"the lights went out on rugby". Eddie Butler

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.

Not while it was 15 v 15 you weren't. Did france switch off? Did Wales just progress as they would have through the game anyway? Did Wales up their game to compensate for the missing player?

We don't know.

You were Samurai but the best team doesn't always win. A pefectly legitimate red card was the issue. Be cheesed off about the result and missed opportunity - I would be - but the fact it ruined the game for Wales isn't the referees problem.

Why did Warburton turn Clerc upside down and drop him? Thats a better question

samuraidragon wrote: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.

Not sure that is true, you had 25 phases near the end and lost 15 yards.

France were teh better team in first 20 minutes aswell, so although locis would seem to suggest you would have won, it really deosnt work that way, and it really matters very little!

Samurai, if that's the case, blame Warburton for his tackle, not Rolland for penalising it as the IRB wanted him to do.

Had Wales have kept 15 men on the field France may well have pulled their fingers out of their arses and actually played and might have smashed Wales by 15-20 points.

Had I not had curry for dinner last night I might not have bad guts this morning.

Had Wales have scored with their first missed penalty, then France would have kicked off from halfway as opposed to a 22 drop out, so the whole fecking game would have been different from then on.

Get over it. France won. Wales lost. Rolland made the correct decision. It's getting very boring now listening to people still failing to grasp the basic facts of what happened.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Had Wales have kept 15 men on the field France may well have pulled their fingers out of their arses and actually played and might have smashed Wales by 15-20 points.

Had I not had curry for dinner last night I might not have bad guts this morning.

The average points advantage from a 10 minute sin-binning is 7 points. It's not a stretch to assume that being down a man for two thirds of a game leads to very considerable disadvantage. We were well on top in the first 20 mins, btw.

I do blame Warburton, primarily. But I also blame, not so much Rolland, as the system that allowed such inequities to take place. If the other tip tackles had seen red, Sam would not have been so reckless. A red is a huge , huge disadvantage, in no way comparable to the citing plus ban sanction. I'm really surprised most of you don't see that 14 vs 15 for 60 mins is a huge handicap.

Samuarai why do you blame Rolland - blame the IRB. Rolland did absolutely nothing wrong. Blame Paddy O'Brien as you say if other tip tackles had seen Red as should have been, Warbs may have curbed his ethusiasm. However that is not Rollands fault.

Yellow Card + Citing is not considered an acceptable way of punishing these tackles.

samuraidragon wrote:If the other tip tackles had seen red, Sam would not have been so reckless.

Does that not imply he knew what he was doing then?

Yes, it's a huge handicap. I don't think anyone's suggesting it's not.

I dont' blame Rolland - sorry if my grammar was unclear.

No probs - I do agree IRB haven't handled it right.

I dont even think we can blame the IRB too much for their decisions DURING THIS TOURNAMENT in relation to the tip tackle. They made it clear in the pool stages what they wanted and criticised the refs who didnt give it.

What i would say is that the directive on the red for droppping the player has been in place since 2009 and we are still seeing these tackles. They should have clamped down earlier. Doesnt make their decision to clamp down now wrong, just late.

Stand I would say its a disgracely mismanaged approach that has seen this confusion. There should have been this level of uproar over a very clear red card offense.

The IRB have had 2 years to get it right and have not clamped down on refs refusing to give reds.

Davie wrote:

samuraidragon wrote:If the other tip tackles had seen red, Sam would not have been so reckless.

Does that not imply he knew what he was doing then?

He would have been more sensitized to the possibility of a tackle ending in a tip. Just like you would be more sensitized to the possibility to exceeding the speed limit if you knew it would result in a ban. You'd keep your eye on the speedo rather than admiring the scenery.

red_stag wrote:Stand I would say its a disgracely mismanaged approach that has seen this confusion. There should have been this level of uproar over a very clear red card offense.

The IRB have had 2 years to get it right and have not clamped down on refs refusing to give reds.

I agree totally Stag. My only point was they have sorted it in this tournament. The two years prior i do think Wales fans can be somewhat aggrieved about in that they seemed to let it go.

Im not sure they sorted it yet. There was a tip tackle where the ref gave a yellow. IRB said "naughty ref should have been red". Then it happened AGAIN. Then Rolland dealt with the tip tackle properly and the confused public lost the plot.

IRB need to ensure referees continue to apply this.

One thing we should all be able to agree on: if there's a tip-tackle in either of the two remaining matches, it damn well better be penalised with a red card.

red_stag wrote:Im not sure they sorted it yet. There was a tip tackle where the ref gave a yellow. IRB said "naughty ref should have been red". Then it happened AGAIN. Then Rolland dealt with the tip tackle properly and the confused public lost the plot.

IRB need to ensure referees continue to apply this.

Maybe not but at least they are consistent throughout the tournament. If there are still refs out there who are saying it was a yellow (as was alluded to above) then they shouldnt be able to ref at any level. It has to be followed through on of course as luckless says below but we cant judge them on what they may do in the future.

There has been an awful lot of ink spilt over this particular event. Eddie Butler writing in the Observer on Sunday said that "Sam Warburton [was] a victim of rigid justice".

The original poster on here asked what we, the spectators, the fans, wanted to see in a game of rugby?

In answer to that one has to consider that rugby was a game for all shapes and sizes, but are we beginning to see the end of that? How many more "Peter Stringers" might we see in the future? The Irish Times, during the last 6Ns asked if the days of the medium-sized, skillful, speedy centres was over considering the bulk of many centres today?

Think of the momentum of an 18st player hurling his body as a missile at another player? The damage can be awful, especially if the receiving player is not expecting it and therefore not braced for it.

Some posters on here, and I haven't read all the posts, say Health and Safety is ruining the game. When BOD was speared in 2005, the tackle then was "legal" although was there not always a rule on "dangerous" tackles? But the spear / tip tackle was not specifically banned. How we howled (in the NH anyway) at the injustice.

As a fan, I want to see good rugby. I love watching a good scrum; I think a rolling maul is a thing of beauty; I loved that moment when Ferris picked up Genia and drove him back 15 yds; I love the control and skill exhibited in 25 phases of "up the jumper" rugby, especially if it is "my" team that are frustrating the opposition and closing down the game (I hate it when the other team do it ); I love when a team breaks through the defence with skillful handling, offloads, clever running lines and scores a try - even if it is the "other" team; I love it when you watch as a match progresses and a team work out the other's lineout calls and gain superiority in that phase of play.

All of these sorts of things I suspect most true rugby fans enjoy. We are renowned for appreciating what any player does well regardless of which team he is playing for. We will cheer a well-executed try / dropgoal / difficulty penalty even if it means our team has lost. We take the moral hgh ground over other sports BECAUSE we are sporting in our support and appreciation of the game.

But I hate cynicism. I hate seeing players blocking others off the ball - and that is creeping into the game too much; I hate players using their highly-toned bodies as missiles; I hate all the really nasty things that sometimes go on - gouging, tip tackles etc; I am fed up of refs not pulling up for squint feeds to the scrum; I hate the media in a match such as last Saturday's not giving a fair and honest account of the incident especially when it was such a high profile game where many many people who normally only watch the 6Ns switch on and are told that the ref has "ruined the spectacle". The rules are the rules, and it shouldn't matter whether it is Old Rottinghams v Old Squiredeaninghams or a RWC semi-final. Inevitably the former will have more comment than the latter, but part of the pundits' job is to inform those who are not regular watchers that what the ref did was absolutely right.

In one of the comments in The Times on Monday, they compared it to happenings in the round-ball game (not of a great deal of interest to me personally, but followed by lots of other people). Apparently there was a time when players jumping up to head a ball would go up with their elbows out. This proved to be dangerous and in a number of incidents other players were badly injured. The authorities banned "flying elbows". The players and supporters howled at (perceived) injustices when punishments were doled out. The authorities held firm and players no longer use their elbows in such situations.

Everyone was warned before this year's 6Ns, Tri-Nations and RWC that tip tackles were a red card offence; intent was not to be considered. These tackles MUST be removed from the game and the only way to do it is for refs to red card them and for the media to inform the watching public that this is the correct decision. The "importance" of the game is not relevant as I am sure every player who goes out to play whether on the world stage or on a muddy field at the end of their village believes that this game is of supreme importance.

One final comment on the tackle in the Wales France Semi. Ii is my view that coaching has a lot to do with dangerous technique in the tackle. The taking or lifting of one leg to distabilise an opponent is coaching 101 at the moment. At the breakdown it allows you to move bodies with more ease and in a head on tackle situation, to drive your opponent backwards.

Warburton was simply executing a technique that through repetition has become second nature. As has been said already in this situation the discrepency in the respective body weights has caused Clerc to go up. At no point did Warburton intend this to happen. It is a consequence of a COACHED but potentially dangerous technique in the tackle.

It would be simpler to outlaw teaching the lifting of one leg among coaches. Tackles such as this would soon disappear from the game

Simple IMO of course

This tackle law interpretation is getting ridiculous. Pulling in the line out and jumping against someone in the air is more dangerous.

I think the IRB are wrong.