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?

The word 'deliberately' isnt in the IRB directive at present mysti.

I have said elsewhere - AR is getting the blame for something SW did...

slartibartfast wrote:
2. it's a rugby forum on the day after one of the biggest ref blunders in rugby history

This forum is seriously lacking in a face palm animation. Have a look at the IRB statement of the tip and spear tackles.

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

Oh wise one, please tell us where the referee made a mistake in Warburton's case to make this a 'blunder'.

Its a blunder because itv said so, or was that a travesty.

mystiroakey, It should be easy for a ref to see if a player * deliberately * picks up a player by grabbing both legs.

The protocol for such key decisions also needs to change. The clock should be stopped, there should be a 3-min timeout, and the two asst refs and the ref should go to the side of the pitch to the 4th official and properly review the incident. For a red to be issued, the decision should be unanimous between the officials and the exact law/directive should be referred to by the ref.

I do not believe that such incidents have been consistenly judged the same way by refs in the past, nor do I suspect they will be in the future. It seems absurd to me that the directive is to ignore intent and ignore the circumstances of the tackle. Plenty more red cards should be issued in future games all over theworld.

If Warburton had held out his arms and Clerc had still fallen the same way, would a red card still be issued? Or does the gessture imply "regard"?

Or is the red card now awarded purely for the player's safety and any accidental tackle or attempt to catch the tackled player is ignored when the player is not safely suported to the ground?


These sorts of issues have to be clarified. Otherwise, refs will "interpret" again and we will continue to have inconsistency.

Lifting both a player's legs should be explicitly written into the laws.


It's interesting to see that the likes of Piennar etc today still hold the same opinion about the tackle, even though they admit they were "emotional" at the time. If the pure letter of the law is applied every time ther is an infringement or serious infringement of the laws of the game, regardless of any empathy, circumstances, intent, and feel for the game, we will all be paying to watch a whistle fest.

Ospreydragon wrote:The protocol for such key decisions also needs to change. The clock should be stopped, there should be a 3-min timeout, and the two asst refs and the ref should go to the side of the pitch to the 4th official and properly review the incident. For a red to be issued, the decision should be unanimous between the officials and the exact law/directive should be referred to by the ref.

The incident was reviewed today by the citing panel.

The decision was upheld

Would an extra 5 minutes deliberation during the match have helped? No

"mystiroakey, It should be easy for a ref to see if a player * deliberately * picks up a player by grabbing both legs."

refs having to make this 'judgements' is the problem we face when it comes to consitancy and officiating team sport.

the more judgements we can elimkinate from rugby union reffing the better and fairer and the more consitant the reffing will be. It needs to be straight forward laws- you cant do this- you can do that! Intent confsues things in a big way

Osprey you're flogging a dead one here with some people mate who are just glad to see Wales out so I wouldn't bother any more - Here's the real acid test - if that ref had given a yellow then today no one would even be mentioing a red and the posts would all be about the game. The ref made an absolute howler and he has scarred an otherwise good tournament. We are left with a relative walk over for a final but that's not the french fault. The ref got it hugely wrong and whilst he'll never admit to that, it is that gross error that will now define his career.

DOD wrote:Its a blunder because itv said so, or was that a travesty.

I think at one point they succumbed to Godwin's Law as well. I'm surprised one here hasn't already. I'm waiting for it with bated breath

Not sure if we stopped the game for 30 mins and consulted a psychic would ot change the directive or the facts of the tackle. Unless you have a time machune or are able to get paddy o'brien to personally appear and exonerate the perpetrator or hold an impromptu disciplinary session which will find the player completely innocent award a sainthood and send the ref to refereeing hell immediately

Ospreydragon wrote: The protocol for such key decisions also needs to change. The clock should be stopped, there should be a 3-min timeout, and the two asst refs and the ref should go to the side of the pitch to the 4th official and properly review the incident. For a red to be issued, the decision should be unanimous between the officials and the exact law/directive should be referred to by the ref.

Fair point, but you are looking at how the law should be interpreted. But that isn't how it exists right now.

RubyGuby wrote:Osprey you're flogging a dead one here with some people mate who are just glad to see Wales out so I wouldn't bother any more - Here's the real acid test - if that ref had given a yellow then today no one would even be mentioing a red and the posts would all be about the game. The ref made an absolute howler and he has scarred an otherwise good tournament. We are left with a relative walk over for a final but that's not the french fault. The ref got it hugely wrong and whilst he'll never admit to that, it is that gross error that will now define his career.

Again, according to the following criteria, how did the referee get it wrong?

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

Hookisms and Hyperbole, Many top players past and present, including current top coaches, think the decision was harsh.

But to answer your question:

It appears that AR made a snap decision, followed the directive as he understood it, and it appears that the following applied in that incident:

"The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)".

Many people are arguing that Warburton made a good "hit", is a far more powerful player, and that there was clearly no attempt to "spear". No one suggests the tackle was not dangerous. The directive and relevant law ignores intent, so Warburton is red-carded for not attempting to catch the player after he let him go.

I have never layed interntional, top-flight rugby but many players, including greats like Dallaglio, support Warburton and think a yellow was appropriate. Plenty of other former and current players do too (Piennar, Fitzpatrick, etc). Obviously, they are all wrong, because the only thing that really matters is the directive issued by P O'B and AR did what he was apparently directed to do.

1. The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
2. The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
3. For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

1 - he wasn't forced in to the ground
2 - eek - open to interpretation - also, how can the ref tell if SW had no regard to safety - IRB have admitted this by giving a minimum ban

So it's agreed then - yellow card would have been sufficient and within the rules

Couple of points i disagree with Osprey

we have heard all this year that you cannot use the TMO except in the act of scoring. we have heard for years that it was all we wanted as to use it at any other stage would slow the game. We heard the same argument after Peter allens debacle in the millenium, and we had George Clancy and the SA TMO admonished in the Tri nations for overstating their mandate. Referees will get decisions wrong from time to time. Rolland didnt in this instance.

I actually agree with the directive to ignore intent. This takes pressure off the referee and should allow for greater consistency. If we do have an injury (god forbid) from that kind of tackle will it comfort anyone to know that the tackler didnt mean it? By adding the word deliberately into any directive you immediately open a decision up to interpretation, unless we are expecting referees to be mindreaders.

By removing the "with no regard" the issue is black and white. (i actually think it is still black and white but that is the only phrasing which can lead to interpretation

Pienaar makes that point but he doesnt acknowledge that other infringements dont all result in serious injuries which is the reason for the directive from the IRB. David Wallace was on rte and disagreed saying that while he didnt think Warburton meant it, the safety of players must be paramount and he agreed it was red. Interestingly Horgan and Sheahan disagreed.

slartibartfast wrote:1. The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
2. The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
3. For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

1 - he wasn't forced in to the ground
2 - eek - open to interpretation - also, how can the ref tell if SW had no regard to safety - IRB have admitted this by giving a minimum ban
So it's agreed then - yellow card would have been sufficient and within the rules

Incorrect- the IRB have not only come out and said it was the right decision but they also ruled it was mid-range and not lower range and after suspending for 6 weeks reduced it because of no previous record and the fact that Warburton pleaded guilty.

Davie, Do you seriously think that any citing panel would not uphold a decision made by a top ref? The administration of the game would descend into chaos if they did not suupport the decision.

I don't blame AR. The laws/directes/protocols need tightening up. And refs who do not apply the laws/directives property should face disciplinary action.

Osprey these guys are not really interested in the explanation as honourable as it is - it has been painful for them seeing this welsh side perform. The likes of Piennar et al are pretty passionate but rationale pundits, they, like many others know the ref made a howler, others who can't bring themselves to see that are fuelled by something other than the incident itself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15323153.stm

It seems Robert Jones has joined the anti Welsh bandwagon now too


"As disappointing as it is for me as a Welshman, the Sam Warburton decision was the right one.

"Initially it looked fine, like a well-made tackle. But in slow motion you can see he has lifted Vincent Clerc and dropped him.

"If you go by the letter of the law, that is a red card.

"I think they [International Rugby Board] have to look at that law, and have to give the referee the opportunity to base his decision on the way the game is going and the players involved.

"It is all about the feel of the game and there has been inconsistency in the refereeing.

"But it is the semi-final of the World Cup and you have to abide by the laws. If you are a referee, you make those decisions on the directives the IRB have put in place.

"The way I feel, I think they need to change the law. Ultimately, if you read it, it is black and white."

slartibartfast wrote:1. The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
2. The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
3. For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

1 - he wasn't forced in to the ground
2 - eek - open to interpretation - also, how can the ref tell if SW had no regard to safety - IRB have admitted this by giving a minimum ban

So it's agreed then - yellow card would have been sufficient and within the rules

Those are separate instances. The first is not applicable. Under the second the only way that players can show regard to player safety is to return the tackled player to his feet. That is not my personal interpretation, that is handed down by the IRB to referees. What did Warburton do with Clerc?

Now, it could be argued that Warburton actually did have Clerc's safety in mind by dropping him. That may very well be the case. However, as the IRB have instructed referees, unless the player is returned to his feet then it is done without regard to his safety.

And they didn't give Warburton the minimum ban. They gave him six weeks as it was a mid-range offence, and with mitigating circumstances, reduced to three. An offence at the top end would have been if Clerc was dropped on his neck or had suffered serious injury or if the citing official believed there to be intent.

Lekso Gugava of Georgie got five weeks. Red the citing document at
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/tournament/mediazone/02/05/12/04/111003rwc11jodecisionleksogugava(georgia).pdf

It explains why he got five weeks. His poor disciplinary record counted against him. Warburton has an excellent record so that factor was in his favour.

Standulstermen, If you see one of my earlier posts, I've recommended that "no regard" phrase be removed. It's irrelevant to the law/directive, so it should be removed, as should "from a height".

I do wonder who writes these laws/directives.

Regarding injury, it's a collision sport, and we all know that "legal" injuries occur, as do "accidents" (people who can't oull out of tackles, players pushed by another into another etc). There has to be a feel for the game/incident/situation -- you can ignore "intent" but refs constantly make judgements about intent, whether it's written as part of the law or not.

What is "from a height"? 3 inches is a height

Many players (past and present) have said the decision was wrong

Most referees (past and present) have said the decision was correct

Davie, that's true. But regarding the refs, it shoukld be 100%, not "most", and there's the rub.

I look forward to seeing a lot more reds for similar incidents.

Ospreydragon wrote: I have never layed interntional, top-flight rugby but many players, including greats like Dallaglio, support Warburton and think a yellow was appropriate. Plenty of other former and current players do too (Piennar, Fitzpatrick, etc). Obviously, they are all wrong, because the only thing that really matters is the directive issued by P O'B and AR did what he was apparently directed to do.

You are 100% correct- those players are totally wrong. The referee was right under the law to do as he did. Now, my personal opinion is that it was harsh as Warburton clearly tried to pull out of a spear or tip tackle, but that is irrelevant as the law stand unless he returned Cler to his feet. I feel dreadfully sorry for Warburton and Wales. But under the law was the referee right? Yes. Now, it the law itself right? Perhaps it needs a rethink, but we are still dealing with how the law stands, not as you and others believe it should be.

Ospreydragon wrote:Standulstermen, If you see one of my earlier posts, I've recommended that "no regard" phrase be removed. It's irrelevant to the law/directive, so it should be removed, as should "from a height".

I do wonder who writes these laws/directives.

Regarding injury, it's a collision sport, and we all know that "legal" injuries occur, as do "accidents" (people who can't oull out of tackles, players pushed by another into another etc). There has to be a feel for the game/incident/situation -- you can ignore "intent" but refs constantly make judgements about intent, whether it's written as part of the law or not.

Osprey
First part we are in complete agreement about
Beyond that yes it is a collision sport but by including phrases like 'deliberate' we are leaving things open to interpretation of the ref which you are otherwise trying to get away from. Paul O'Connells red card for striking Jon Thomas being a point in case. I disagree regarding a feel for the game aswell. Certainly regarding dangerous play situations or situations whereby a player will potentially be red carded we need to help the referees as much as possible. I actually think the IRB have strove to do that which resulted in Rollands decision but it still isnt enough apparently.

Shane Horgan argued that by not driving him downward Warburton showed regard for Clercs safety. I cant agree. By dropping him i think it is closer to showing no regard. Its certain the type of tackle that was made but Rolland has to judge regard as well?

Osprey I haven't read a single referee contradict the decision, although if you have a link I'll gladly rescind that comment. I think the key was when the decision was reviewed and completely upheld with a suspension for Warburton. When the review of Rollands performance is held, he'll get credit for getting the decision right.

I know it's hard to take when your team loses out to a bad refereeing decision. This is the first time I've heard this much controversy about a correct decision.

Is it not time to just say "We had our chance, we weren't good enough, but we're proud of our team and we know they gave it everything?" You know, show a bit of grace?

Hookisms and Hyperbole, The refs's decision is always final. And as the laws/directives stand, AR can say that because SW did not catch the player and return him to ground, his interpretation of the law is correct.

My argument is that officiating is a mess.

I know enough about the game and its laws to know that if I reffed a game, I could blow the whistle almost all the time. In tackle situations, all refs make a judgement. AR did as he was directed. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with it when it appears that one ref decides a type of tackles deserves a red card, and others don't.

Ar's decision stes a kind of precedent. This type of tackle, with very similar circumatances, must always end in a red card from now on. In other words, if the plauyer is tipped and not supported to the ground, a red card must be issued, regardless of whether it was obviously accidental. The mere act of the player deciding to lift both legs/tip places total responsibility on the player, even if that player happens to be cleaned out by an opposing foward at the time.

It shoudl also apply, for example, to all situations where a fullback or player takes a high ball and is touched in the air and falls to teh ground in a heap. It should also apply to taling out lineout jumpers in teh air, and their lifters.

I want to see lots of red cards for all dangerous play where the player is not safely returned to the ground, absolutely regardles of circumstances and (given the law/directive) intent.

Ospreydragon wrote:Hookisms and Hyperbole, The refs's decision is always final. And as the laws/directives stand, AR can say that because SW did not catch the player and return him to ground, his interpretation of the law is correct.

My argument is that officiating is a mess.

I know enough about the game and its laws to know that if I reffed a game, I could blow the whistle almost all the time. In tackle situations, all refs make a judgement. AR did as he was directed. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with it when it appears that one ref decides a type of tackles deserves a red card, and others don't.

Ar's decision stes a kind of precedent. This type of tackle, with very similar circumatances, must always end in a red card from now on. In other words, if the plauyer is tipped and not supported to the ground, a red card must be issued, regardless of whether it was obviously accidental. The mere act of the player deciding to lift both legs/tip places total responsibility on the player, even if that player happens to be cleaned out by an opposing foward at the time.

It shoudl also apply, for example, to all situations where a fullback or player takes a high ball and is touched in the air and falls to teh ground in a heap. It should also apply to taling out lineout jumpers in teh air, and their lifters.

I want to see lots of red cards for all dangerous play where the player is not safely returned to the ground, absolutely regardles of circumstances and (given the law/directive) intent.

Indeed, a precedent has been set, and it is the precedent that the IRB had desired. And I totally agree, the refereeing on this area has been inconsistent. That doesn't mean Roland was wrong. It means other referees must not properly apply it as Roland did on Warburton. Harsh? In my opinion as a player, yes. That is irrelevant. Was it right? Yes. If that is what this debate is about then it is a short one. We can debate about how the law should be rewritten until the cows come home, but the IRB have their definition, their interpretation and are clearly happy with it. It was rightly applied in this case. I too look forward to seeing it applied correctly in the future. I won't be holding my breath though

Osprey

What you will note though (and you are right regarding consistency being an issue) is that the IRB admonished the refs who didnt give reds earlier and subsequently they arent involved at this stage of the tournament.

Interestingly Mark Lawrence of SA gave Digby Ioane a yellow for a much worse tackle than Warburtons in the super 15. The upshot of decisions like that is that Lawrence wasnt considered in the elite ref panel for the RWC from SA. even if we dont here about them there are repurcussions for referees who dont follow the IRB rules.

As far as your last comment goes i agree, i want to see all tackles that fit statements 1 or 2 of the IRB directive met with a red card.

This makes interesting reading:

Ref report card: Alain Rolland’s Rugby World Cup (so far)
Thursday 5.05

AS THE IRISH rugby team get back to normality at home, one Irishman is still very much at the centre of the action in New Zealand: referee Alain Rolland.

The bilingual Dubliner will be the man in the middle in Auckland’s Eden Park on Saturday as France and Wales do battle in the first World Cup semi-final.

Having taken charge of the 2007 final, Rolland is well used to high-pressure occasions. He has already been in action four times at this tournament: for Australia v Italy, Wales v Samoa, New Zealand v France and Argentina v Georgia.

So as he prepares to take centre stage on Saturday, we’ve crunched the numbers on his performance to date and tried to work out what to expect from him in the game’s different problem areas.

Breakdown
Of all the referees at the World Cup, Rolland has awarded the most penalties at the breakdown for tackling infringements (not releasing the ball or tackled player; not rolling away; player leaving their feet).

In total, he’s whistled 53 times in his four games, just three fewer than Craig Joubert who has refereed a game more.

Part of the reason for Rolland’s high penalty count has been a somewhat inconsistent approach at the tackle area. In the first half against Wales, Samoa’s forwards seemed able to go in off their feet with impunity and were very rarely pulled up on it.

Rolland did take a stricter line in the second half of that game, but teams are already struggling to understand each referee’s unique interpretation of the rules and this kind of inconsistency isn’t exactly ideal.

With powerhouses like Thierry Dusautoir and Sam Warburton operating around the breakdown, Rolland will need to set his stall out early on Saturday.

Scrum
In Rolland’s four games so far, there have been 71 scrums, 34 of which have either collapsed or been reset, resulting in a total of 16 penalties. Again, all of those numbers are slightly above the tournament average, indicating that Rolland is stricter than most when it comes pinging infractions in the tight.

Both front rows are hugely experienced at international level and know that perception is everything at the scrum. Watch as they seek to establish themselves as the dominant force in the hope that any of Rolland’s marginal decisions will benefit them.

Discipline
Here’s one for you stats nerds. Rolland is the only referee yet to produce either a yellow or a red card at this year’s World Cup.

While that’s an interesting nugget in itself, it is also a key indicator of his refereeing style. Among his large number of penalties are 13 “disciplinary” infractions that are often deemed worthy of a yellow card e.g. for a high tackle or collapsing a maul. Rather than immediately banish offenders to the sin-bin, Rolland has preferred to give them a strong warning and one last chance.

With the tournament now down to the final four, will he be tempted to take a stricter line on Saturday?

Tries
Rolland’s four matches have been largely free of controversy, which is almost certainly part of the reason for his appointment on Saturday. But there were at least two occasions on which his decisions have sparked discussion, if not debate.

Rolland also allowed the French to take a quick tap penalty close to the All Blacks’ line late on, resulting in a try for Francois Trinh-Duc. As the penalty was being taken, Rolland had finished talking to Tony Woodcock and Richie McCaw — but only just. What’s more, he had yet to get out of the way and would’ve certainly hindered any tackle had the All Blacks’ defenders not been so asleep.

The decision had no real impact on the game or the tournament, but it remains another interesting example of his borderline calls.

Standulstermen, I can't point to refs disagreeing with it, but saw a ref somewhere that 85% agreed and the rest didn't (though thay may be referring to people's opinions in a website -- can't remeber wher I saw it).

I appreciate it must be very hard being a ref, but the problem with top-flight rugby is that too many games are affected by poor or inconsistent decisions.

Decision-making for refs has to be made absolutely clear when it comes to red cards. I also think it applied to yellow cards, but that's another matter.

Where's that from, Ruby?

TheJournal.ieBusiness ETCThe Daily Edge Search siteSearchDublin: 10 °C Sunday 16 October, 2011
HomepageGAASoccerRugbyGolfOther SportsWorld CupTrending tags :Race for the Áras RSSTagsAlain RollandFrance RugbyMagazine

I think its an Irish publication, pretty perceptive stuff

Osprey you are correct that in relation to any game you or anyone could end up blowing the whistle every minute. That is why rugby has laws that need interpretation instead of rules especially when it comes to general play.

On the other hand as it is a contact sport with the possibility to do serious damage to the opposition their are specific rules concerning dangerous play where player safety is the main criteria. The crackdown on these types of tackles and things like eye contact mean that there is zero tolerance to these offences which will mean that eventually (take raking as an example) they will disappear from the game completely.

Standulstermen, Surely, good refs have to have a feel for the game. As Piennar rightly pointed out today, refs could blow the whistel all game if tey simply applied the letter of the laws.

As I recall, ther was a minor incident in the Aus/NZ match today where the ref gave a pen against Aus for offside. It was clearly accidental offside, where the ball landed v near a player and a reflex action menat he caught it. Many other refs would have not awarded a pen and given accidental offside. It's that kind of inconsistency thousands of times that needs to be cleared up. It can decide games, tournaments, and v large sums of money in the pro game.

Osprey - these guys actually think OJ Simpson is innocent - it aint gonna work

DOD, If the "crackdown" is applied across the board, at club/int level all over the world, as Jake White is reported to have stated in repsonse to that tackle, there'll be red cards issued in the S15 every week (for example) for that kind of tackle ...

RubyGuby, Innocence only exists at birth ...

Ospreydragon wrote: Standulstermen, Surely, good refs have to have a feel for the game. As Piennar rightly pointed out today, refs could blow the whistel all game if tey simply applied the letter of the laws.

As I recall, ther was a minor incident in the Aus/NZ match today where the ref gave a pen against Aus for offside. It was clearly accidental offside, where the ball landed v near a player and a reflex action menat he caught it. Many other refs would have not awarded a pen and given accidental offside. It's that kind of inconsistency thousands of times that needs to be cleared up. It can decide games, tournaments, and v large sums of money in the pro game.

All good points. All totally irrelevant to the merits of Warburton's decision. Roland interpreted the the decision exactly as the IRB wanted. That doesn't mean that the laws are fair or just, but those are the circumstances in which the tournament is played. You can say Roland is an inconsistent referee or a bad referee, but on this occasion he was right, unfortunately for Wales. Don't get me wrong, if it happened to Brian O'Driscoll I would be spitting feathers. However, on reflection, I would have coming to the same conclusion as I am at now....only more grudgingly so.

Or maybe the players will stop making those tackles.

Osprey



Ruby

You are entirely missing the point. Rolland could have got every other decision at this world cup wrong but he got that one right. If you can show me where he let a similar tackle to Warburtons go then he should be hauled over the coals for it. Otherwise it is all just bluster im afraid

On your point about 'feel for the game' Osprey

Yes the incident was when AAC collected th ball from a knock on when he was in front. Now the ball came straight at him but he didnt try and remove himself from its path or put up his arms and let it just strike him. He grabbed the ball. A reflex perhaps but so too is hands in the ruck. They are trained professionals who should fight those reflexes. Joubert made 100% the correct decision as the ruling is 'playing the ball from an offside position'. Like i say had AAC just let the ball hit him, you could argue he wasnt playing it. by catching the ball he really doesnt have that defence. Thats the difference. Im not suggesting that it is reffed the same all the time but the argument now seems to be going along the lines of 'referees arent allowed to make mistakes'.

Why not? Everyone else is. There is also a process for them to be disciplined or downgraded as a result. We cant expect refs to get things right every time.

Ospreydragon wrote:DOD, If the "crackdown" is applied across the board, at club/int level all over the world, as Jake White is reported to have stated in repsonse to that tackle, there'll be red cards issued in the S15 every week (for example) for that kind of tackle ...

Thats why i used the Ioane example. Mark Lawrence only gave yellow to him and he hasnt been considered as an elite ref which i believe he was in 2007 (could be wrong though). There is a process for refs to be hauled over the coals. We are just not privy to it. These tackles (like rucking) will eventually be eradicated. You wont be the last on here complaining about these kind of decisions im sure.

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:

slartibartfast wrote:
2. it's a rugby forum on the day after one of the biggest ref blunders in rugby history

This forum is seriously lacking in a face palm animation. Have a look at the IRB statement of the tip and spear tackles.

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

Oh wise one, please tell us where the referee made a mistake in Warburton's case to make this a 'blunder'.

hookisms the first point warburton did not do, he let go to stop himself driving clerc to the ground (due to momentum)
the second point warburton didnt drop him from a great height with no regard- he released the player so he didnt have 100kg + hitting his shoulder area.

now yes the tackle looks bad when slow mo, but in real time it seemed like a good big hit.
i know people say AR followed it to the letter of the law but the thing is while it is all well and good doing that it is inconsistant, not just for dangerous tackles but for rucks, scrums, line outs etc- if a ref followed the laws to the letter there would be no game that we all love so much as penalties would be given all the time.

also following the laws to the letter doesnt make you a great ref, you need to take into account certain things, warburtons height and weight against clerc- warburton has momentum, and once he has that moment its hard to stop, and he tried to the best of his abilities by pulling out of the "spear" tackle.

and one final thing, if that happened to a welsh player by a french player would i say it was a red- answer is no, that is the first red card i have seen in a pro match of rugby and i have seen worse incidents than that- if it happened to say shane at first i would have been "ouch that hurt" then slow mo i would have said that is a yellow card but never a red. just my views, you can abuse me or criticise me all you want but those are my views so lets debate it sensibly

Standulstermen, I've never seen a ref get things right all the time.

AR certainly didn't get everything right in the Wales game. Will he be downgarded for it?

As for making mistakes, yes everyone makes mistakes. But I've been to many matches where there are a lot of mistakes and you still see the same refs officiating.

Ulster IMO he got it wrong, badly wrong and whilst I don't expect you to understand that, it remains my opinion - Thank you

welshy824 wrote:
hookisms the first point warburton did not do, he let go to stop himself driving clerc to the ground (due to momentum)
the second point warburton didnt drop him from a great height with no regard- he released the player so he didnt have 100kg + hitting his shoulder area.

Sorry mate, you are 1 million per cent wrong here.

The law doesn't say 'from a great height with no regard'. It only says 'height', and in this case, an inch, a foot, a mile is sufficient. Look at the case with Lambie for example. 'No regards', as the IRB have told referees is that you must return a player to his feet otherwise it is dangerous. Simple. I have previously said that by not turning it into a spear Warburton probably was showing regard for Clerc's safety. But under the IRB directions to referees the only way you can return a player with his safety in mind is to return him to his feet. Now we can debate the rights and wrongs of this and how it is practically impossible to do in a match, but that is what the IRB want.

welshy824 wrote: also following the laws to the letter doesnt make you a great ref, you need to take into account certain things, warburtons height and weight against clerc- warburton has momentum, and once he has that moment its hard to stop, and he tried to the best of his abilities by pulling out of the "spear" tackle.

I have sympathy with your position here. Perhaps these are factors which referees should take into account. However the IRB have mandated that they don't. You must take the law as it stands, not how you would like it to be.

RubyGuby wrote:Ulster IMO he got it wrong, badly wrong and whilst I don't expect you to understand that, it remains my opinion - Thank you

Your opinion is your right Ruby. Implying there is an anti welsh agenda on the board is somewhat disengenuous on your part though. Osprey has managed to engage in a discussion without resorting to that.

Osprey

Rolland probably wont be because according to the IRB he got the big decision right and enforced their directive. Show me the ref who has got everything right in a game and i will encourage you to let him ref the final. Case in point is the suggestion that Joubert got the AAC decision wrong today. He was 100% spot on in my view and the IRB's.

On a side note i think Joubert should ref the final. I think he is comfortably the best referee around and i say that though i think he had 2 poor games reffing Ireland in the group stages

Ulster I appreciate you don't have a welsh agenda, unfortunately others do, any references to such are therefore not directed at you.

Good grief is this conversation still going on?

IRB laws and directives say it was a RC. Allain Rolland who is one of the top refs in the world saw it was a RC. On a referees site there is near unanimity that it was a RC (more than 85%). Ed Morrison (head of RFU refs) said it was a RC. Paddy O'Brien (head of IRB refs) has said it was a RC. The discipline committee has not only said it was a RC but even that it wasn't borderline (or it would have been low end or even RC sufficient). Brian Moore who hates the french with a passion (but is a qualified ref) says it was a RC.

By all means rant and rave at the laws. I won't join you personally as Clerc fell onto his head and could have been seriously injured. But to castigate AR for correctly applying the laws is nonsense. To suggest he should have made the wrong decision because lesser referees (who didn't referee this week-end BTW) made wrong decisions (and got publicly criticised for it) previously is nonsense.

As to "who would have complained had it been a YC?" Me for one: initial reaction on seeing it live was "ooh he's in trouble here. and that whistle blast from AR didn't sound too good". Once I'd seen an action replay I was screaming RC. When the ITV commentators initially suggested YC (and that it was harsh!) I was incensed.

Rolland made a gutsy, game-changing but 100% correct call. Blame the laws, not him.