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?

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

I totally respect your opinion and understand your frustrations, but he didn't get it wrong. It is idiotic to suggest otherwise. Under the law as it stands, he was right. Maybe the law is an ass, maybe the law is poorly worded and maybe the IRB are wrong, but the law is the law and Roland got it right.

"The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)"
Where, under this guideline, did Roland get it wrong?

Clerc was dropped from a height, even if it was only 3 or 4 feet, that is still 'from a height' as the IRB have outlined to referees. Did he do it 'with no regard to safety'? Yes. The IRB have mandated to referees that you must return a player to his feet. Simple. You might feel that Warburton may have been trying to land Clerc safely by not spearing him, but since he did not return Clerc to his feet it is therefore 'with no regard.' Under the law as it stands Warburton was right to be red carded. As you point out Roland may be inconsistent, he might even be a bad referee. But in this instance it doesn't make him wrong. Nor does other referee's inconsistencies make Roland wrong. We can debate what is wrong with the law all night, but as it stands, Roland was right.

Ok Ruby. I havent seen any posts that do but i wont comment again. I have a new found man crush on some of the welsh guys after the RWC. jamie Roberts is probably my favourite non-irish player and you have no idea how thrilled i am to see someone like him perform for wales as opposed to Henson (who apologies i cannot stand)

I have always had a soft spot for Charteris but he has just been immense in this tournament.

Mike

in fairness to osprey he is arguing more regarding the inconsistency in the reffing and the wording of the laws.

Standulstermen wrote:

in fairness to osprey he is arguing more regarding the inconsistency in the reffing and the wording of the laws.

He is entirely right to argue the inconsistency of the referees. It is regrettable, but doesn't make AR's decision a bad one.

Idiotic Sometimes you're just wrong Hookisms, just face the facts, they are right in front of you

RubyGuby wrote:Idiotic Sometimes you're just wrong Hookisms, just face the facts, they are right in front of you

When you provide with some instead of blind cult-like devotion to factors explicitly not in the laws then I'll look again.

cult-like devotion to factors explicitly in the laws then I'll look again.

I take it computer sais no then. If you can't see it then you are never going to see it and in all honesty I haven't got the time or the inclination to explain it to you. You cling to your emperical evidence and the appliance of science in which there is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth - But when you're doing that, don't forget about OJ

More like it was so obvious and happened right in front of the ref plus the law is unambiguous .

DOD wrote:More like it was so obvious and happened right in front of the ref plus the law is unambiguous .

Of course, that's why most informed people are calling it a disgrace yeah

Wow really. I hadnt realised. They must be as uninformed of the laws as some on here or maybe they are playing to a certain audience.

RubyGuby wrote:

DOD wrote:More like it was so obvious and happened right in front of the ref plus the law is unambiguous .

Of course, that's why most informed people are calling it a disgrace yeah

In fairness to that point Ruby. we are saturated by the british press here and even rational pundits like Pienaar (i would debate that moniker for him after yesterday) are catering to a british audience. Would he act differently had he been in a french tv studio for the RWC i wonder.

The officials seem to back the decision, Matt Dawson, Robert Jones, David Wallace and who knows what other pundits (on stations that arent home nationcentric) are saying. we only get one end of the spectrum here.

Yup. Those informed people like Ed Morrison, Paddy O'Brien, etc...

DOD wrote:Wow really. I hadnt realised. They must be as uninformed of the laws as some on here or maybe they are playing to a certain audience.

Night night Alain, sleep tight

Bon nuit. Allez les bleues...



Oh sh.t did i just...

oh sh.t did I just reinforce Rubys earlier assumption - No not really, it's quite obvious - enjoy the final 2 games

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king...

DOD wrote:In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king...

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is occasionally the referee

I can't believe this one is still running. As has been said, you can criticise the law as too harsh, you can criticise other refs for applying the law incorrectly (at worse) and inconsistently (at best). You CAN'T criticise AR for sticking to the Law and making the correct decision. The arguments against AR go as follows:

1. It was early in a WC semi-final (crucial game). Totally irrelevant I'm afraid, remember the outcry over Burger only getting a YC in the Lions second test? Yep same thing, early in a big game. Shouldn't matter I'm sure you said then.

2. It ruined the game as a spectacle. Well, firstly, no it didn't, the game finished with a one point gap and the winning team having to defend for 25+ phases for tha last play. Secondly, again, irrelevant.

3. Warburton shouldn't have been red-carded as by dropping him he showed regard for the player's safety rather than driving him down. WRONG! The IRB have told refs that "regarding player's safety" means putting him down on his feet, NOT dropping him.

4. He didn't drop him from a height. Yes he did, three to four feet is a height, and dropping someone on his head from that height could seriously injure him.

5. Warburton didn't want to hurt him. Irrelevant again, refs are told NOT to judge intent. Though this could well have been one of the mitigating factors that resulted in his ban being halved, it didn't (and shouldn't) have any influence on the ref's on-field call.

Now if you're still willing to argue with why Warburton shouldn't have been sent off, please either come up with something new, or explain which of the above points I got wrong, don't simply say "you're anti-Welsh, have an agenda, etc. And by the way, loads of knowledgeable people (who aren't refs) say it was a bad call" (paraphrasing here a bit).

By the way, interestingly the reaction in France is very much that they feel SW has got off lightly with three weeks, which is really in effect one week, and see this as more signs of the British bias at the IRB...

By the way, interestingly the reaction in France is very much that they feel SW has got off lightly with three weeks, which is really in effect one week, and see this as more signs of the British bias at the IRB...

Is it really worth replying to this - move on, its over, the ref made a howler he'll be remembered for the rest of his career for that. As for the french, yesterday it was their Guardian Angel who got them through according to Lieveremont.

RubyGuby wrote:By the way, interestingly the reaction in France is very much that they feel SW has got off lightly with three weeks, which is really in effect one week, and see this as more signs of the British bias at the IRB...

Is it really worth replying to this - move on, its over, the ref made a howler he'll be remembered for the rest of his career for that. As for the french, yesterday it was their Guardian Angel who got them through according to Lieveremont.

so you don't actually want to respond to my post, just make a ludicrous claim that "the ref made a howler", care to explain why it was a howler?

Care to explain why it was a howler - there's enough out there already for you to work that out for yourself, if you can't see it or don't want to then I'm really not interested in another futile debate. Move on

enlighten me?

It was such a howler Ruby that Paddy O'Brien, the IRBs refereeing head honcho, had this to say about the incident.

“Alain Rolland’s decision to issue a red card was absolutely correct in Law and in keeping with the clear instructions that match officials have received in recent years regarding dangerous tackling,” said O’Brien.

“Alain is a highly experienced referee and had a clear view of the incident, which enabled him to make an accurate and instant decision.

“Player welfare is paramount and unions, teams and match officials are all aware of the responsibility to eradicate dangerous play. This message was reiterated as recently as the week before Rugby World Cup 2011 kicked off when we hosted briefings at a workshop with match officials and coaches.”

Real howler alright.

On a slight tangent. Joubert will referee the final with Rolland and Owens as his TJ's

RubyGuby

Not sure what you are arguing about. The guys have comtinued to show the laws and the reasoning.

The commintators all have backed down today, and said it was a correct decision according to the law. They do think the law is incorrect.

All you are asying is they hate the Welsh, so are biased. Well Iw anted them to win (Scottish) and at first thought it a yellow, until I read the laws and realised it was correct

Also, Fitzpatrick instantly said it was a Red.

Standulstermen wrote:On a slight tangent. Joubert will referee the final with Rolland and Owens as his TJ's

good choice, he had an excellent game today, he even pinged McCaw once! I think it was Mike Selig who predicted before the WC that Joubert would get the final if SA weren't there... good call!

Maybe some of you were on OJ's jury, I'm not quite sure so lets leave it to my last post and I'm done with this refereeing howler:

“Alain is a highly experienced referee and "had a clear view of the incident,".

That clear view is news to me - Its also laughable now that "everyone" is falling in line with it being a fair and just decision, laughable but there you go, I guess there are more sheep than goats out there - Next topic awaits and I look forward to the amateur lawyers causing more provocation and creating more controversy.

As for the clear view argument - He had a clear view of the "penalty" that lead to Halfpennys kick near the end. That to me was the worse decision of the RWC so far and the only reason I can fathom is that like most refs his conscience got the better of him as he tried to balance his own books, like 2 -ve's might make a +ve, 2 howlers just make 2 howlers. Time to hang up your whistle Mr Rollain as you are clearly struggling to cope at this level and have scarred the 2011 RWC for the vast majority of supporters and players - There will always be the minority and those that lack the courage who will support you, cling to them if it helps you but I doubt all of this bothers you one iota.

There will always be the minority and those that lack the courage who will support you

You mean that small minority that don't like to see players seriously injured?

SAM - your post is laughable, sorry mate just laughable - Maybe we should stop lifting in the line out, we had a fella break his neck with us last year when he fell from a line out. Maybe the F1 cars should drive slower just to make sure everyones alright. Clerk wasn't hurt in the slightest - Now where does that leave your seriously injured argument. The questions rhetorical so please don't waste your life with another futile reply

RubyGuby wrote:SAM - your post is laughable, sorry mate just laughable - Maybe we should stop lifting in the line out, we had a fella break his neck with us last year when he fell from a line out. Maybe the F1 cars should drive slower just to make sure everyones alright. Clerk wasn't hurt in the slightest - Now where does that leave your seriously injured argument. The questions rhetorical so please don't waste your life with another futile reply

F1 cars have been made slower than they were a few years ago Ruby. Thats why you no longer see lap records broken

The seriously injured argument isnt valid Ruby unless you are saying we only red card/suspend people who break collarbones or worse??

RubyGuby - wow you just spurt irrelevant tosh to back up your unfounded bais view

Ah well, you are allowed your opinion - have fun

When Florian Fritz from Toulouse have had the same RC for a less dangerous tackle in HC match against Wasp, I didn't see any brits complaining about Rolland being half french.

RubyGuby wrote:SAM - your post is laughable, sorry mate just laughable - Maybe we should stop lifting in the line out, we had a fella break his neck with us last year when he fell from a line out. Maybe the F1 cars should drive slower just to make sure everyones alright. Clerk wasn't hurt in the slightest - Now where does that leave your seriously injured argument. The questions rhetorical so please don't waste your life with another futile reply

So are you suggesting we wait and see if someone has broken their neck before issuing a red card?

Joke, you are, I am just hoping you aren't being serious

I'm being very serious, the guy was not injured, never looked like being injured and if you guys are suggesting that someone is advocating seriousl injury before producing a card then you are a strange bunch

Pretty sad the reaction in Wales to Rolland:

Death threats,
Facebook campaigns,
Conspiracy theories,
First minister getting involved.

When I first saw it I though a yellow would be more than enough but having watched it again I can understand why he got a red. It was reckless. I can remember how peed off I was when Heaslip got a red v NZ but on reflection most irish agreed he deserved it. I think Wales fans should feel disappointed with Warburton too because he let the side down whatever way you look at it.

Also Rolland has reffed numerous France games and his integrity has never been questioned.

Hard to feel sorry for Wales after the Kaplan debacle in the six nations but they were the better team and deserved to get through. What goes around comes around I suppose.

leinsterbaby wrote:Pretty sad the reaction in Wales to Rolland:

Death threats,
Facebook campaigns,
Conspiracy theories,
First minister getting involved.

Really? Death threats?

Sorry Leinster No One in Wales is disappointed with Warburton - Nice try though. I think they call it projection in the trade

I dont think the death threats were real. unfortunately as we have seen with the Samoan reaction to Owens, the SA reaction to Lawrence and now this there are numpties of all nationalities. i cant say for certain some Irish idiots wouldnt do the same. the only thing i take solace in is i dont think there was this bad a reaction to kaplan in the 6N but i could be wrong.

every nations support contains numpties though which is sad

RubyGuby wrote:I'm being very serious, the guy was not injured, never looked like being injured and if you guys are suggesting that someone is advocating seriousl injury before producing a card then you are a strange bunch

Back up the truck ruby. The seriousness of the injury is not and should not be related to the punishment. It is the fact that there was the potential for serious injury is why it is classed as dangerous play. It doesn't matter if Clerc breaks his neck or just gets his hair messed up the punishment is the same.

The fact that Clerc wasn't seriously injured is simply irrelevant because under the IRB directives it was an illegal tackle that is to be punished with a red card.

It is harsh because there is no malice there but the directives are there to put player safety 1st and not the spectacle of the game.

There is very little deterrent in just giving the player a 10 minute breather and then a citing commission giving a 5 week ban where the player misses a couple of Rabo games that they would have been rested for anyway.

So Ruby, am I right in thinking that you don't think Alain Rolland should have red-carded Warburton, even though he was following the letter of the law, because Vincent Clerc was able to play on?

Maybe we should stop lifting in the line out, we had a fella break his neck with us last year when he fell from a line out.

There's no interference in the lineout in order to prevent players losing their balance in the lineout and accidents like that happening. In the same way your not allowed to use a forearm to clothesline somebody and you're not allowed to drop someone on their head. It's all for player safety and Warburton made a mistake and took the card. You can argue it was harsh but as soon as you drop someone on their head you know your walking off the park whether it is for 10 or for the duration depends on the severity and on the referee. Warburton was right in front of the ref clearly releases the player so that he falls on his neck and shoulders, it's dangerous irrelevant if Clerc was hurt or not (he took a while getting up) and the red card was merritted.

Can anyone tell me if there has ever been a knock out match in the RWC prior to this one?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I can't believe this one is still running. As has been said, you can criticise the law as too harsh, you can criticise other refs for applying the law incorrectly (at worse) and inconsistently (at best). You CAN'T criticise AR for sticking to the Law and making the correct decision. The arguments against AR go as follows:

1. It was early in a WC semi-final (crucial game). Totally irrelevant I'm afraid, remember the outcry over Burger only getting a YC in the Lions second test? Yep same thing, early in a big game. Shouldn't matter I'm sure you said then.

2. It ruined the game as a spectacle. Well, firstly, no it didn't, the game finished with a one point gap and the winning team having to defend for 25+ phases for tha last play. Secondly, again, irrelevant.

3. Warburton shouldn't have been red-carded as by dropping him he showed regard for the player's safety rather than driving him down. WRONG! The IRB have told refs that "regarding player's safety" means putting him down on his feet, NOT dropping him.

4. He didn't drop him from a height. Yes he did, three to four feet is a height, and dropping someone on his head from that height could seriously injure him.

5. Warburton didn't want to hurt him. Irrelevant again, refs are told NOT to judge intent. Though this could well have been one of the mitigating factors that resulted in his ban being halved, it didn't (and shouldn't) have any influence on the ref's on-field call.

Now if you're still willing to argue with why Warburton shouldn't have been sent off, please either come up with something new, or explain which of the above points I got wrong, don't simply say "you're anti-Welsh, have an agenda, etc. And by the way, loads of knowledgeable people (who aren't refs) say it was a bad call" (paraphrasing here a bit).

By the way, interestingly the reaction in France is very much that they feel SW has got off lightly with three weeks, which is really in effect one week, and see this as more signs of the British bias at the IRB...

Someone on here who's correct!!!

luckless_pedestrian wrote:So Ruby, am I right in thinking that you don't think Alain Rolland should have red-carded Warburton, even though he was following the letter of the law, because Vincent Clerc was able to play on?

No your not right in thinking that:thumbsup:

Okay, but you still think it wasn't a red-card offence when, by the letter of the law, it's clear as day that it was?

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Okay, but you still think it wasn't a red-card offence when, by the letter of the law, it's clear as day that it was?

Sadly you are wasting your time here!

JDandfries wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Okay, but you still think it wasn't a red-card offence when, by the letter of the law, it's clear as day that it was?

Sadly you are wasting your time here!

Well done JD now lets all move on. I have, we all make mistakes it's just a shame that Rollains came in such an important match - I'm drawing a line below and we can all get on with enjoying other posts on here

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It seems most people in the world agree it was a clear Red card bar a "few" Welsh.

The fact that the citing committee gave a three week ban totally confirms that Rolland was correct. END OF STOREY - anything after this stinks of sour grapes.

RubyGuby wrote:

JDandfries wrote:

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Okay, but you still think it wasn't a red-card offence when, by the letter of the law, it's clear as day that it was?

Sadly you are wasting your time here!

Well done JD now lets all move on. I have, we all make mistakes it's just a shame that Rollains came in such an important match - I'm drawing a line below and we can all get on with enjoying other posts on here

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Excellent, I assume we won't hear you mentioning Warburton's mistake either, or the inept kicking of Hook and Jones?

Great, lets move on!

BlueMuff wrote:It seems most people in the world agree it was a clear Red card bar a "few" Welsh.

The fact that the citing committee gave a three week ban totally confirms that Rolland was correct. END OF STOREY - anything after this stinks of sour grapes.

they actually gave him 6 weeks, but it was reduced due to his prior good record. (I think)

Ruby, the bottom line is that we blew it. France were there for the taking even though we were down to fourteen men. I don't see the point in deflecting blame on to anyone else.