"the lights went out on rugby". Eddie Butler

by maestegmafia Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:04 am

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 Guest Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:35 am

this is a very good article from Brian Moore, and he highlights the problems that have arisen in the game from directives from the IRB not being enforced properly:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/8830478/Rugby-World-Cup-2011-Wales-are-the-only-side-who-could-have-matched-the-All-Blacks.html

by Standulstermen Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:38 am

As Dreamer has said, if Eddie was saying that just after the game then you have to have some sympathy for him.

Billy

Your sentiment is spot on regarding players bulking up but the neck is still fragile and tackles where players land on or around the neck area need to be gone. I agree a better wording would help referees in some instances.

I posted on the other thread but for anyone who hasnt seen it, David wallace makes the argument better than i do on the rte highlights. The others disagree with him but i have to say it is worth a look no matter what your viewpoint.

by eirebilly Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:45 am

Stand, players there days do alot of physical work to strengthen the kneck and back areas so i still argue that they are still alot stronger than from years ago so the risk is still somewhat reduced.

For the record, i dont want rules to be changed, just more defined and better for refs to interperate and be more consistent.

by JDandfries Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:47 am

eirebilly wrote:Stand, players there days do alot of physical work to strengthen the kneck and back areas so i still argue that they are still alot stronger than from years ago so the risk is still somewhat reduced.

For the record, i dont want rules to be changed, just more defined and better for refs to interperate and be more consistent.

They also bulk up everywhere else, so strengthen of the neck is needed to compensate for teh extra weight elsewhere, surely?

by eirebilly Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:49 am

Of course they do JDandfries, i am just saying that extra attention is paid to strengthening the kneck and back areas than ever before.

by Davie Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:55 am

For once, I will defend the HSE

You are aware that many things are said and done in the name of the HSE that actually have nothing to do with them? It's usually someone else with a vested interest who make it look like it's the HSE who should "take the blame"

Conkers banned in the schoolyard as "too dangerous"? Nothing to do with HSE but they got the blame for it. Many other similar instances also

by eirebilly Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:59 am

I thought that the HSE did have major input. They come under huge pressure from insurance companies to make the game safer dont they?

As a professional sport, i thought that the HSE had a responsibility to appease all participants, players, clubs and insurance companies..

I could be wrong though.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:00 pm

Thing was it Happened in New Zealand and no one down here thought it was dangerous. Our H&S legislation is probably more basic than your's.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:07 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Thing was it Happened in New Zealand and no one down here thought it was dangerous. Our H&S legislation is probably more basic than your's.

Laurie, the NZ commentators were calling it a red card before ~~Joubert~~ Rolland (oops) went for his pocket.

As an aside, there was a single letter to the editor in today's (London) Times about the match. It was from a spinal surgeon who applauded the red card.

by Davie Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:09 pm

Kiwireddevil wrote:As an aside, there was a single letter to the editor in today's (London) Times about the match. It was from a spinal surgeon who applauded the red card.

I hope the Times' Rugby correspondent Steven Jones(?) read that letter

by JDandfries Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:11 pm

Davie wrote:
Kiwireddevil wrote:As an aside, there was a single letter to the editor in today's (London) Times about the match. It was from a spinal surgeon who applauded the red card.

I hope the Times' Rugby correspondent Steven Jones(?) read that letter

I hope certain insult removed - KRD posters go and read it too!

by eirebilly Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:13 pm

Kiwi, pretty sure it was Rolland the and not Joubert who pulled the red card.... Sorry being pedantic here Wink

Jdandfries, not a very nice last post there.....

by aucklandlaurie Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:13 pm

Kiwi
I saw areplay of the game today,and Justin Marshall said it was in red card territory.but didnt say it was dangerous.
I was at the game, the most dangerous thing was not the tackle but all the pizzed off Welsh people in the crowd,when Rolland whipped out the red card.

by JDandfries Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:17 pm

eirebilly wrote:Kiwi, pretty sure it was Rolland the and not Joubert who pulled the red card.... Sorry being pedantic here

Jdandfries, not a very nice last post there.....

No, but neither is it nice (of certain posters) to suggest that Clerc was feigning injury, and that a red card shouldn't have been issued because no one was hurt.

Most Welsh fans (despite being obviously gutted) have shown dignity in defeat, whilst other, who I don't need to name, have been idiotic, just read back and have a look!

by eirebilly Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:19 pm

Fair enough JDandfries, i just dont like labeling people as 'idiotic'.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:20 pm

JDandfries wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Kiwi, pretty sure it was Rolland the and not Joubert who pulled the red card.... Sorry being pedantic here

Jdandfries, not a very nice last post there.....

No, but neither is it nice (of certain posters) to suggest that Clerc was feigning injury, and that a red card shouldn't have been issued because no one was hurt.

Most Welsh fans (despite being obviously gutted) have shown dignity in defeat, whilst other, who I don't need to name, have been idiotic, just read back and have a look!

Regardless JD, please keep away from the personal insults

by Bitter Beer Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:34 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:Eddie Butler writes misty-eyed, over-emotional, sanctimonious, one-eyed drivel.

In fact I think he's been posting on here with several accounts since the Wales game. It's the only way to explain the volume of posts along those lines.

Strange too how certain laws need 'fixing' (for the good of the game, for the good of humanity ) as a knee-jerk reaction in the anguish of defeat.

+1

by JDandfries Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:00 pm

Kiwireddevil wrote:
JDandfries wrote:
eirebilly wrote:Kiwi, pretty sure it was Rolland the and not Joubert who pulled the red card.... Sorry being pedantic here

Jdandfries, not a very nice last post there.....

No, but neither is it nice (of certain posters) to suggest that Clerc was feigning injury, and that a red card shouldn't have been issued because no one was hurt.

Most Welsh fans (despite being obviously gutted) have shown dignity in defeat, whilst other, who I don't need to name, have been idiotic, just read back and have a look!

Regardless JD, please keep away from the personal insults

i didn't direct them at an individual, and in any case, I was factually correct!

by maestegmafia Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:45 pm

This thread was posted to prompt debate of the laws of rugby for the greater good of what we want to see.

How about we let it continue on that theme rather than the way it is going where the obvious arguments from other threads between posters are spilling over.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:11 pm

Glad to see some people are coming back against the idea that Clerc was play-acting. A pretty base assertion for which there is no evidence at all. Personally, I think it was a yellow as Warburton didn't actually spear him and Clerc landed on his upper back rather than neck/shoulder but it's fine margins.

Someone suggested that there's a lot of training which goes towards strengthening necks etc etc but all you can do is build muscle; you can't (really) strengthen ligaments/tendons/bones that way. All you do is have bigger, faster, stronger men smashing one another and you get a lot more joint injuries.

In support of PJHolybloke, although he's maybe too far one way, someone has to argue the other case so I'm partly with him as well. I have far more problem overall with the complete inconsistency of law enforcement in the game. If they policed everything properly (and I do mean squint feeds, crooked lineouts etc etc etc) including the lack of arms use in a tackle, I think people would have less problem with this. Get rid of body armour and stop the stupid lifting in the lineouts while we're at it as well. Fair play if the IRB/whomever are drawing a proverbial 'line in the sand' at this juncture....but they better be consistent from here on in.

by RubyGuby Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:14 pm

Thank You NavyBlue clap

by Davie Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:15 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:Personally, I think it was a yellow as Warburton didn't actually spear him

But NBS - the laws make no differentiation between "spearing" and "dropping". Both are punishable by red cards

by Standulstermen Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:18 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:Glad to see some people are coming back against the idea that Clerc was play-acting. A pretty base assertion for which there is no evidence at all. Personally, I think it was a yellow as Warburton didn't actually spear him and Clerc landed on his upper back rather than neck/shoulder but it's fine margins.

Someone suggested that there's a lot of training which goes towards strengthening necks etc etc but all you can do is build muscle; you can't (really) strengthen ligaments/tendons/bones that way. All you do is have bigger, faster, stronger men smashing one another and you get a lot more joint injuries.

In support of PJHolybloke, although he's maybe too far one way, someone has to argue the other case so I'm partly with him as well. I have far more problem overall with the complete inconsistency of law enforcement in the game. If they policed everything properly (and I do mean squint feeds, crooked lineouts etc etc etc) including the lack of arms use in a tackle, I think people would have less problem with this. Get rid of body armour and stop the stupid lifting in the lineouts while we're at it as well. Fair play if the IRB/whomever are drawing a proverbial 'line in the sand' at this juncture....but they better be consistent from here on in.

Doesnt have to spear him. Dropping him carries the same sanction as does dropping on the upper back. It is worded that way in the laws.

In fairness i dont think many people are arguing with the inconsistency argument in the game. Thing is, Rolland has been consistent on this kind of tackle.

by Morgannwg Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:21 pm

Davie wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Davie wrote:Eddie Butler? 'Nuff said

What does your post mean ? it doesnt make any sense? Do you mean to Pose the name Eddie Butler as a question and then imply that he is talked about too much ?

Think before your post a bit more, you are not gaining any respect as a mod by posting like a stroppy child.

As someone else here said, Butler is more one-eyed than a cyclops when it comes to matters Welsh

And I've said it many times but I'll say it again, especially for your benefit - I am not a moderator for the rugby section. Stroppy child? Look in the mirror

Shouldn't a moderator know better?

by Guest Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:21 pm

I think Brian Moore summed it up really well, that for this world cup, the precedent had been set in all of the other matches that that tackle was worth a yellow card (yes I know the ref's should have given reds).

I think that's why it's so shocking for people to see that it is a red, also because it was no where near as bad as other tackles that were only seen during play to warrant a yellow (yes I know they were judged afterwards to be worth a red).

Rolland was right in what he did, but the inconsistency shown through the competition as a whole has left a lot of people involved with this match feeling rather hard done by, which I for one can fully understand.

Referees had all better start dishing out red cards for this everytime now, that's all I can say. The fewer "tip tackles" in the game, the better.

by Davie Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:26 pm

Morgannwg wrote:
Davie wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:
Davie wrote:Eddie Butler? 'Nuff said

What does your post mean ? it doesnt make any sense? Do you mean to Pose the name Eddie Butler as a question and then imply that he is talked about too much ?

Think before your post a bit more, you are not gaining any respect as a mod by posting like a stroppy child.

As someone else here said, Butler is more one-eyed than a cyclops when it comes to matters Welsh

And I've said it many times but I'll say it again, especially for your benefit - I am not a moderator for the rugby section. Stroppy child? Look in the mirror

Shouldn't a moderator know better?

Know what better, Morgannwg?

As site moderators, we are expected to abide by the rules as much as anyone else - I just don't happen to be a rugby moderator.

We are not allowed to break any rules though, just the same as any other member. If a Rugby moderator or Admin thought I had broken any rules, I would have been told by now. Fact is, I have done nothing against the rules, moderator or not

by Guest Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:27 pm

rugbydreamer wrote:
I think that's why it's so shocking for people to see that it is a red, also because it was no where near as bad as other tackles that were only seen during play to warrant a yellow (yes I know they were judged afterwards to be worth a red).

I think people should be congratulating Rolland on getting it right first time then. Excellent refereeing. He was sure of his decision and he didn't need to wait to be proved right after the game. A red card citing after the game would have been unfair to France if they had lost and foul play hadn't been properly punished duirng the game.

Yes, let's have consistency, but let's applaud Rolland for applying the rules properly. Other refs need to follow his lead not vice versa.

by JDandfries Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:30 pm

Hopefully, this will lead to better tackling technique from some players who have been basically shoulder charging for years, and not wrapping players up in teh tackle - hopefuly, but I doubt the likes of Sunny Bill Williams, will.

On the point of lifting in lineouts, I think this actually makes them safer.

by newbie Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:32 pm

There has been a concerted effort over the last number of years to sort out dangerous play in the game where people can be seriously injured in this sport. The areas targetted have been eye contact, spear and/or tip-tackling, raking, stamping and other incorrect tackles (no arms etc).

There is little or no ambiguity in the laws and red cards and citings for these have been relatively consistent (even if the onfield adjudication has not been consistent). In the past there has been the ability to use the excuse of malice in these instances but this is now not the case.

Rolands decision was correct. The directive on it is correct. It is clear from some posters on here that they have had unfortunate experiences due to these types of tackles and it shows how close the margin can be to paralysing or seriously injuring someone.

In the area of dangerous play especially for specifically identified areas there can be no ambiguity. Moving forward these areas will get eradicated from the game. End of story. Those who think otherwise should take up cage fighting if they want to see people getting hurt.

With regards to Roland and consistency (and even bias) he sent off Florian Fritz for a similar tackle in the HC game with between Toulouse and Wasps at the start of this year.

by Standulstermen Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:38 pm

rugbydreamer wrote:I think Brian Moore summed it up really well, that for this world cup, the precedent had been set in all of the other matches that that tackle was worth a yellow card (yes I know the ref's should have given reds).

I think that's why it's so shocking for people to see that it is a red, also because it was no where near as bad as other tackles that were only seen during play to warrant a yellow (yes I know they were judged afterwards to be worth a red).

Rolland was right in what he did, but the inconsistency shown through the competition as a whole has left a lot of people involved with this match feeling rather hard done by, which I for one can fully understand.

Referees had all better start dishing out red cards for this everytime now, that's all I can say. The fewer "tip tackles" in the game, the better.

Dreamer you are spot on and Moore wasnt far off with his analysis. That being said after those game the precedent was set by the citing comissioner and the IRB that the tackle should have been red and that the refs who gave yellows were incorrect and the were reprimanded (i think it was Poite and Walsh). These refs havent been appointed to the big games as a result. Thats their sanction so to speak. The IRB have set the precedent therefore thats what isnt being reported

by Morgannwg Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:42 pm

Davie wrote:
Know what better, Morgannwg?

As site moderators, we are expected to abide by the rules as much as anyone else - I just don't happen to be a rugby moderator.

We are not allowed to break any rules though, just the same as any other member. If a Rugby moderator or Admin thought I had broken any rules, I would have been told by now. Fact is, I have done nothing against the rules, moderator or not

We've established you aren't only a rugby moderator. Is there any reason why you keep pointing it out? Same rules apply whether you're a football, rugby or darts moderator right?

I thought your comment was pedantic. And certainly not the first, you've been poking them into this subject ever since Sam was carded.

by maestegmafia Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:53 pm

I agree that the tip tackle is an unnecessary part of the game.

That warburton was breaking the law as per the reiteration given to coaches via email during the tournament, apparently according to the Russian coaching director Phill Kingsly Jones, on the 15 of October. The day before the semi finals.

The thing with this, is that the IRBs paddy O'Brien stated a while ago, I think pre tri nations 2010, that the laws would not be changed prior to this worked cup.

The laws have not been changed, but the interpretations and the severity of punishments has been altered, some harsher, some less so.

The IRB have created themselves a tricky situation, one where two years ago they asked referees to monitor the feed at scrums with less leniency, now forgotten, others where they have instilled stricter ire ties to prevent constantly staging the scrum, a success, but the changes to the punishments for firings have been unapparent to fans.

Consistency of adjudication makes the game more watchable. The IRB have dabbled to frequently with envy thing but the laws over the past few years. Changing the interpretations instead of the law, constantly issuing me directives.

They need to have a solid evaluation of whe the game is going and instilled laws that reflect that.

They have successfully eradicated stamping, great

They have been very very tight on gouging, offering lengthy bans, brilliant

The tip tackle is next, but the law must change not just the penalty and it must be across the board.

by newbie Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:56 pm

The tip tackle is next, but the law must change not just the penalty and it must be across the board.

Its clear from the directives given that there was no ambiguity. You are making up ambiguity when there was none. Consistency in adjudication is a requirement but the citing panels have been consistent. Roland has been consistent in his application of the laws...

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:58 pm

Davie wrote:But NBS - the laws make no differentiation between "spearing" and "dropping". Both are punishable by red cards

Standulstermen wrote:Doesnt have to spear him. Dropping him carries the same sanction as does dropping on the upper back. It is worded that way in the laws.

In fairness i dont think many people are arguing with the inconsistency argument in the game. Thing is, Rolland has been consistent on this kind of tackle.

Oh, I know that but it's a bit rich to suddenly start enforcing them 3/4 of the way through the tournament don't you think? Precedent (as Moore says in the Telegraph) is important, especially within the same event. They could have yellowed him and allowed the citing officer to do his job later...as happened with other such tackles. It was split-second and Warburton lets go after Clerc is in the air; it was nowhere near Mealamu's effort. Rolland may have been right by the letter but I still think he was wrong given the precedent at this RWC.

They have to be seen to be consistent in all enforcement, trivialities and serious foul play...and they aren't. That's what creates the slightly bitter taste. Be interesting to watch things in the future.

JDandfries wrote:...On the point of lifting in lineouts, I think this actually makes them safer.

Can't agree there. Ok, they'll penalise if you take out the jumper but it happens and it always will, even if accidentally from time to time. It only takes one fall from ~10-12 feet onto your head to paralyse you.

by dummy_half Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:03 pm

I have quite some sympathy for Butler and Warburton in this case - for me the current Law interpretation is too strict on this type of tackle where the tackler drives the ball carrier upwards and backwards. For me, there is a significant difference between this and the type of tackle where the ball carrier's legs are lifted and he is deliberately turned over (i.e. where there is a deliberate intent to place the ball carrier in a vulnerable position).

The rugby league law on spear tackles DOES make this distinction - the penalty and sending off is based on the intentional movement by the tackler(s) to turn the ball carrier over rather than on just driving them up and off the ground.

A few years ago this would have been considered a great tackle and (as Scott Quinnell said on the radio earlier) was exactly what was being coached - get low and drive the tackling shoulder up below the ribs while wrapping the arms.

Good thing this current interpretation wasn't in place when I played, as I'd have been red carded in half my matches, and our inside centre would never have made it past the first 15 minutes of a game. At no time did either of us commit an intentional spear tackle (or cause injury more than a bit of winding) but we were both good at hitting players in a way that drove them up and backwards and resulted in them landing on their back.

by Guest Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:06 pm

Time to clear this up.

Davies comment:
"Eddie Butler? 'Nuff said"

Did not break any site rules.

Mods and Admin are allowed their own opinions as well. If you dont agree thats fine, but it doesnt mean they are not allowed an opinion just because they are mods.

The stuff that follows is starting to break rules with the digs at eachother, so I recommend that stops now.

by RubyGuby Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:10 pm

Y I Man - that's just a recommendation mate and on here that is now open to interpretation and inflection - thumbsup

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:21 pm

RubyGuby wrote:Y I Man - that's just a recommendation mate and on here that is now open to interpretation and inflection -

Just remember who's doing the interpreting and act accordingly thumbsup

by Morgannwg Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:23 pm

Y I Man - if that is aimed at me then that is not the quote I called out Davie on. I also did not think or say he broke any house rules, I said I thought he was being pedantic as he has been throughout the many articles on the subject of Warbs red card/tackle, which is unusual for a Moderator as they usually put an end to arguements (or provoking) instead of instigating it by argueing themselves.

by Guest Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:26 pm

It was the subject of a report, hence my comment addressing Davies original post.

by Standulstermen Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:53 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Davie wrote:But NBS - the laws make no differentiation between "spearing" and "dropping". Both are punishable by red cards
Standulstermen wrote:Doesnt have to spear him. Dropping him carries the same sanction as does dropping on the upper back. It is worded that way in the laws.

In fairness i dont think many people are arguing with the inconsistency argument in the game. Thing is, Rolland has been consistent on this kind of tackle.

Oh, I know that but it's a bit rich to suddenly start enforcing them 3/4 of the way through the tournament don't you think? Precedent (as Moore says in the Telegraph) is important, especially within the same event. They could have yellowed him and allowed the citing officer to do his job later...as happened with other such tackles. It was split-second and Warburton lets go after Clerc is in the air; it was nowhere near Mealamu's effort. Rolland may have been right by the letter but I still think he was wrong given the precedent at this RWC.

They have to be seen to be consistent in all enforcement, trivialities and serious foul play...and they aren't. That's what creates the slightly bitter taste. Be interesting to watch things in the future.

JDandfries wrote:...On the point of lifting in lineouts, I think this actually makes them safer.

Can't agree there. Ok, they'll penalise if you take out the jumper but it happens and it always will, even if accidentally from time to time. It only takes one fall from ~10-12 feet onto your head to paralyse you.

On that note whilst i understand your point what has failed to be reported is that the IRB set the precedent through the citing thereafter where they not only stated that a red card should have been issued but also criticised the referees (Poite and Walsh) that opted for the yellow. This is a far more important precedent than that which occurred on the pitch and is overlooked in these articles by Moore etc. Consequently we havent seen Walsh or Poite ref at the tail end of the tournament because the IRB want the men there that WILL enforce their precedent as set out earlier in the competition.

by maestegmafia Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:33 pm

It is interesting that is is Poite, Walsh and Lawrence that have again been the contentious referees that have not obeyed the letter of the law as Rolland rightfully did.

Lawrence was the touch judge who incorrectly advised referee Christophe Berdos that schaulk burgs eye gouge on Luke Fitzgerald was an "a gouge and definite yellow card" when it should have been a red and a ban.

If rugby's laws are allowed to extoll interpretation so broadly rather than be laid down to the letter of the law like in the Rolland/Warburton situation at such an influential game as either a second lions test or a RWC semi final, then in my mind the IRB has something serious to address.

by EnglishReign Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:39 pm

Eddie Butler annoys me these days, his one redeeming factor is sounding like a dragon on commentary.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:10 pm

Standulstermen wrote:On that note whilst i understand your point what has failed to be reported is that the IRB set the precedent through the citing thereafter where they not only stated that a red card should have been issued but also criticised the referees (Poite and Walsh) that opted for the yellow. This is a far more important precedent than that which occurred on the pitch and is overlooked in these articles by Moore etc. Consequently we havent seen Walsh or Poite ref at the tail end of the tournament because the IRB want the men there that WILL enforce their precedent as set out earlier in the competition.

Fair point guinness

. They've set the bar now re. dangerous play so we'll wait on what happens in future matches. Should be interesting!

by maestegmafia Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:28 pm

Well hopefully, now that players and coaches have seen the severity of the way the IRB are dealing with this, it will mean that "tip tackling" will be eradicated very quickly from the game.

It was an unnecessary part of defence anyway. Players like Lydiate and Warburton, prior obviously to Warburtons tackle in the semi final match, proved that you can stop some of the best back rowers in the world by tackling solidly around the legs, no need to go in and up and risk red cards or six week minimum bans from the game.

I was also wondering whether anyone else thought of any other areas of the game that the IRB should seriously look at?

There was an imperative to police the put in at the scrum a few years ago, though that seems to have been forgotten with all the scrUmmage reset issues over the last year. A situation now resolved.

But I noticed many crocked feeds and also crocked line out throws that we're inconsistently punished.

by Runster Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:32 pm

PJHolyBloke - I agree with you. 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'. I think everyone was shell-shocked after that red card, our lineout went to pot, the scrum suffered, and our kicking went astray. The RC totally changed the complction of the game and, undoubtedly, the result. Ben and I wish the Kiwis every success in utterly humiliating a massively undeserving France team in the final.

I note you are not a Wales fan, JDHolyBloke, so you are clearly supporting the game, not the player or the team. And for all the Eddie Butler detractors, he's Welsh and entitled to his opinion, isn't he?

by Shifty Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:39 pm

eirebilly wrote:Agreed, the shoulder charge tackles are terrible and very dangerous.
I just think that there should be a few amandments made in the wording of the rules and the interprettion from the refs.

Those tackles should'nt be looked at as it was a beauty but Warburton was guilty of allowing Clerc to fall. Wording like 'No regard to safety' labels players as thugs and dangerous when Warburton is neither, it was unfortunate but still a cracking hit.

Watch Gareth Edwards try against New Zealand for the Barbarians in the 70's and look at the tackles going in, nothing was under the neck at any point!
They literally took peoples heads off in those days and players were not getting paralysed in every game!

It's sensible to make the game safer but it is also a contact sport and the more we take away the risk the more we will become like football with players falling over and writhing on the ground and the slightest hint of contact.

by Pot Hale Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:46 pm

maestegmafia wrote:"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?

I'd love for players to be honest enough to acknowledge that they cheated in getting a score, for example, let's say that a team takes a quick throw in with the wrong ball, with their feet in the field of play, and score. They'd own up and not pretend that it was a perfectly valid score and afterwards blame the ref for not seeing it, calling it a bit of luck. That kind of thing.

by Standulstermen Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:11 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:On that note whilst i understand your point what has failed to be reported is that the IRB set the precedent through the citing thereafter where they not only stated that a red card should have been issued but also criticised the referees (Poite and Walsh) that opted for the yellow. This is a far more important precedent than that which occurred on the pitch and is overlooked in these articles by Moore etc. Consequently we havent seen Walsh or Poite ref at the tail end of the tournament because the IRB want the men there that WILL enforce their precedent as set out earlier in the competition.

Fair point . They've set the bar now re. dangerous play so we'll wait on what happens in future matches. Should be interesting!

Absolutely right NavyBlue. With the profile of this decision i expect a good few more red cards. Players will have to be very careful which is of course what the IRB want.

by Guest Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:14 pm

Pot Hale wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:"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?

I'd love for players to be honest enough to acknowledge that they cheated in getting a score, for example, let's a team takes a quick throw in with the wrong ball, with their feet in the field of play, and scores, then they'd own up and not pretend that it was a perfectly valid score and blame the ref for not seeing it. That kind of thing.

Gamesmanship is always looked down upon and its in every sport, like those tennis players that ruin momentum by taking their time to tie their shoelaces, footballers who fall over to try and win a free kick.

by Sponsored content