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?

red Stag
I promise not to tell Paddy...

Auckland Paddy would back me up.

So why did you decide not to give a red card. Isn't that the directive?

I have to say that reading the Law and directives, I don't see much distinction (to the letter of the Law) between Warburton's tackle on Clerc and Palmer's on Lydiate - yes, Warbs dropped his man, but Palmer clearly drove him into the ground on his back. As such, both should have been treated equally (although as I've argued elsewhere, I think a red card is extremely harsh for both -corect to the letter of the Law as currently interpretted but for me excessive considering the type of game rugby is).

Fritz on the other hand I think was a clear red, because he lifts Varndell by one leg, with the intention of tipping him over, and then drives him downwards. It's not a case where the lifting was an accidental consequence of a good hit, but was inevitable from the way he made the tackle. The old ABs tackle on BOD had a similar intent and action, and how that didn't merit at least one red card is one of the mysteries of the modern game.

Dummy - the Palmer/Lydite tackle isn't a tip tackle. The difference can be clearly seen if you look at this composition image of the two tackles.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f43/16/53/77/41/tackle13.jpg

Note that Lydite legs are parallel to the ground, whereas Clerc's legs are at a 90 degree angle to the ground (i.e., 'tipped'). The pivot is Palmer's elbow which is above Lydite's legs.

In the Clerk tackle - Clerc's legs are way above Warburton's elbow.

As for the same meno being sent to all refs - I think the world cup refs, coaches & staff were all spoken to prior to the world cup to reinforce this particular law.

As far as I can recall, the Ireland team had Roland in to give them a session on the application of the laws for the world cup. Obviously David Wallace is a good student and took the info in quickly.

It seems Gatty and Edwards seemed to think they knew all about how to tackle.
As they say, Fail to Prepare, Prepare to Fail.

biltongbek wrote:So why did you decide not to give a red card. Isn't that the directive?

It was probably a Young Munster player who made the tip tackle and Stag does not want to have to leave his family and friends in Limerick and go into hiding maybe

You've no idea how funny that last comment was SinÉ Irony is delicious.

I blame Shane Williams

Good analysis Sin.

A subtle move too to cite the example of David Wallace to hilight how Irish, and in particular Munster, players are quicker learners than everyone else. You've done your province proud again sir

Sin é wrote:

biltongbek wrote:So why did you decide not to give a red card. Isn't that the directive?

It was probably a Young Munster player who made the tip tackle and Stag does not want to have to leave his family and friends in Limerick and go into hiding maybe

Stag
Most referees down this way will only give a red card as a very last resort.Because it means they have to write a report. and then have give up their following Tuesday night to go to the judiciary.

Sin

Take the still of the Palmer=-Lydiate tackle from a fraction of a second later and you would see a quite similar position to the Warburton-Clerc tackle. Also, if the difference between a sending off and a legit tackle is as little as that (and noting that the refs see this once, at high speed and in something of a flurry of arms and legs), mistakes will inevitably happen.

As I've said before, I think a red card is excessive for both, because to me in both cases the upending of the ball carrier is the result of a strong impact in the tackle rather than any attempt to turn the player over - that's why I think the Fritz tackle is significantly worse, as there was no way that Varndell was ever going to end up anywhere but on his head and shoulder

roddersm wrote:Good analysis Sin.

A subtle move too to cite the example of David Wallace to hilight how Irish, and in particular Munster, players are quicker learners than everyone else. You've done your province proud again sir

Thanks for the compliment - but it was David Wallace's explaination. And, Frankie Sheahan, also a Munster man, said it was yellow on the same panel as David Wallace.

The difference was that David Wallace (a backrower like Warburton) & all of the Ireland squad had a session with Rolland before the world cup, so I'm sure if any of them were on the panel they would have said it was a Red as well. Neither Frankie or Shaggy would have been at that session with Rolland.

From Sam's Twitter -

Finally back home. Sat next to Vincent Clerc from Auckland to Brisbane on the plane... what are the chances ! Good guy anyway


Man, tension there could've been palpable

dummy_half wrote:Sin

Take the still of the Palmer=-Lydiate tackle from a fraction of a second later and you would see a quite similar position to the Warburton-Clerc tackle. Also, if the difference between a sending off and a legit tackle is as little as that (and noting that the refs see this once, at high speed and in something of a flurry of arms and legs), mistakes will inevitably happen.

As I've said before, I think a red card is excessive for both, because to me in both cases the upending of the ball carrier is the result of a strong impact in the tackle rather than any attempt to turn the player over - that's why I think the Fritz tackle is significantly worse, as there was no way that Varndell was ever going to end up anywhere but on his head and shoulder

its not a fraction of a second later..its not vertical and its not a tip tackle...

Fritz/Warburton are...

RS - so why did you chicken out on giving the red card other than the obvious delight of having The Claw, Packie Fitz and the Earls brothers inquiring after your health?

dummy_half wrote:Sin

Take the still of the Palmer=-Lydiate tackle from a fraction of a second later and you would see a quite similar position to the Warburton-Clerc tackle. Also, if the difference between a sending off and a legit tackle is as little as that (and noting that the refs see this once, at high speed and in something of a flurry of arms and legs), mistakes will inevitably happen.

As I've said before, I think a red card is excessive for both, because to me in both cases the upending of the ball carrier is the result of a strong impact in the tackle rather than any attempt to turn the player over - that's why I think the Fritz tackle is significantly worse, as there was no way that Varndell was ever going to end up anywhere but on his head and shoulder

I've looked at it again DH - at no stage is Lydiate's leg above Palmer's elbow.

Top class refs Rolland are able to get it right and make an instant decision. He got that one right as well because Palmer was not cited.

More Sin logic, I love it.

DOD - it was the first of many yellow cards. Up until then I hadn't given a single card all season. Then I had three in one game.

Basically the player turned him and once he had copped on what he done. He then spun around and fell backwards so that the ball carrier had a nice soft landing on top of him. His actions stayed my hand in regards to red card and negated the danger.

Of course the other team felt it should have been red and the offending player was outraged to get a card. So it pleased nobody . . . . .usually that means its the right call

So the tackler returned the player to the ground safely in effect....seems like you followed the directive.....

Yes when both teams are enraged it usaully does mean its the right decision...

Finally back home. Sat next to Vincent Clerc from Auckland to Brisbane on the plane... what are the chances ! Good guy anyway

Man, tension there could've been palpable

Doubtful, if they were proper rugby players they would have shaken hands and bought each other a drink after the game. What happens on the pitch stays on the pitch. Even Manu and Ashton are mates now, there's no point holding grudges in rugby.

Course not, but this incident had and still seems to have big ramifications.

And propping up the bar after the game is different to being sat next to each other on a plane after a World Cup

More IRB conspiracies on who arranged the seating on the plane home

munkian wrote:From Sam's Twitter -

Finally back home. Sat next to Vincent Clerc from Auckland to Brisbane on the plane... what are the chances ! Good guy anyway

I bet Clerc was glad Warburton wasn't responsible for getting him back to the ground safely that time....

roddersm wrote:

munkian wrote:From Sam's Twitter -

Finally back home. Sat next to Vincent Clerc from Auckland to Brisbane on the plane... what are the chances ! Good guy anyway

I bet Clerc was glad Warburton wasn't responsible for getting him back to the ground safely that time....

roddersm wrote:

munkian wrote:From Sam's Twitter -

Finally back home. Sat next to Vincent Clerc from Auckland to Brisbane on the plane... what are the chances ! Good guy anyway

I bet Clerc was glad Warburton wasn't responsible for getting him back to the ground safely that time....

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Finally back home. Sat next to Vincent Clerc from Auckland to Brisbane on the plane... what are the chances ! Good guy anyway

Man, tension there could've been palpable

Doubtful, if they were proper rugby players they would have shaken hands and bought each other a drink after the game. What happens on the pitch stays on the pitch. Even Manu and Ashton are mates now, there's no point holding grudges in rugby.

Tell that to Paul Ackford and LOL next time Johsnon invites them round for tea.

OK so what about this one where Mccaw manages to tip tackle himself whilst attepting to date Cuddle in a bad way Fannyfinger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hqb_FaAma6w

When tackling another player do you have a resposnibility to not tip yourself and ensure that you are lowered to the ground safely?

Gatland's version on utube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyVBvvQtyNU

red_stag wrote:Just to throw a nice spanner in the works here. On Saturday I refereed, and as my luck would have it encountered a tip tackle. For the sheer fun I won't elaborate on my though process - I'll leave that up to you. However I thought about incident and being the good ref I am went for a card. I went yellow and not red. Fully happy in my decision in doing so. Just thought I'd share that

Good on yer Stag, the key to it all is having an independent thought process isn't it? How can you remove the very difference between a good ref and a bad one and call it an advancement in how the game is played?

PJHolybloke wrote:

red_stag wrote:Just to throw a nice spanner in the works here. On Saturday I refereed, and as my luck would have it encountered a tip tackle. For the sheer fun I won't elaborate on my though process - I'll leave that up to you. However I thought about incident and being the good ref I am went for a card. I went yellow and not red. Fully happy in my decision in doing so. Just thought I'd share that

Good on yer Stag, the key to it all is having an independent thought process isn't it? How can you remove the very difference between a good ref and a bad one and call it an advancement in how the game is played?

you should have gone red pal. intent isnt the issue, the issue is about eliminating the tackle- that may be a little bit harsh on the way, but in the long run will make rugby sfaer

mystiroakey wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

red_stag wrote:Just to throw a nice spanner in the works here. On Saturday I refereed, and as my luck would have it encountered a tip tackle. For the sheer fun I won't elaborate on my though process - I'll leave that up to you. However I thought about incident and being the good ref I am went for a card. I went yellow and not red. Fully happy in my decision in doing so. Just thought I'd share that

Good on yer Stag, the key to it all is having an independent thought process isn't it? How can you remove the very difference between a good ref and a bad one and call it an advancement in how the game is played?

you should have gone red pal. intent isnt the issue, the issue is about eliminating the tackle- that may be a little bit harsh on the way, but in the long run will make rugby sfaer

Yep, 14 players getting ritually tw@ed by 15 for an hour at a time is going to be seriously so much safer, every time, no question about it. Red card them all, it's the only way forward, sheesh.

PJHolybloke wrote:
Yep, 14 players getting ritually tw@ed by 15 for an hour at a time is going to be seriously so much safer, every time, no question about it. Red card them all, it's the only way forward, sheesh.

So you think that a player should stay on the pitch if he commits an act of foul play ? If Rougerie had headbutted and punched Shane Williams several times and was red carded you would still be going down your ridiculous line of defending the red carded player ?

PJHolybloke wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

red_stag wrote:Just to throw a nice spanner in the works here. On Saturday I refereed, and as my luck would have it encountered a tip tackle. For the sheer fun I won't elaborate on my though process - I'll leave that up to you. However I thought about incident and being the good ref I am went for a card. I went yellow and not red. Fully happy in my decision in doing so. Just thought I'd share that

Good on yer Stag, the key to it all is having an independent thought process isn't it? How can you remove the very difference between a good ref and a bad one and call it an advancement in how the game is played?

you should have gone red pal. intent isnt the issue, the issue is about eliminating the tackle- that may be a little bit harsh on the way, but in the long run will make rugby sfaer

Yep, 14 players getting ritually tw@ed by 15 for an hour at a time is going to be seriously so much safer, every time, no question about it. Red card them all, it's the only way forward, sheesh.

Sam Warburton doesn't look to me to be a slow learner. Do you think he will keep tip tackling players and getting sent off?

red_stag wrote:Just to throw a nice spanner in the works here. On Saturday I refereed, and as my luck would have it encountered a tip tackle. For the sheer fun I won't elaborate on my though process - I'll leave that up to you. However I thought about incident and being the good ref I am went for a card. I went yellow and not red. Fully happy in my decision in doing so. Just thought I'd share that

Now I know you are Alain Rolland!

PJHolybloke wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

red_stag wrote:Just to throw a nice spanner in the works here. On Saturday I refereed, and as my luck would have it encountered a tip tackle. For the sheer fun I won't elaborate on my though process - I'll leave that up to you. However I thought about incident and being the good ref I am went for a card. I went yellow and not red. Fully happy in my decision in doing so. Just thought I'd share that

Good on yer Stag, the key to it all is having an independent thought process isn't it? How can you remove the very difference between a good ref and a bad one and call it an advancement in how the game is played?

you should have gone red pal. intent isnt the issue, the issue is about eliminating the tackle- that may be a little bit harsh on the way, but in the long run will make rugby sfaer

Yep, 14 players getting ritually tw@ed by 15 for an hour at a time is going to be seriously so much safer, every time, no question about it. Red card them all, it's the only way forward, sheesh.

he wouldn't know he's never played

Probably Gatts, some people just think in terms of professional rugby.

At grass roots level and particularly in schoolboy grade rugby, sending off a back row forward early in a game could have the potential for serious harm on other players.

Does the team with 15 players put all 8 forwards into the scrum or drop a back rower out into the backs to cause some serious carnage amongst the smaller boys?

If only all things were black and white.......

England rugby fan wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:
Yep, 14 players getting ritually tw@ed by 15 for an hour at a time is going to be seriously so much safer, every time, no question about it. Red card them all, it's the only way forward, sheesh.

So you think that a player should stay on the pitch if he commits an act of foul play ? If Rougerie had headbutted and punched Shane Williams several times and was red carded you would still be going down your ridiculous line of defending the red carded player ?

Nope, and I never said that, just that an automatic red card is not the way forward as it has wider reaching implications than just the player concerned in the tackle, some offences ARE red cards, some aren't, lower down the rugby ladder reducing a team to 14 men for any considerable length of time could have serious potential for injury amongst the offenders team mates, not all rugby players are seriously well-conditioned tip-top athletes you know?

Other people play it, it's not just the stuff on the telly.

I really don't see where Rougerie and Williams come into it, or punches, or headbutts for that matter.

Why would it make a difference to me if it were Shane Williams anyway, do you think I'm Welsh?

PJHolybloke wrote:
Nope, and I never said that, just that an automatic red card is not the way forward as it has wider reaching implications than just the player concerned in the tackle, some offences ARE red cards, some aren't, lower down the rugby ladder reducing a team to 14 men for any considerable length of time could have serious potential for injury amongst the offenders team mates, not all rugby players are seriously well-conditioned tip-top athletes you know?

An automatic red card is not the way forward ?

A player deserves to be sent off if he commits a red card offence. Have you got any evidence of people being seriously injured after a red card has been issued ?

PJHolybloke wrote:Other people play it, it's not just the stuff on the telly.

I'm not quite sure why you're trying to patronise me, off course we all know that the game is played at all levels.

PJHolybloke wrote:I really don't see where Rougerie and Williams come into it, or punches, or headbutts for that matter.

It's an example of other acts of foul play and whether you think the player should be red carded, so why don't you answer the question.

PJHolybloke wrote:Why would it make a difference to me if it were Shane Williams anyway, do you think I'm Welsh?

Why are you bringing nationalities into it ? The game was between Wales and France, so I used a different player from each side and reversed the situation. Is that simple enough for you ?

What is the most contentious red card in the history of the RWC?

England rugby fan,

Re: Proof.
Here's some proof of injuries relating to 15 v 14 rugby at schoolboy level.

You'll find the entire discussion at:

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/1818440.htm

d. It turned out that after Limpopo's brave 14 men defensive effort against the Leopards, they were decimated with injuries. The reason for the injuries to two of our centres in the Leopard match is quite obvious - the Leopards No.8 had to play in the backline because of the schoolboys' ruling, and they used him continuously as a battering ram in midfield. Apart from that everyone else had to do a lot more on defence and I have it on good account that the injuries were almost all shoulder related.

This therefore raises another issue - that the depleted team runs a higher risk of players being injured because of the extra defensive effort. These guys are not professional players and one cannot expect their conditioning to be at a professional level.

I therefore argue that from a medical point of view the ruling of a red card without a replacement should be scrapped in favour of the safety of the remaining players.


Re: Patronisation

This is the rugby that isn't played on the telly but is subjected to the same Laws on tip-tackling, whilst they have other rules with wider implications for player safety that don't actually knit in with the professional game, get it now?


Re: Rougerie v Williams

I think you're confusing the Law on Foul Play with the directives on dangerous tackling, the type of Foul Play you describe would certainly be worthy of a hypothetical red card, I still don't see the connection with dangerous tackling though, mainly because there isn't one.


Re: Nationality

You didn't reverse the situation at all though did you? You invented a hypothetical situation of Rougerie knocking seven bells out of Williams and asked me if I would be so defensive of a red card for Rougerie, that's not a French forward tip-tackle on a Welsh winger - which would be reversing the situation.

My mistake, I just thought you were trying to get a rise out of me by using ickle Shane as the subject, I had no idea it was merely because you don't know what you're talking about.

You're clearly having trouble grasping the points being made.

So what you're saying is it's alright for a red card to be awarded for foul play but not for a dangerous tackle ?

"Tip tackles" are dangerous because they can cause serious injury. You did see Brian O'Driscoll get injured with one ? How many times can you allow "tip tackles" and serious injury to occur in a match ?

Tip tackles ARE dangerous and as such deserve red cards as has been proven 3 times in RWC 2011. I'm not quite sure why you're constanly defending the indefensible. :facepalm:

I'm not sure why you keep dodging valid argument in favour of b*llsh*ting but I have absolutely no problem in grasping the BIG point, and the BIG point is that to red card players via a memo from POB is so wrong on so many levels it's impossible to justify.

Trust me, POB and his minnions are already working on a "clarification" memo that will try to exonerate him from any blame for the current inconsistencies in the enforcement of the red cards on tip-tackles issue, but the new memo will only serve to muddy the waters further.

Yes, I saw what happened to BOD, and I didn't allow that or any subsequent foul play to occur under my jurisdiction because I don't actually have a jurisdiction, that's down to refs and I just watch games now.

When I played, rugby was dangerous, I'm not playing anymore, but it's still dangerous. My opinion is that the collision and confrontation aspect of rugby is it's raison d'etre and therefore the more that element is imasculated by removing the "danger" aspect, the more the game will lose it's own identity.

There is a place for red cards in our game, but it shouldn't be as a result of knee-jerk refereeing reaction to a memo written from behind a feckin desk some distance in time and miles from where the tip-tackle takes place.

I've explained my reasons for disagreeing with an automatic red card in good detail, I've raised the issue of whether or not a red card is a guarantee of improved player safety by proxy, and when you asked me to provide proof of that I have done so. It hasn't escaped my attention that you have completely ignored that proof in your response, and for that reason alone I suspect your faith in the automatic red card has been shaken.

Go back and read the entire discussion about Craven Week and tell me there aren't repurcussions at junior level that actually ADVERSELY affect player safety when instant red cards are produced.

Remind yourself at the same time that this affects the entire game, and then question yourself whether or not you really believe that red cards will rid the game of danger.

I believe that any player that puts another player in danger should be sanctioned by way of bans that are decided after the act has occurred, and by having all the poignant details in hand, rather than dismissing a player out of hand and potentially putting his otherwise innocent team mates in harms way.

What really needs to be sorted out is a remedial form of punishment that is both severe and also in proportion to the dangerous act committed, I don't see a three week ban as being effective in eradicating tip-tackles any more than I do an automatic red card. I'd go as far as to suggest that anyone that thinks the "instant red" will be the answer to a "safer game" initiative, is in denial.

PJHolybloke wrote:When I played, rugby was dangerous, I'm not playing anymore, but it's still dangerous. My opinion is that the collision and confrontation aspect of rugby is it's raison d'etre and therefore the more that element is imasculated by removing the "danger" aspect, the more the game will lose it's own identity...

...I've explained my reasons for disagreeing with an automatic red card in good detail, I've raised the issue of whether or not a red card is a guarantee of improved player safety by proxy, and when you asked me to provide proof of that I have done so. It hasn't escaped my attention that you have completely ignored that proof in your response, and for that reason alone I suspect your faith in the automatic red card has been shaken...

...What really needs to be sorted out is a remedial form of punishment that is both severe and also in proportion to the dangerous act committed, I don't see a three week ban as being effective in eradicating tip-tackles any more than I do an automatic red card. I'd go as far as to suggest that anyone that thinks the "instant red" will be the answer to a "safer game" initiative, is in denial.

Hey PJ. T'is late and I cannae sleep. And unfortunately for you it is your well-phrased argument I have fallen upon at this late hour.

Funnily enough I'm pretty much in agreement with all your suggestions. I say funnily because I am coming from the completely opposite side of the spectrum and tend to see all this complaining about the "danger" being taken out of the game as so much macho nonsense. For me banning the tip-tackle does not really cause the general "girly man" consequences that so many here complain of. That's just hysterics. These tackles are already an isolated occurence and it doesn't spoil the physicality of the game... and while the tip-tackle is often greeted with joy for its spectacle, that surely is not worth the massively increased chances of serious injury (esp when players can still put in big hits without needing to tip or spear). In any case there have always been right ways and wrong ways to put in big hits... tip-tackling and shouldering without proper tackling were always on the edge... and were always a bit unecessary, show-boaty and lazy (in the case of the shoulder) in my book.

Anyway to get to the point, if the evidence you put forward about increased injuries for 14 players is repeated across a viable statistical set then I am very much in agreeement that that is just one more very good reason for the sending off practice to be ended. Unlike those who talk about teams being "hard done by" if the opposition are allowed to retain 15 players, I find this correlation very strange. There really is very little reason for a team to lose the complete ability to compete in a sporting event because of the actions of one player. In soccer, a team of 10 can often carry on very well. But in rugby (as we saw with Wales) if the foul is committed early enough in the game... it is rather like taking a wheel off a formula 1 car on the 5th lap because they jumped the start signal. In some ways the effect in rugby is almost to disqualify an entire team from a competition for the actions of one player... and I very much doubt people agree with that draconian logic.

In line with your final paragraph, I suggest the banning of the tip tackle would be just as effective if the offending player were given an immediate red and then the team given a yellow with a new player entering after 10 mins. Then the offending player could also face a lengthy ban putting them out of further participation in the relevant competition (dependent on the tackle and the level of intention presumed). That would surely be just as effective in preventing anyone from purposely tip-tackling. Let's face it, tip-tackling is not the sort of thing a team gains a direct game-winning advantage for (such as stopping a goal in football, etc). So it is in the interests of everyone that the game should remain viable as a competition also. And it would seem a strange thing to me that any team would actively wish to win in the pathetic way that France won their semi rather than simply receiving a 10 min sin-bin advantage and the removal of the offending player.

There we go... my 2 cents. Maybe I can sleep now.

[quote="Nos na Gaoithe"]

PJHolybloke wrote: There really is very little reason for a team to lose the complete ability to compete in a sporting event because of the actions of one player. In soccer, a team of 10 can often carry on very well. But in rugby (as we saw with Wales) if the foul is committed early enough in the game... it is rather like taking a wheel off a formula 1 car on the 5th lap because they jumped the start signal. In some ways the effect in rugby is almost to disqualify an entire team from a competition for the actions of one player... and I very much doubt people agree with that draconian logic.

Eaxactly, agree 100%.I can only remember 3 Red Cards for Wales (including Sam's) in the last 40 years. Ireland, I believe, have had just 2. It's a very heavy sanction and should only be reserved for the most serious instances of violent foul play. Nobody would pay good money to see a race with a 3-wheeled Formula 1 car, and nobody wants to see a 14 vs 15 match. Even the French were embarrassed.

Nos na Gaoithe wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:When I played, rugby was dangerous, I'm not playing anymore, but it's still dangerous. My opinion is that the collision and confrontation aspect of rugby is it's raison d'etre and therefore the more that element is imasculated by removing the "danger" aspect, the more the game will lose it's own identity...

...I've explained my reasons for disagreeing with an automatic red card in good detail, I've raised the issue of whether or not a red card is a guarantee of improved player safety by proxy, and when you asked me to provide proof of that I have done so. It hasn't escaped my attention that you have completely ignored that proof in your response, and for that reason alone I suspect your faith in the automatic red card has been shaken...

...What really needs to be sorted out is a remedial form of punishment that is both severe and also in proportion to the dangerous act committed, I don't see a three week ban as being effective in eradicating tip-tackles any more than I do an automatic red card. I'd go as far as to suggest that anyone that thinks the "instant red" will be the answer to a "safer game" initiative, is in denial.

Hey PJ. T'is late and I cannae sleep. And unfortunately for you it is your well-phrased argument I have fallen upon at this late hour.

Funnily enough I'm pretty much in agreement with all your suggestions. I say funnily because I am coming from the completely opposite side of the spectrum and tend to see all this complaining about the "danger" being taken out of the game as so much macho nonsense. For me banning the tip-tackle does not really cause the general "girly man" consequences that so many here complain of. That's just hysterics. These tackles are already an isolated occurence and it doesn't spoil the physicality of the game... and while the tip-tackle is often greeted with joy for its spectacle, that surely is not worth the massively increased chances of serious injury (esp when players can still put in big hits without needing to tip or spear). In any case there have always been right ways and wrong ways to put in big hits... tip-tackling and shouldering without proper tackling were always on the edge... and were always a bit unecessary, show-boaty and lazy (in the case of the shoulder) in my book.

Anyway to get to the point, if the evidence you put forward about increased injuries for 14 players is repeated across a viable statistical set then I am very much in agreeement that that is just one more very good reason for the sending off practice to be ended. Unlike those who talk about teams being "hard done by" if the opposition are allowed to retain 15 players, I find this correlation very strange. There really is very little reason for a team to lose the complete ability to compete in a sporting event because of the actions of one player. In soccer, a team of 10 can often carry on very well. But in rugby (as we saw with Wales) if the foul is committed early enough in the game... it is rather like taking a wheel off a formula 1 car on the 5th lap because they jumped the start signal. In some ways the effect in rugby is almost to disqualify an entire team from a competition for the actions of one player... and I very much doubt people agree with that draconian logic.

In line with your final paragraph, I suggest the banning of the tip tackle would be just as effective if the offending player were given an immediate red and then the team given a yellow with a new player entering after 10 mins. Then the offending player could also face a lengthy ban putting them out of further participation in the relevant competition (dependent on the tackle and the level of intention presumed). That would surely be just as effective in preventing anyone from purposely tip-tackling. Let's face it, tip-tackling is not the sort of thing a team gains a direct game-winning advantage for (such as stopping a goal in football, etc). So it is in the interests of everyone that the game should remain viable as a competition also. And it would seem a strange thing to me that any team would actively wish to win in the pathetic way that France won their semi rather than simply receiving a 10 min sin-bin advantage and the removal of the offending player.

There we go... my 2 cents. Maybe I can sleep now.

Hey Nos, it's early and I've got to go to work, but in a nutshell - that would work for me.

I'm not in denial about anything. The red card is there for a reason, to punish a player and his team for foul and/or dangerous play, don't forget it is a team game, hence the reason that a player will sometimes get a yellow card for his first penalty offence after teh team has been warned. You still haven't answered the question as to how many dangerous tackles should be allowed in a game that leaves players with serious injuries before a red card is issued.

i am sorry but why are we still talking about this????

whats done is done, was it a red- according to the exact letter of the law- probably.
looking at the tackle did it deserve a red- probably not
did it affect the match- yes
could wales still have won- yes
why didnt they win- didnt take their chances

move on now come on!

Move on???

We'll be arguing this for the next 30 years. Accept it.

mate i was gutted aswell and i take things badly i spent the rest of the day sulking and thinking up mastermind plots of how to extract revenge on rolland (joke)

but i was gutted, but we cant stay upset we need to move on and build in the next 4 years i mean no coach as far as i know have come in and won a world cup within 4 years so...

England rugby fan wrote:I'm not in denial about anything. The red card is there for a reason, to punish a player and his team for foul and/or dangerous play, don't forget it is a team game, hence the reason that a player will sometimes get a yellow card for his first penalty offence after teh team has been warned. You still haven't answered the question as to how many dangerous tackles should be allowed in a game that leaves players with serious injuries before a red card is issued.

42, OK?

YOU still haven't responded to any of the points I've raised and still haven't displayed a shred of insight into the big question facing our game; is it the best way forward for refs to be controlled remotely by memos from POB?

"The red card is there for a reason" You don't say.

"Don't forget it is a team game" You have me there, I was thinking of singles tennis.

Jeez, your closing question deserved the answer it got.

The best way forward is to have consistency amongst refs - If that means memos by POB (or whoever) to get it then the answer is yes!