Can people please stop questioning Referees' integrity

First topic message reminder :

I am Welsh and feel sick that the red card incident (along with some bad kicking) has cost us our place in the final. I think that Alain Rolland had the option of a Red or Yellow card, and while the letter of the law might indicate a red, common sense and discretion could and should have been applied resulting in a yellow.

But this is not a was it or wasn't thread. I have seen a few fellow Welsh posters suggest that Rolland's French heritage played a role in his decision, this is ridiculous. The similar accusations of bias from South African and Samoan fans earlier in the tournament were also laughable (or in the Samoan case scary and shocking).

To my fellow Welsh fans- stop it, you're making us sound stupid. Everyone, lets accept that Top class referees are human make mistakes (though in this case it is possibly not a mistake as such, more a poorly thought out call) but they do NOT show favouritism.

Not sure why as he is Irish.

Its like saying Joubert shouldnt ref the game tomorrow as SA is closer to Australia than New Zealand.

I refer to the fact that you have British refs for British teams. The french arent a great fan of Roland either but they recognise he is unbiased.

To repeat...teams dont like Roland because he is a good ref.

The IRB ruling states in the event of a dangerous tackle "Start with a RED card and work backwards"
In other words at the Refs discretion red,yellow card,and/or penalty for the offence .
He could have consulted his assistants or the TMO but if he had a clear view,under the IRB ruling RED was correct.

DOD Right we agree he is Irish that makes him completely neutral if he reffed anybody but Ireland no problem with that.

But do you think thats it's wise to appoint him for a match that involves France bearing in mind that his father is French
Would it not have been far more sensible to appoint another ref.

Rolland is normally a good ref agreed
Rolland was not biased today.
The distance between South Africa Australia and New Zealand is not relevant.
My question is do you think it was a wise decision to appoint him especially when you take the importance of the match into consideration.

His father being french is irrelevent as he is an Irish citizen. He is a french speaker and is able to explain clearly his decisions. He spoke with both teams on numerous occassions in English and French.

Some people say that oh well the French can speak English so there was no need. Wrong. Take a look at the French/English QF. In the second half at one stage Walsh was blowing them off the park and he was explaining his decisions to them. The look of confusion on Dusatoir and some of the French players faces was comical. They had no idea what they were being penalised for.

He is an international referee and therefore his appointment to the game was correct and in view of his bilingual abilities very wise considering the importance of the occassion.

My son was born in Cyprus so that makes him neutral if he reffed a game between Wales and Ireland
Ahhh the old trick of pretending they could not understand the ref is as old as the hills.

What has your son being born in Cyprus got to do with anything. Roland was born and reared in Ireland...clutching at straws now but look if it makes you feel better.

Secondly of course you are right old johnny foreigner is only pretending not to understand...

Why should people stop questioning referee's integrity? and while they're
about it they should question their ability to referee top Internatinal sides at the sharp end of the sports biggest showcaes tournament.....

I am a German speaker. Should that exempt me from refereeing German teams?

Would people care that his Dad was French if he didnt speak the language

What about the Russians Japanese and any other country that does not use English as a first language ?
The fact that Rolland is Irish and speaks French is perfectly fine and using him for a French match is no big deal in my book.
But I don't think that it's a sensible decision to appoint him when he has such close family ties with France.
DOD try and understand that I'm questioning the IRB's decision it has nothing to do with Rolland's integrity.

Watch the speed of Rolands whistle at the first scrum. Watch his speed to send of Sam. He wanted France to win.....and if he is not a cheat he is an idiot. That was never a red card. He ruined the WC. France are now the worst team to ever reach a final and that is sad for rugby and New Zealand. My money is definitely on Roland retiring soon and going of to live in the south of France. The man is a ****.

Cymroglan wrote:DOD Right we agree he is Irish that makes him completely neutral if he reffed anybody but Ireland no problem with that.

But do you think thats it's wise to appoint him for a match that involves France bearing in mind that his father is French
Would it not have been far more sensible to appoint another ref.

Rolland is normally a good ref agreed
Rolland was not biased today.
The distance between South Africa Australia and New Zealand is not relevant.
My question is do you think it was a wise decision to appoint him especially when you take the importance of the match into consideration.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing ...questioning his appointment now is to miss the point. Prior to the game he was picked because he spoke french. not because he is french. He is also a pro and i do not believe he went out to beat Wales in the way Ireland could not. As far as questioning the red, well of course it is a moot point but you cannot question his appointment based on that. His subjectivity perhaps, in relation to discretionary use of his powers (if he has the choice to use discretion in this case) but nothing else.

What i would like to know is, did he have the discretionary power to use a yellow or was a red mandatory? Any refs/coaches out there?

deadfred wrote:Watch the speed of Rolands whistle at the first scrum. Watch his speed to send of Sam. He wanted France to win.....and if he is not a cheat he is an idiot. That was never a red card. He ruined the WC. France are now the worst team to ever reach a final and that is sad for rugby and New Zealand. My money is definitely on Roland retiring soon and going of to live in the south of France. The man is a ****.

You must be 6ft under to make such a ridiculous statement.

Is Rolland a better referee because he can speak French?????

aucklandlaurie wrote: Is Rolland a better referee because he can speak French?????

arguably better equipped to ref a france game? I htink comparing who is a 'better' ref is almost impossible because their performances are all individual and no comparisons can be made really. I do wonder if such a key decision as a red might be better made in future in consultation will both line judges and TMO...its the old argument, we have the tech, lets use it and avoid all this pots match navel gazing.

Look I'm not having a go at anybody I'm just finding it a interesting subject.
DOD and myself have not resorted to any insults I just like to hear his and anybody else's view on it.
Neutrality and eligibility is something thats often crossed my mind.

Stag yes it should if we are not going to leave refs open to questions.
Either have no neutrality or have complete neutrality the same rules that make a player eligible to play for a country should also apply to a ref not being allowed to ref a team they have birth or blood ties with.

Alain Rolland to ref the world cup final. Would NZ fans have anything to say about it?

Interesting question though, what if his parents named him Seamus Rolland? I bet there'd be no fuss here today?

Apparently in the discussion on whether it was a red or not is clear in the laws (that it warrants a red). Some argue about inconsistent previous decisions but these lead to citings due to refs not giving the red card.

Cymro I understand what you are saying but I dont think it is relevent he is Irish and his french father is irrelevent.

Also your arguement about Japanese, russian etc is a moot point (mainly because of the amount of native english speakers in those teams) but also it makes it more relevent due to the fact that due to the importance of the occassion having an English and French speaking ref was a requirement.

I do agree with you on the birth and blood ties bit to an extent during the HC we see Britishs refs for French v British games. I think the refs should be from a different country. However in Rolands case he was born and reared in Ireland, played for Ireland and has never lived in France.

I have a friend who has a French mother, he is born and bred in Ireland, visits his Granny and cousins the odd time in France or they visit here. Couldnt care less about France in the WC (soccer or rugby).

it is not mandatory that the referee issue a red card, just like every judge doesnt send every convicted offender to prison just because the penalty provides for a term of imprisonment.

If Rolland was a brilliant rugby player he would be eligible to play for Ireland or France and that is why I asked the question regarding neutrality.
The same rules that make him or any other ref eligible to represent that country should also bar them from being considered neutral.

auckland...this has been going on all day so look up the other thread regarding whether it is mandatoty or not...from the directives being quoted it apparently is.

But he didnt play for France. He played for Ireland, he didnt play rugby in France he played in Ireland for his club, province and country.

Dod
I did not know that the referee had no discretion in situations like this.
IMO it wasnt even a spear tackle.

DOD, you seem to be implying that 'Brits stick together'. Are you suggesting that Nigel Owens would favour England over Ireland, for example, while in the same breath saying that refs such as Alain Rolland do not have any agendas? Or is it only British refs with 'agendas'?

No I dont think thats the case but the question is about integrity and possible bias (perceived or otherwise). The question on Roland is tenuous at best as is my comments on the Brits stick together point (although for decades the French have been complaining about that).

DOD wrote:No I dont think thats the case but the question is about integrity and possible bias (perceived or otherwise). The question on Roland is tenuous at best as is my comments on the Brits stick together point (although for decades the French have been complaining about that).

as DOD pointed out, there is many examples of what could be seen as biaised refereeing on a french pov in the past from british refs against various french teams (ok that was mainly back in the days of amateur rugby). This Allain Rolland french bias nonsense will always come when a decision he makes is seen as being in favour of a french team but does he takes no action against french players ? ask Florian Fritz.
Rolland father is french, true: does all welsh referee have no famility tie in england? what passport do they carry?

it's all nice to debate about wether or not a decision was the correct one but at the end of the day the guy is the referee and should be treated with respect. referees makes call in real time action under pressure and sometimes they make debatable decision but at the end they are human and people should try to understand that before using the c* word. rugby is the most difficult sport I know in terms of rules and mainly interpretation as they keep on changing in order to adapt to the needs of an evolving game so they will always be calls that dont go your way, just move on, send a letter to pob or watch league.

I am a bit saddened that there is this kind of debate going on, it certainly not going to help to get new refs in the game!

kultschar wrote:The focus (if any) should be on all the kicks in front of the sticks that we unfortunately missed

+100
WTF?- how can we do so well with such a disadvantage then flip up and not get over the finish line. Just like against SA really(although SA were alot better than France), I think maybe we are just not "winners". Its a real shame because dont think we have have a chance like this again anytime soon.
Agree totally with OP. I disagree with the decision but have no issues with Rolland or his integrity(look at the pen he gave us towards the end).

There were posts of dread on this forum as soon as the ref was announced

Lo and behold those posts came true.

Definately whistle happy against Wales. And it wasn't just the red. Scrums, france offsides ignored, He's the only ref who whistled for "coming in at the side" on attacking ball.

Crazy

slartibartfast wrote:There were posts of dread on this forum as soon as the ref was announced

Lo and behold those posts came true.

Definately whistle happy against Wales. And it wasn't just the red. Scrums, france offsides ignored, He's the only ref who whistled for "coming in at the side" on attacking ball.

Crazy

Your talking rubbish, Wales first penalty wort 3 points was a joke, Phillips knocked the ball on at the base of the ruck then the French player came through. Decision given penalty to Wales, correct decision should have been a scrfum to Frnace. What about the penalty that led to the Hlfpenny long range effort that could have won the game for Wales? That was a shocking decision, shiuld have been a penalty to France as (Charteris I think) was clearly holding onto the ball as the French players came through the gate! Even Michael Owen comminating said he was not sure how Wales got away with that one!

wrfc1980 wrote:

slartibartfast wrote:There were posts of dread on this forum as soon as the ref was announced

Lo and behold those posts came true.

Definately whistle happy against Wales. And it wasn't just the red. Scrums, france offsides ignored, He's the only ref who whistled for "coming in at the side" on attacking ball.

Crazy

Your talking rubbish, Wales first penalty wort 3 points was a joke, Phillips knocked the ball on at the base of the ruck then the French player came through. Decision given penalty to Wales, correct decision should have been a scrfum to Frnace. What about the penalty that led to the Hlfpenny long range effort that could have won the game for Wales? That was a shocking decision, shiuld have been a penalty to France as (Charteris I think) was clearly holding onto the ball as the French players came through the gate! Even Michael Owen comminating said he was not sure how Wales got away with that one!

Just goes to show how poor he is and that his judgement is suspect.

My point is, before the match we knew what was coming.

In the cold light of day we can slow replay and say AR got it right. But you can't do that. At the time it was a harsh decision.

The rule/law says "start at red" - what a stupid rule, however, it leaves room for refs judgement. He decided red, why?

I'm waiting for the first red for tipping a player in a lineout - which is cold and calculated - but no, most refs give penalties and perhaps a yellow.

slartibartfast wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:

slartibartfast wrote:There were posts of dread on this forum as soon as the ref was announced

Lo and behold those posts came true.

Definately whistle happy against Wales. And it wasn't just the red. Scrums, france offsides ignored, He's the only ref who whistled for "coming in at the side" on attacking ball.

Crazy

Your talking rubbish, Wales first penalty wort 3 points was a joke, Phillips knocked the ball on at the base of the ruck then the French player came through. Decision given penalty to Wales, correct decision should have been a scrfum to Frnace. What about the penalty that led to the Hlfpenny long range effort that could have won the game for Wales? That was a shocking decision, shiuld have been a penalty to France as (Charteris I think) was clearly holding onto the ball as the French players came through the gate! Even Michael Owen comminating said he was not sure how Wales got away with that one!

Just goes to show how poor he is and that his judgement is suspect.

My point is, before the match we knew what was coming.

In the cold light of day we can slow replay and say AR got it right. But you can't do that. At the time it was a harsh decision.

The rule/law says "start at red" - what a stupid rule, however, it leaves room for refs judgement. He decided red, why?

I'm waiting for the first red for tipping a player in a lineout - which is cold and calculated - but no, most refs give penalties and perhaps a yellow.

yeah interesting...happens at the lineout all the time and secondly wtf does start at red and work backwards mean...does that give ref discretion; clearly red is definitive and there is no working back after it has been shown so why not just advise red, end of.

Whether or not you think it was a red for Warburton (it was definitely the right decision, by the way) I actually think Wales got the rub of the green on quite a few occasions on penalty decisions and in the scrum. I can remember on a fair few occasions where the commentators said Wales were 'a bit lucky there'.

That tends to get forgotten in the anguish of defeat.

Nice to see you back posting SAM, you've been a bit quiet of late

SafeAsMilk wrote:Whether or not you think it was a red for Warburton (it was definitely the right decision, by the way) I actually think Wales got the rub of the green on quite a few occasions on penalty decisions and in the scrum. I can remember on a fair few occasions where the commentators said Wales were 'a bit lucky there'.

That tends to get forgotten in the anguish of defeat.

SafeAs, I think you're right, lenient treatment in the scrums and the Charteris/Mas incident was laughable. But I don't agree with the red card, but never mind. So why did Wales get the "rub of the green" thereafter? What was going thru Rolland's mind?

I finally managed to watch the game, in between wrapping my kids birthday presents and being a harassed dad, and to be honest the incident just looks like a unfortunate set of circumstances.

Basically the French used their smallest player on a crash ball straight into the Welsh pack! Warburton makes the tackle and tries to drive him back, the smaller light player lifts into the air, but Warburton lets him go.
Clerc could of easily been injured but I'm not sure how much of it was Warburtons fault because people do hit hard and try to drive back, but he shouldnt of let him go.

Warburton was a bit unlucky, thankfully Clerc wasn't seriously injured and Rowlands applied the rule book, regardless of whether it was a lower division club game or a World Cup semi final.

What I did find interesting was the punch in the face on Alun-Wyn Jones when he tries to drag Imanol Harinordoquy off Warburton. Watch the incident again and you can clearly see a fist in his face. I suppose if you can argue a tackle is the red card than a strike in the face is also.

Lets just put it down to sods law and leave it at that. though, France scored more points and got to the final, though I'd love to see New Zealand win the Cup it would mean so much to them, they normally play the best rugby in World cups so hopefully they can finally get something

Absolutely right, Refs integrity should never ever be questioned, just their competance, knowledge of the game and eyesight, but not their integrity.

I mean England have had the same standard of reffing as the AB's, and no Ref ever penalises England because of petty Nationalistic bias or anger, and as regards the benefit of the doubt well, just because Richie Mcc gets more than the entire NH teams combined, we should not ever question their integrity, because they are put away in boxes after each match and forget their cultural dislikes before they ever set foot on the pitch, so No, i think!!

In their dreams.

irfon17 wrote:I have seen a few fellow Welsh posters suggest that Rolland's French heritage played a role in his decision, this is ridiculous. The similar accusations of bias from South African and Samoan fans earlier in the tournament were also laughable (or in the Samoan case scary and shocking).

I don't recall South africans on this forum accuse Bryce Lawrence of anything but incompetence or rather a lackluster performance.

biltongbek wrote:

irfon17 wrote:I have seen a few fellow Welsh posters suggest that Rolland's French heritage played a role in his decision, this is ridiculous. The similar accusations of bias from South African and Samoan fans earlier in the tournament were also laughable (or in the Samoan case scary and shocking).

I don't recall South africans on this forum accuse Bryce Lawrence of anything but incompetence or rather a lackluster performance.

I'm sure at least one or two of them must have come up with "Lawrence would think NZ have more chance of beating Aus in the semis, so he favoured them", I mean every country's supporters group includes a couple of slightly over-passionate, paranoid lunatics

It is possible but there aren't that mnay SA posters here.

Did he mean on here? can't remember many conspiracy theories on here, but over in SA I'm sure some people must be making them...

Re the two matches though, here's my take:

1. Lawrence was awful (he never really seems in charge when he's reffing big games IMO). Also, sure someone can tell me but refs are sort of meant to communicate with the captains aren't they? However, SA should still have won, but didn't adapt well enough (and yes I know you've said this too biltong, you were in my view incredibly gracious in defeat).

2. AR was spot on with the RC decision (as 9 tenths of refs will tell you), got a couple wrong in Wales's favour I thought. Wales should have won, but missed kicks, and looked like headless chickens when needing a score at the death (where France produced their only decent play of the match in defending very well).

Yeah, look it is unfortunate for both teams and yes both teams should have adapted. We do need smoe intelligent players or alternatively sometimes although I don't advocate it as a general rule, you need to teach players a lesson.

I said this earlier at our club games players like Pocock would only get away with something like that a few times, then if the referee isn't up to the task, the players will have their "enforcer" who would explain very nicely to him what not to do.