in the tackle.

It would certainly help Osprey. I think to be honest by removing the " ... from height with no regard for the players safety..." from the wording would be a simpler use. That seems to be where interpretation could be implied. Other than that i completely agree.

DOD wrote:Can I suggest that this thread be left as a sort of mourning area for those who feel hard done by with regards to ARs decision . For the non hallucinating amongst us there comes a time when repeating the same argument ad nauseam gets boring.

1. if you don't like it don't read it
2. it's a rugby forum on the day after one of the biggest ref blunders in rugby history

Standulstermen wrote:

Ospreydragon wrote:The IRB can simply such incidents by issuing a new directive, effective immediately:

No player can tackle another by deliberately lifting both feet off the ground. I just wish that were done. It will make the game safer and should reduce the incidence of tip tackles, though i'm not sure it will eliminate them compleementingh -- cos a much bigger, far more powerful player is capable of upending a player in the tackle.

It would certainly help Osprey. I think to be honest by removing the " ... from height with no regard for the players safety..." from the wording would be a simpler use. That seems to be where interpretation could be implied. Other than that i completely agree.

what about the wording deliberatly!! the ref cant judge that correctly either!

its simple if you pick someone up- you must put them down in a safe manor

slartibartfast wrote:

DOD wrote:Can I suggest that this thread be left as a sort of mourning area for those who feel hard done by with regards to ARs decision . For the non hallucinating amongst us there comes a time when repeating the same argument ad nauseam gets boring.

1. if you don't like it don't read it
2. it's a rugby forum on the day after one of the biggest ref blunders in rugby history

for real- lol your going on about it like its the maradona hand goal- the guy got punished for an illegal tackle- what do you not understand?