Warburton banned by IRB

Will Sam Warburton now have to miss the next game?

Will be banned for a few weeks or is his tackle being classed as delt with through the sending off?

sending offs automatically result in a hearing to decide if and what further action is needed. I'd imagine that Warburton will get between 3 and 5 weeks (going by the bans dished out for similar offenses previously in the tournament), though because he was punished on field he could get a shorter ban?

Disciplinary comittee ban Warburton for 6 weeks (halved to 3 for good behaviour and pleading guilty). The statement explicitely states red card was correct:

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059157.html#wales+warburton+suspended+three+weeks


IRB also release this statement about Tip Tackles and state that coaches were reminded about the law etc:

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059102.html#irb+issues+statement+tip+spear+tackle


I wonder if the likes of Steve Walsh were reprimanded for just giving yellows.

He has been banned, 3 weeks halved from 6 due to behaviour etc.

He will be available for first round of the HC.

Steve Walsh? Try every single referee I've seen take charge of a rugby match for the last 30 years without exception.

There we are we have resolution.

World rugby has a defined standard that everyone can play to.

Shame the IRB didn't make their statement regarding tip tackles until so many had been made.

Half way through the semi finals is a bit late.

I believe the statement was made last December. Today's statement is just a reiteration of that.

maybe this is a good thing for young sam. he should get off home now, walk the dog or what ever.

this quick ruling by the irb has drawn a line under this incident for me. im glad they ruled so quickly.

Sam our captain lost it for us then. Tell that Keardiff lad to shove his parody up his arse. Hubris. Hubris. Pride before the fall.

There was an additional instruction memoi given at teh start of the tournament, the players were also given warning.

And yes I would expect that the refs who only gave yellows for players who were banned had this on their performance review. Indeed the two medium length bans given for the tip tackles probably served as a reminder of those instructions. It does appear that the refs arent comfortable issueing reds for these, but they are being gradualy forced into it.

Disgaree that such tackles should be an automatic red by all means, dont blame Rolland for making the call he was instructed to do.

Warburtons ban will only keep him out of the 3/4th playoff when its halved for being a first offence, he wouldve been rested when he got home anyway.
If he does it again he'll get a longer ban. He really should know better now.

Glas a du wrote:Sam our captain lost it for us then. Tell that Keardiff lad to shove his parody up his arse. Hubris. Hubris. Pride before the fall.

lickmyfish

maestegmafia wrote:There we are we have resolution.

World rugby has a defined standard that everyone can play to.

Shame the IRB didn't make their statement regarding tip tackles until so many had been made.

Half way through the semi finals is a bit late.

You mean its a pity they didnt send it out to the idiots on ITV till this morning ( they were still incorrectly reporting the facts last night). The reminder memo was given at the start of the tournament. RTE managed to mention it during their live coverage.

I wouldnt be suprissed that the lack of highlights from yesterday on this mornings broadcast is down to ITV hastily editting the commentry track and rewritting the pundits views for them. Their broadcast was a joke and partly responsible for the upset of the fans.

the decision seems fair enough, refereed to the letter of the law, and you cant ask for more than that. It now pressures officials into taking the same action against these tackles across the board. however, if red cards are given because of safety to players, then surely now there should be more cards issued against props who drop their bind when they lose the hit, and players who pull down lineouts whilst in the air?

Jay ...yeah its a slippery slope. The amount of cards in teh game is escalteing all over, and the range of offencses is going up all the time. The ex players have a hrd time understanding it, they played under very differnet rules. Its only fairly recently that taking a player out in the airr beecame an automatic yellow.

I have a dislike for the gradual creep of over officiating in the game. It does decide matches, and it does seem wrong that a relativly low end incident like this dumped wales out. They were the better side.

You have to view the "Free Bakkies " movement in teh same light. Both sets of players didnt see anything wrong with the challenge in that case even though Jones was injured, but he was banned as per IRB rules. They outlawed charging because it was shown to be dangerous, the players questioned how they are suppossed to play without it. A few months later everyone accepts it having adjusted their game. Tip tackles have been getting driven out gradually, this should be another nail in their coffin. Same with "rucking" players with the studs. Deemed to be dangerous, players wholwed when first penalised for it, now accept it and have adapted their game to play without it.
I hope they dont go after the scrum though.

I saw Warburtons post match interview and have to say hes been very dignified in it. Despite his error in getting sent off Waleds have a capatin they can be proud of. Maybe it was too much pressure on him that led to the rash tackle, who knows. He'll come back from it though.

Davie wrote:I believe the statement was made last December. Today's statement is just a reiteration of that.

Davie

If the point needed reiterating then it should not have been done at the vital part of the tournament.

The IRB always wait until it is too late before dealing with contentious situations.

The real issue here is that other refs have lacked the cahones to act.

maestegmafia wrote:If the point needed reiterating then it should not have been done at the vital part of the tournament.

Why?

maestegmafia wrote:

Davie wrote:I believe the statement was made last December. Today's statement is just a reiteration of that.

Davie

If the point needed reiterating then it should not have been done at the vital part of the tournament.

The IRB always wait until it is too late before dealing with contentious situations.

They did it in december, and at the start of the torunemnet, and after two tackles were under punished.

when else where they suppossed to do it?

red_stag wrote:The real issue here is that other refs have lacked the cahones to act.

Well as you know keeping the consistency between games and between referees is very tough.

Though I must say that even if I personally don't think that the refereeing has been substantially any more accurate, the way the game has been adjudicated has been more consistent. The referees from north and south are refereeing the game the same way.

It is Still far from perfect, but the similarity in the way each game has been refereed has been notably closer.

At least everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet for a change.

Davie wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:If the point needed reiterating then it should not have been done at the vital part of the tournament.

Why?

Because reiterating a point as a reaction to an incident shows that you are too late in making your comment.

you cant argue with the decision if its going to be used across the board, my only fear is that other referees wont necessarily take the same stance as alain, something which has happened during this tournament. although i didnt particularly find the tackle that dangerous, the irb decided months ago that a red should be issued, and as heartbreaking as it was for me, he deserved to go. i just wish Stephan Jones had placed himself in the pocket like a good ten ought to, because THAT is the biggest disappointment from me.

Davie wrote:I believe the statement was made last December. Today's statement is just a reiteration of that.

Davie, does it not seem strange at to you at all that the IRB choose to wait until the first time that the statement is correctly enforced (rather than any of the multiple occasions where it has not been) before reiterating?

I'm not suggesting any kind of agenda, just pointing out that it is an odd way round of doing something.

And the International Rugby Board has replied to criticism of referee Alain Rolland's sending off of the player.

"Alain Rolland's decision to issue a red card was absolutely correct," said referees manager Paddy O'Brien.


New Zealander O'Brien added: "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."




Ok so here is the thing. They have stated its the top end offence of the game on the same lines as eye gouging and doping essentially. If this is the case how can Warburton only get a 3 match ban. He was looking at 6months - 2 years for this offence if the letter of the law is to be followed.
Below is the text:-

But Quinlan "found that there were no aggravating features and there were compelling on-field and/or off-field mitigating features including the player's admission, outstanding character and disciplinary record and remorse" in imposing the three-week ban.

That to me suggests they bottled it because you either say yes the player has committed the crime and will do the time or you actually come out and say no offence is committed to this scale. Instead they are saying a short ban due to his behaviour etc. If welfare is the No1 priority for the IRB then bans like this one will only further affect their credibitity. You cannot try to stamp out bad play with reduced sentences. I have a feeling that while they backed the referee with press releases they may not have agreed with the sending off behind closed doors.

So for me - Red Card or Not - there is no middle ground in this instance.


Anyway well done France for grinding it out and to the Welsh team all I can say is you have made a nation really proud. If nothing else comes from this use this heartache for future games (similar to how New Zealand coped with their Last World Cup and spurred them on for this World Cup).

Warburton is a real credit to his country. I have nothing but respect for the man and I hope he does not dwell on this instance to much.

Can I also add to all those 606'ers who have thrown abuse at the Referee, the Media (for biased reporting) & the wummers looking for people to wind people up, the referee did what he thought was the right thing at the time. The Media may be biased but they are entitled to their views on the game by the same merit each 606'er is entitled to theirs. To the wummers out there, maybe you can learn something from Warburton and the Welsh Team about being dignified and classy in their behaviour. Looking to get a rise of others does not make you much of a human being.

Anyway good luck to both New Zealand and France for the final.

Welshmushroom wrote:
But Quinlan "found that there were no aggravating features and there were compelling on-field and/or off-field mitigating features including the player's admission, outstanding character and disciplinary record and remorse" in imposing the three-week ban.

That to me suggests they bottled it because you either say yes the player has committed the crime and will do the time or you actually come out and say no offence is committed to this scale. Instead they are saying a short ban due to his behaviour etc. If welfare is the No1 priority for the IRB then bans like this one will only further affect their credibitity. You cannot try to stamp out bad play with reduced sentences. I have a feeling that while they backed the referee with press releases they may not have agreed with the sending off behind closed doors.

So for me - Red Card or Not - there is no middle ground in this instance.

You realise, just like a normal justice system, they determine the punishment on a case by case basis? There is no "you did X, so you'll get Y as a punishment" standard, lots of things come into the decision. I have just seen the tackle again for the first time since the match and it wasnt THAT bad, maybe dangerous and warranted a red card if we follow the word of the law but it certainly wasn't malicious and could have been far worse.

Nice try welshmushroom. It was seen as midrange (which it was given the tackle and the players record). The correct sanction was given. Your surmising as to the support or otherwise of the original decision I presume is your own speculation

3 weeks eh?... so he misses the next game and then has his 2 week break that all players have after returning from the world cup.
Well that worked out well didn't it!

What is unusual is Wales had a player sent off in the 1987 semi final against new zealand too and lost that game, though funnily enough in the 3/4 place play off, it was Australia who had a player sent off and Wales won that game!


Seeing as we have the same final and 3/4 play off as we did in 1987 then why not copy it line and verse!

I still don't understand why these shorter bans are weeks and not games.

I think that this is a case of the IRB protecting its own people.

Everyone can tell that there was no malicious intent there.

A tip tackle is wrong. But (as I keep on saying) Rolland acted like a gunslinger.

A moment of consideration might (should?) have reduced the sanction to a YC.

Warburton might still have received a ban - but maybe the correct side might have gone through.

Every inch I support the Welsh on this one - as the ref got it wrong in the spirit of the game.

I am sure that the RC was shown before the brain was engaged.

Portnoy,

The laws are quite clear that it was a red card. If you want the ref to not apply the law as written because it spoilt the game - which other laws would you like them to ignore for the sake of the spectacle.

Rolland was 100% correct in his application of the laws and directives.

Blame the lawmakers not the ref.

LondonTiger wrote:Portnoy,

The laws are quite clear that it was a red card. If you want the ref to not apply the law as written because it spoilt the game - which other laws would you like them to ignore for the sake of the spectacle.

Rolland was 100% correct in his application of the laws and directives.

Blame the lawmakers not the ref.

Which is of course easy to say given 20:20 hindsight.

Did you not see Joubert hanging about a bit on key decisions and taking a sneaky glimpse at the big screen before 'clearing his mind'?

Why would Rolland need to do that though Portnoy. I think Superclear summed it up on another thread. he was in the perfect position to see the incident and made up his mind instantly. he was clearly certain so why should he tkae some time.

And no joubert didnt do that or did you ignore the Sonny Bill yellow. he had his hand in his pocket before he stopped play or a replay was shown

Portnoy wrote:Everyone can tell that there was no malicious intent there.

How many times does it need to be said before people take it in?

"intent" has NO bearing whatsoever. That much is clear in the rules

I'm getting pretty fed up of the number of people on here who seem to base their whole argument on pure fiction

Davie wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Everyone can tell that there was no malicious intent there.

How many times does it need to be said before people take it in?

"intent" has NO bearing whatsoever. That much is clear in the rules

I'm getting pretty fed up of the number of people on here who seem to base their whole argument on pure fiction

Life isn't black and white is it? and that's why he only got minimum 3 week ban. it's the reason why if a speed camera in a 50 mile an hour zone clocks you doing 55 you don't get a fine - but you have broken the rules.

All that'll happen now is a glut of players tipping themselves to try and get a red out of the ref.

Hopefully the anger of all senior and ex internationals will get this rule cleared up.

More fiction

The ban was for 6 weeks (reduced to three for previous good character)

I have no problem or the ruling or the sentence. Certainly no problem with the carding.

But I do have an issue with Paddy O'Briens statement, certainly this bit.

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

He certainly didn't have a clear view. If you watch the tackle replayed you can see there is a player obscuring his view.

Francoise Pienaar pointed that out on the itv highlights show today. He was referring to his thoughts that in the future red or yellow card decisions could be decided with the use of the TMO.

Michael Lynar and Sean Fitzpatrick agreed that in yesterday's incident, where ref Allan Rolland did not have a clear view it would have been prudent to ask his touch judges.

slartibartfast wrote:
All that'll happen now is a glut of players tipping themselves to try and get a red out of the ref.

That is one of the crazier things I've read on here (and that's saying something).

So now we're going to get players trying to leap like salmon and "spear" themselves by landing on their neck/head in order to get a player sent off?

It's not something I'd try.

slartibartfast wrote:
Life isn't black and white is it? and that's why he only got minimum 3 week ban. it's the reason why if a speed camera in a 50 mile an hour zone clocks you doing 55 you don't get a fine - but you have broken the rules.

All that'll happen now is a glut of players tipping themselves to try and get a red out of the ref.

Hopefully the anger of all senior and ex internationals will get this rule cleared up.

I was glad when the IRB conciously made tougher rules on dangerous play a few years ago. I hope we don't see players at any level trying to get players red carded. But professionalism has allowed some oddities into the game.

I remember when you were allowed to substitute without the home teams doctor giving the all clear, a great decision that prevented teams playing with injured players on the pitch. But then that lead to bloodgate through professionalism.

Let's hope that rugbys sense of professionalism doesn't stoop so low again as to what you suggested in trying to get players red carded.

"doing it for Sam" was obviously not the motivational force they hoped. "why should I bust a gut for that pillock, he's the one putting me under this pressure" may have been the result.