"the lights went out on rugby". Eddie Butler

by maestegmafia Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:04 pm

First topic message reminder :

"if a tackle like that deserves a red card, then there is something wrong with the rules!" Eddie butler on Scrum V tonight.

He's right.

We want to see more consistency, but we also want to see fairer interpretations. We want to see foul play and nastiness eradicated but we wish that some foul play was treated with leniency.

Some people want to see players rucked out with the boot, but we are happy to have successfully erradicated stamping.

What do we want and what do we need for rugby to be the sport we want?

Everyone has a different opinion, everyone likes different aspects of the game. I personally love great ball in hand play, but one of my best mates stopped watching altogether when the scrum became a joke as he lost what he loved in the sport.

Rugby is a sport that is very organic, it evolves, new ideas, new ways and means of tactically advancing the game happen every season.

The rules always adapt and the IRB try to keep up.

But what do we the spectators, fans, players and former players want.

by Davie Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:14 pm

Runster wrote: My 4 year old Son Ben was crying inconsolably on the bottom stair just after the end of the game, and summed it up nicely - 'That ref was pants'.

Your 4 year old son has a good excuse

He's 4

It's the grown men sat on the bottom stair, crying inconsolably who have the problem

by red_stag Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:26 pm

People on here are speaking a lot about the spirit and letter of the law.

Referees are always encouraged to rank the spirit ahead of the letter. However they are also to rank safety above all of them.

I also think people need to realise that the spirit of the law doesn't mean play on.

For those people who make reference to "the good old days" you have to realise that players are twice as fast and strong as back then. You aren't dealing with working people who play a game at the weekend before going on the beers. These are men who's profession is to spend days bettering their skills and their evenings honing their bodies to new levels of power and strenght.

I do think that there are too many pedantic laws and too many grey issues. Some people for example don't realised that intentional rucking is illegal. I had a talk to a captain at half time about this yesterday. Team Red had won the ball and a player from opposite team was caught on the wrong side. Ball was there to be played and the arriving player went to shoe him rather than play the ball. I spotted what he was going to do and told him No Boots on Bodies. He looked at me and picked the ball. At halftime he asked why he couldn't ruck the guy on the ground. Rather than being pedantic (as I usually am) Smile

and saying thems the rules, I asked why he needed to ruck him. He shrugged.

by englandglory4ever Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:36 pm

In rugby the head and neck area is vulnerable and laws are rightly in place to lessen the chance of injury to them both.

A dangerous tackle is dangerous whether or not it caused injury. Warburton was dealt with in relation to this being a game watched by millions. Rugby must look to eradicate dangerous play. Butler is too emotional on this one.

I'm sure if that was Butler's son going down on his head/neck area upside down he might well have a different attitude towards it.

by red_stag Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:40 pm

The iRB need to start enforcing from here on without fail. The yellow card and citing system isn't a deterrent. From a legal point of view should Clerc have gotten badly injured I reckon he could have taken a case against iRB for several referees failing to implement a safety directive.

by maestegmafia Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:40 pm

red_stag wrote:People on here are speaking a lot about the spirit and letter of the law.

Referees are always encouraged to rank the spirit ahead of the letter. However they are also to rank safety above all of them.

I also think people need to realise that the spirit of the law doesn't mean play on.

For those people who make reference to "the good old days" you have to realise that players are twice as fast and strong as back then. You aren't dealing with working people who play a game at the weekend before going on the beers. These are men who's profession is to spend days bettering their skills and their evenings honing their bodies to new levels of power and strenght.

I do think that there are too many pedantic laws and too many grey issues. Some people for example don't realised that intentional rucking is illegal. I had a talk to a captain at half time about this yesterday. Team Red had won the ball and a player from opposite team was caught on the wrong side. Ball was there to be played and the arriving player went to shoe him rather than play the ball. I spotted what he was going to do and told him No Boots on Bodies. He looked at me and picked the ball. At halftime he asked why he couldn't ruck the guy on the ground. Rather than being pedantic (as I usually am) and saying thems the rules, I asked why he needed to ruck him. He shrugged.

Fancy stepping up a few levels stag...! We need more decent refs at pro 12 and HEC level

by PJHolybloke Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:59 pm

JDandfries wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:I'm with Eddie Maesteg,

I'm sick of it - Warburton's a reckless idiot and Clerc nearly died.. blah blah, he's so lucky he didn't end up in a wheelchair blah blah, feck me it's a wonder I ever made my twenties alive, let alone my forties with nothing more than dodgy knees and a bad back, what with me playing when flying wedges and REAL rucking were par for the feckin rugby course.

We're breeding a bunch of cissy-arsed limp-wristed ponces who have already started throwing themselves to the ground the minute there's a whiff of "foul-play" at hand, and "refs" and the health & safety brigade are buying into it hook, line and sinker. England are breeding a bunch of self-obsessed up-their-own-arses celebrity wannabees who couldn't give a flying toss for the real Corinthians that made this game what it is today through endless sacrifice and dedication for nothing more but the pure love of the game, and that's just for starters.

Do the world a favour IRB and give Clerc a BAFTA, chuck a few more about while you're at it, he ain't the first and the road we're going down he'll be not even the tip of the iceberg.

Now Clerc has to face New Zealand whilst being a member of the worst team to ever reach the World Cup final, I wouldn't be surprised if a wheelchair holds a certain attraction for Clerc come 8.55 next Sunday.

I'm sick of the bullshine to be honest, it wont be long before we're left with a cross between roundball and a game of 15 man non-contact rugby league, my only hope is that I'll be dead and buried by then, because I wouldn't watch a Test Match of that shoite if they played it in my garden.

Due to a tackle that constituted foul play, I broke 5 of the vertebrae in my neck while at university. Thankfully my spinal column was only bruised - and I recovered to eventually play professional rugby. The lad who tackled me never played again as he was unable to cope with the thought that his recklessness (I am sure there was no malice) almost paralysed someone. Rugby is a tough physical game, which is why we need some level of protection from dangerous play. The only place intent should be relevant is when deciding the sentence, otherwise it matters not a jot whether it is malicious or just bad technique - dangerous play should not be tolerated.

So dear MrPJHolyThingy STFU.

Excellent post Tiger, this fool PJ Holy has been moaning for three days now, and despite at least 50 people explaining to him how he is so wrong, he will not let it go.

He fails to see that the ref was spot on, and that no one is saying that Warburton tried to hurt anyone, but that when you drop someone accidently, after you have picked them up you have no control over where or how they land, and that is extremely dangerous, as you well know!

Clerc came away unscathed, but that shouldn't dtermine the level of punishment, because on another day he could have been paralysed or worse!

PJ should vent his misguided anger perhaps at the ineptitude of his own team, rather than a highler professional referee, who had IMO an excellent game!

At least this "fool" isn't one of those "fools" that keeps telling him that Rolland followed the letter of the Law and had no choice, it's not the letter of the Law as the Law states that Dangerous Play is a penalty offence.

The referee wasn't "spot on" because that suggests there was a decision making process in play, where in actual fact the referee blindly followed the instructions from a memo written by POB some weeks before the game was played and therefore POB would have to have been "spot on" with his judgement of the incident several weeks before the incident actually unfolded.

Those 50 people will be telling me next that POB is omnipotent and knows all things, and that therefore it's better for a game to be reffed by memo rather than an individual capable of independent thought process based on the actualities in front of him (or her).

So keep your "fool" comments to yourself in future, in the mean time I'll vent my anger where my anger takes me, so you can keep your advice to yourself also.

by deadfred Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:08 pm

Im with you PJ as are loads and loads of players past and present. It was the wrong call and unfortunately will rumble on through the future of Rugby. Now whenever somebody does something that could be a sending off according to the law then he should be sent off. For me personally that is not the way the game should be controlled by the ref - he has to be allowed to assess the situation of the offence. In-fact look at yellow cards and how they are randomly given out, or penalty tries, or penalties at the breakdown. Rugby has too many contributing factors in just about every situation to run it solely by the letter of the law. Anybody, who doesn't agree with that is an idiot IMO. Very Happy

by PJHolybloke Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:15 pm

Cheers deadfred, much appreciated.

Tackling is dangerous, scrummaging is dangerous, rucking is dangerous and lifting in the lineout is dangerous, isn't danger part of the attraction in the first place?

I firmly believe that reffing a game remotely via memoranda is the first erosion of a referees responsibilities, when those kind of instructions are on the basis of intereference from H&S busy-bodies it's the beginning of the end as far as I'm concerned.

by Gatts Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:18 pm

1. Give skippers TMO challenges for reds
2. All tries and reds to be ajudicated by ref only after consultation with TMO

by deadfred Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:29 pm

Wales were robbed unfortunately and that is very damaging to the game of Rugby as a whole. It is even more difficult given the heritage of the Ref and the reaction of the French players, including Clerc, to try and get him sent off.

The IRB should not have put Rolland there and now they are going to have a go at Gatland for pointing out that he did not bend the rules, or cheat, when he probably could have done. Wales as far as I could see where a very 'clean' team who have tried and succeeded to play a style of rugby befitting of the game. To have put that team in this situation and tarnish a fantastic, though not perfect, role model is a disgrace.

France play acted and Rolland did something that will make a lot of people question his ability and impartiality - even after he has retired to his FRU Villa down on the coast - where no doubt he will entertain the heads of the IRB as they munch down on the lobsters they have bought with the extra dosh they have made by the whole of France watching their TV SHOW. furious

by slartibartfast Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:51 pm

What Has fitter, stronger and faster players got to do with tip tackles?

The weird thing is the guidance says "start at red" and work backwards - this implies for the ref to give it some thought. Also at which point does a tip tackle become a yellow or penalty or neither?

Speed limits are there for safety - by the letter of the law everyone would have traffic offences longer than their arm. But life isn't black and white.

by Maddog Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:15 am

I have been trying to refrain from commenting on this as it's a pretty raw topic for me as I was the recipient of a similar tackle at age of 17. I was in a&e for 8hrs,2 X-rays and a ct scan later i was given the all clear but have never beenable to play rugby again and will have neck and back problems for the rest of my life. For people to still be discussing this 4 days later is just ridiculous. You drop an oppoment on their head on a rugby pitch under any circumstances at any level has to be a red card end of story!

by mystiroakey Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:24 am

hopefully your comment will make a few of this overexited fans think a little AND REALISE WHAT IS IMPORTANT, well done for commenting- i have been pushed down some stairs before and will allways have neck pain as a result- its horrid and you are spot on in your assesment. Its sad that so many of these tackles are not punished, hopefully this high profile one will set the presedent.

by Gatts Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:15 am

how can you compare 'being pushed down stairs' which you allege, with an injury incurred on a rugby pitch.

Absolutely ridiculous comparison and you really should engage your brain before you get on the emotive bandwagon.

Maddog i am sorry you were injured.

by samuraidragon Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:22 am

I don't have a problem with the idea of spears/tips being heavily sanctioned. I do have a problem with the inconsistency of reffing these tackles in this competition.

Some argue that Rolland "got it right" (ie. obeyed the O'Brien memo) whereas the other refs "got it wrong", as revealed by subsequent citings.

But why did the other refs "get it wrong", since they read the memo too? Probably because they realised that a red card between top teams will usually end the contest by giving an insuperable advantage to one team. On the other hand, a yellow plus subsequent citing keeps the game going as a contest while giving the player the punishment the offence deserves.

In the case of red - but not a yellow - the earlier in the game the worse. A red after 20 mins is equivalent to handing the other team a 30 point advantage. It's the equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

Other refs decided to keep their fingers off the button. Rolland chose to nuke the match
and the tournament.

by doctor_grey Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:44 am

maestegmafia wrote:But what do we the spectators, fans, players and former players want.

I am a fan, player, youth coach and orthopaedic surgeon. I want the best players on the pitch as much as possible. I don't want them in the bin or banned. Most of all I don't want them injured, with careers cut short or worse. This means rigid enforcement of spear tackles and other dangerous play.

Now I firmly believe Warburton's tackle was not deliberate in any way. I think he is growing into a terrific player. But I simply don't think there was an alternative. If similar tackles in previous matches were not given red cards, then those calls were deficient.

I feel bad for Warburton, and I don't think this will follow him. But it was the right call.

by Otagolad Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:48 am

I think the decision was correct and Rolland had no choice, however one way to remedy the "red card ruins game" issue which I like has been proposed by ex All Black coach Laurie Mains for the last year or so. His suggestion is that:

1. The red carded player has to leave the field and is not allowed to play any further part in the game.

2. For 10 minutes following the sending off the offending team play with 14 men.

3. At the end of that 10 minute period the offending team can send a replacement player onto the field, but not one who has already been replaced unless the player sent off was a front-rower.

4. The red-carded player has to front a judiciary hearing the following day.

The advantage of this system is that although it punishes the offending team (10 mins with 14 men, presumably a lesser player as replacement and a citing to face) it means the game as a whole is not ruined. It also means if all subs have been used then you're down to 14 men for the rest of the game unless it is a front-rower.

There are issues with this plan that would need to be looked at, however I think this works better than the current system.

by Taylorman Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:04 am

Why don't they let the ref get the TMO to decide?
Reasons:
- they get to see a replay from one or more angles

- they have a vital few more seconds without too much undue delay to play

- they as TMO's will be trained to apply consistency in the key factors of the tackle in comparison to the merits of other tackles. They can even take into account the players record and behaviour if thats a component of the decision.

- being the TMO they can apply the decision from a more neutral position so the ref can get on with his job and not have to put up with the ferocity of one side at his decision (it's out of his hands to to speak)

- it gives the TMO another task given they are probably not earning their 1.50 and hour anyway with maybe one or two calls a match.

With the refs having to cope with the breakdown rules, current TMO processes can easily be used to decide instances where the refs 'feels' a red or yellow card is warranted and that perhaps in some situations another look is required- a spear falling into that category.

If the above process had been applied in Warburtons case he just may not have been sent off- a 50/50 call going in favour of the situation.

by Taylorman Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:19 am

Yes Otago I saw that.
the issues are around sending on a donkey to king hit someone and then get replaced after 10 minutes and other similar scenarios.

I just think its a matter of getting the decision right. A player or a team that selects a player who seriously offends should be penalised to the extent they are now.

A red card MUST first be an offence that the player offending knows (or should know) they've seriously offended and as such could march- suffer the embarrassment and hurt not only himself but his team and fans.

That is the deterrent. Simple, everyone knows the score, full stop. Players must be able to be protected and hard, firm rules provide that.

Having replacement options and the like just water down the issue and open up 'options'.

Red light should mean red- not red, then orange then green again.

by Otagolad Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:34 am

Taylorman wrote:Yes Otago I saw that.
the issues are around sending on a donkey to king hit someone and then get replaced after 10 minutes and other similar scenarios.

I agree with the point as I said that it would need some work, however if you were a player at the highest level would you be prepared to accept a very large ban for intentionally hurting a player in a manner that would likely get a red card; a ban which would likely result in your club not paying you during the standdown period? Not sure that many would and not sure many players at the highest level would following instructions to hurt another player intentionally in a manner that would likely result in a red card as they respect each other too much - Bakkies stand up Whistle

).

I totally accept that referees need to first and foremost get it right, however they are human (even the TMO's - ask GG about Nambian/South African TMO's Whistle

) and therefore if they were to get a decision wrong at least Laurie Main's proposal keeps the game a contest.

by Taylorman Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:10 am

Theres just too much put on the refs in the end.

I mean Barnes couldnt have got from one end of Queen street to the other with his name on a hot dog sign he was wearing a la Die hard 3 without some form of injury a day after the 2007 quarter final

Nor could Roland through the streets of Cardiff or Lawrence through the streets of Johannesburg.

No need for it. Theres ample proof refs are not coping and you just have to google any of the top refs an article where they were useless, or just downright evil.

Just did that with Joubert and in one article he was accused of being the the Bulls 16th man or something like that in a sxv final.

No need for it...we keep saying 'theyre human' but going by these boards that doesnt stop people treating them like dogs.

by samuraidragon Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:47 am

As a matter of interest, how common are red cards in internationals? I can't remember seeing one for years.

by Standulstermen Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:29 am

Last one i can remember was Paul Williams in the pool stages and Heaslip last year Samurai.

We have rejected calls to use the TMO except in the act of scoring and and i agree. Lets keep it there as we then open the door to its overuse. (and lets not forget Ireland could have seriously benefitted from its use in live play this year). it is also quite funny in that we are haviong a debate about the TMO after a referee got a decision RIGHT!

I cant believe that someone has used a speeding argument in this. It really is baffling.

Samurai
On your point regarding consistency of refs i think everyone is in agreement. It hasnt been consistently applied but when the IRB reprimand the refs who only gave yellow and tell them they got i wrong i dont think there is really any doubt as to what the sanction should be and Rolland got it right.

by samuraidragon Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:45 am

Thanks, Stand. I just checked that and found Heaslip was dismissed for kneeing a player in the head (twice). The article also said he was the first Irishman to see red in 32 years. So a pretty rare occurrence. I remember Moriarty getting a (deserved) red card for Wales in about 1981 and of course the stupid affair in the 1987 World cup. Other than those occurrences I don't remember any Welsh red cards. It's a rare and severe punishment for serious foul play.

by PJHolybloke Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:41 am

Taylorman wrote:Why don't they let the ref get the TMO to decide?
Reasons:
- they get to see a replay from one or more angles

- they have a vital few more seconds without too much undue delay to play

- they as TMO's will be trained to apply consistency in the key factors of the tackle in comparison to the merits of other tackles. They can even take into account the players record and behaviour if thats a component of the decision.

- being the TMO they can apply the decision from a more neutral position so the ref can get on with his job and not have to put up with the ferocity of one side at his decision (it's out of his hands to to speak)

- it gives the TMO another task given they are probably not earning their 1.50 and hour anyway with maybe one or two calls a match.

With the refs having to cope with the breakdown rules, current TMO processes can easily be used to decide instances where the refs 'feels' a red or yellow card is warranted and that perhaps in some situations another look is required- a spear falling into that category.

If the above process had been applied in Warburtons case he just may not have been sent off- a 50/50 call going in favour of the situation.

I like this suggestion T'man, merits further discussion I think (when I've got more time Very Happy

), hi-ho, hi-ho it's off to work I go..

by Standulstermen Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:39 am

samuraidragon wrote:Thanks, Stand. I just checked that and found Heaslip was dismissed for kneeing a player in the head (twice). The article also said he was the first Irishman to see red in 32 years. So a pretty rare occurrence. I remember Moriarty getting a (deserved) red card for Wales in about 1981 and of course the stupid affair in the 1987 World cup. Other than those occurrences I don't remember any Welsh red cards. It's a rare and severe punishment for serious foul play.

Fritz for Toulouse aswell has been well documented. John Hayes was dismissed for munster for stamping on Cian Healy and POC was red carded this year for striking Jonathan Thomas.

by red_stag Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:47 am

We had a long chat at referee meeting about this and the blazers were passing on the feedback from IRFU and IRB. We also had a chat from a Pro 12 citing commissioner about it.

At grassroots level our approach now is: If you do a tip tackle your getting carded. The only way to avoid a card is to realise your mistake and to get the player the right way up. A red if he is being tackled in a downwards motion towards the ground or if he is dropped in mid air.

Intent doesn't matter, nor does whether the player was injured, nor does his record/conduct in the match etc - these are matters for the disciplinary hearing not for the ref.

by red_stag Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:48 am

Taylor and PJ

I quite like your suggestion that if a ref is going for a red that he can check the TMO just to be sure.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:30 am

deadfred wrote:Wales were robbed unfortunately and that is very damaging to the game of Rugby as a whole. It is even more difficult given the heritage of the Ref and the reaction of the French players, including Clerc, to try and get him sent off.

France play acted

Dead Fred, you're really going to have to stop accusing Vincent Clerc of feigning injury to get Warburton sent off. What reason do you have to doubt that being tipped up and landing on his shoulders hurt him?

by JDandfries Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:41 am

Red Stag, you are spot on, a tip tackle can only arise from poor technique by the tackler.

Do away with shoulder pads, and teach people to wrap up after the initial hit, thats how it used to be when I played, and that is how it whould be now!

Warburton would not have dropped his man if he had tackled properly, and kept ahold!

by deadfred Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:27 am

luckless_pedestrian wrote:
deadfred wrote:Wales were robbed unfortunately and that is very damaging to the game of Rugby as a whole. It is even more difficult given the heritage of the Ref and the reaction of the French players, including Clerc, to try and get him sent off.

France play acted

Dead Fred, you're really going to have to stop accusing Vincent Clerc of feigning injury to get Warburton sent off. What reason do you have to doubt that being tipped up and landing on his shoulders hurt him?

Clerc clutched is face with both hands and writhed about as if in total agony - IMO he was not - especially given how quickly he got up after the red card was shown. I do agree that dangerous tackles need to be dealt with I just don't think that tackle when watched in real time was not that bad compared to others that have been unpunished. That is why it does not seem right or fair. Clerc was fine but the red card ruined the game. I'm just with all the other people/players/pundits who think it should have been a yellow. AS mentioned before if we stand purely by the letter of the law then we will have players being sent off all the time and the game will be a constant string of penalties and yellow cards. Surely when somebody touches a player leaping at a line out and he falls badly that is a red card (this happens a lot), when a player deliberately collapses a scrum or an eight continues to push an advantage over the other eight who just collapsed the scrum that should be an immediate red card as that is the cause of most serious rugby neck injuries. It's the thin end of the wedge and IMO will encourage players to react as if they have been shot(ala wendyball) in order to get players sent off.

by mystiroakey Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:30 am

look guys i think it was a red card so i cant see the point in you whinging. Hoever i do get the point of consitancy, and this point needs to be raised.

but this point sounds nuts to me

" Clerc was fine but the red card ruined the game"

i only saw the second half and wales had the majority of possesion yet squandered chances 14 men or not you should have won anyway.

by Davie Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:31 am

deadfred wrote:Clerc was fine but the red card ruined the game.

The red card did NOT ruin the game. It ended up a one point difference with a very thrilling climax.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:32 am

So 'IMO' is all you've got.

by red_stag Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:34 am

Fred - with regards to diving/feigning injury, this won't matter.

This is limited to tip tackling and will result in a red card regardless of a broken neck or zero injury to the player.

It is the action itself that determines the red card, not the result.

by JDandfries Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:39 am

deadfred wrote:
luckless_pedestrian wrote:
deadfred wrote:Wales were robbed unfortunately and that is very damaging to the game of Rugby as a whole. It is even more difficult given the heritage of the Ref and the reaction of the French players, including Clerc, to try and get him sent off.

France play acted

Dead Fred, you're really going to have to stop accusing Vincent Clerc of feigning injury to get Warburton sent off. What reason do you have to doubt that being tipped up and landing on his shoulders hurt him?

Clerc clutched is face with both hands and writhed about as if in total agony - IMO he was not - especially given how quickly he got up after the red card was shown. I do agree that dangerous tackles need to be dealt with I just don't think that tackle when watched in real time was not that bad compared to others that have been unpunished. That is why it does not seem right or fair. Clerc was fine but the red card ruined the game. I'm just with all the other people/players/pundits who think it should have been a yellow. AS mentioned before if we stand purely by the letter of the law then we will have players being sent off all the time and the game will be a constant string of penalties and yellow cards. Surely when somebody touches a player leaping at a line out and he falls badly that is a red card (this happens a lot), when a player deliberately collapses a scrum or an eight continues to push an advantage over the other eight who just collapsed the scrum that should be an immediate red card as that is the cause of most serious rugby neck injuries. It's the thin end of the wedge and IMO will encourage players to react as if they have been shot(ala wendyball) in order to get players sent off.

So what you are saying is, unless he breaks his neck, it should only be a yellow?
Doh

by jay_welsh Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:49 am

John Taylor wrote on ESPN that he spoke to one of the world cup refs after the game, and though he didnt name him, he said that he would not have given a red card to Sam, so obviously not all the refs are in agreement with alain. So the only issue we can really be annoyed with is consistency from every referee, but its something I fear wont happen.

by red_stag Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:53 am

Oh Jay I agree consistency is a problem. Poite and Walsh both went yellow for similar tackles. However whenever they gave yellows the IRB have ruled that they should have gone red and banned the players for several weeks.

It is a problem that they gave different sanctions than Rolland did but it is they who were wrong. We need to decide whether we want consistency or we want refs judging the severity of things.

I think the IRB has been very clear this week in what referees approaches are to be.

by samuraidragon Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:05 pm

The problem is that the yellow+citing+ban does not do retrospective justice at all. A red in the course of the game , especially near the beginning, amounts to a forfeit of the game itself. In a knock-out competition, that means the end.
It's a nuclear bomb of a sanction, and I'm not sure it should be used for any than the most heinous isntances of fould play.

Yeah, I know "we could have won if we'd taken our kicks." But that is because on the day we were so much better than the dire French 15 that we almost made up what amounted to a 30 points handicap.

by Davie Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:09 pm

You seem to contradict yourself there in the space of two short paragraphs.

If "A red in the course of the game , especially near the beginning, amounts to a forfeit of the game itself" - how do you explain that you could (and indeed should) have won anyway?

by red_stag Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:15 pm

samuraidragon wrote:The problem is that the yellow+citing+ban does not do retrospective justice at all. A red in the course of the game , especially near the beginning, amounts to a forfeit of the game itself. In a knock-out competition, that means the end.

Then don't tackle in this manner - its fairly simple. If the ref sees it he should be going red. If he misses it the citing commissioner will ensure you spend the bones of a month suspended. The message is clear - players need to stop tip tackling.

by deadfred Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:21 pm

The fact that Wales only lost by one point does not change the fact that the red card cost us the game. If we had 15 players for the remaining 60 minutes we would have won - infact the one point difference makes that point all the stronger.

In regard to the tackler only being sent off if he breaks the other players neck is obviously not what i'm saying. Doesn't The law sates that you should start at red and work backwards - surely that does not mean it can only be a red card? If the law states that it has to be a red card then every other ref in every other game in this WC and the 6N and the TriNations have not been referring properly. And if that is the answer then why pick this game to suddenly enforce that law properly? And if the answer is 'you have to start somewhere' then that would be why just about the whole of Wales and especially the team and management that have worked so hard feel so hard done by.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:23 pm

Warburton's red card has made it clear how seriously the IRB want to crack down on tip-tackling, Stag; but now all referees must follow this through and continue to penalise such tackles to show they mean business. Anything less than that will be grist to the mill of those who think Warburton's red-carding was harsh.

by samuraidragon Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:25 pm

Davie, a red after 20 mins is equivalent to a handicap of over 30 points (ave. score during 10 min yellow card is +7). In most circumstances that would be game over. The fact we were so close at the end suggests we could have won by 30 point margin with 15 players. Rule of thumb calculation.

by HammerofThunor Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:25 pm

I remember a lot of people a while back complaining that citing someone for foul play doesn't help the team that was originally fouled. I think it had come up again when Bergamasco had gouged a Welsh player (Byrne?) a few years ago. Wales got no "benefit" and the teams who faced Italy later benefited was the general complaint.

Red cards will always greatly effect a game/ Does that mean we should get rid? No. Ok what level should they be applied? The IRB stance currently on tip-tackles is bang on IMO. No need for it and puts all the control in the player's hands. If you don't want to be sanctioned don't lift the players unless you're very very careful. Sounds fair.

by red_stag Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:26 pm

Fred - The law doesn't state start red and work backwards. The law says Red card. I explained refs thought process earlier. When a player is tipped we think Red Card. If he is driven downwards or dropped its red. If not a yellow might be ok. If he is able to turn the player back the right way we may not need a card.

Your right - the refs haven't been doing it properly. Consistency is an issue and the IRB has a case to answer on behalf of its refs. Rolland doesn't have a case to answer.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:27 pm

deadfred wrote:The fact that Wales only lost by one point does not change the fact that the red card cost us the game. If we had 15 players for the remaining 60 minutes we would have won - infact the one point difference makes that point all the stronger.

Oh my good God.

The four missed kicks at goal and the two fluffed drop goals make it perfectly clear that the red card did not cost us the game!

by red_stag Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:28 pm

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Warburton's red card has made it clear how seriously the IRB want to crack down on tip-tackling, Stag; but now all referees must follow this through and continue to penalise such tackles to show they mean business. Anything less than that will be grist to the mill of those who think Warburton's red-carding was harsh.

Agree with you entirely. The IRB has failed to clamp down properly and it has led to this whole sorry mess. If Walsh and Poite had done their job properly there would be no issue here. If this is not dealt with properly in future Wales will have a right to be aggrieved.

by JDandfries Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:29 pm

The red card didnt cost you the game, France looked comfortable and I still believe they would have won, it was your two kickers and your Captain that cost the game, so stop deflecting the blame!

On the card itself, the law states that if a player is tackled and then dropped, it must be a red card, that is exactly what happened, and the red card resulted.

Other similar incidents have happened and a yellow has been awarded, on all those occasions the refs involved have not reffed another game, and the IRB have said they should have been red and the players banned acordingly.

All in all, these types of tackles are dangerous, and although I am certain Warburton had no bad intentions, Clerc is very lucky he didn't sustain a serious injury.

There is no need to pick anyone up if you tackle properly.

by samuraidragon Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:32 pm

LP, of course the missed kicks cost us. The point is that with 15 vs 15, I reckon we would have won by at least 20 points even WITH the missed kicks. We were that much better.

by Sponsored content