Alain 'Colm Pierre' Rolland - Was he neutral?

First topic message reminder :

Was it right that a half Irish half Frenchman was put in charge of a RWC semi final between Wales and France seeing as Wales dumped Ireland out of the RWC?

Was he neutral? or was there some jiggery pokery going on.

I agree fa0019, I have some Welsh blood in me but consider myself English, but if England isn’t playing the 1st result/KO time I look for is Wales.

Its human nature

Hersh...you wanted to discuss the issue around whether his appointment was/is controversial or whether he was/is biased. Am just asking the pertinent questions. You have made an assertion and put forward an opinion but you dont care what the facts are...even for a wind up that seems a little childish and not thought through.

Or if you are actually serious (which would be hilarious) you are saying that regardless of all the other facts about Roland he must be biased because his dad is French except for
being born and raised in Ireland
played for Blackrock, Leinster Ireland and yes Moseley (maybe he is biased towards Brummies?)
Has not lived in France.
and er has an Irish Passport, speaks with an Irish accent and is as unliked by the French as by other nationalities because he is a fair ref...

By your reckoning Joubert shouldnt ref the final because he is from the SH...quick we need to find someone from the equator countries...exactly half way between Paris and Wellington

Lets have a tuna reffing the WC final

It's Rolland by the way!

"By your reckoning Joubert shouldnt ref the final because he is from the SH...quick we need to find someone from the equator countries...exactly half way between Paris and Wellington"

That would be stupid, would France really be happy if there was a half Kiwi in charge?

He could be Jean-Pierre-Francois-Alain-Maxime-Aurelion-Cedric Jaimelesfromages

for all I care...its still irelevent

No it isn't

Let’s put Steve Walsh in charge, seeing as he referees under Australia’s flag.

Please feel free to continue this debate without me as I'm going home.

But the fact is Rolland wasn't neutral due to his family history and it was a bad call by the IRB for letting him ref this semi final when he could have took charge of the other one.

HERSH wrote:Please feel free to continue this debate without me as I'm going home.

But the fact is Rolland wasn't neutral due to his family history and it was a bad call by the IRB for letting him ref this semi final when he could have took charge of the other one.

Your opinion however small minded is very important to us. Your complaint has been noted and duly filed under miscellaneous complaints and crackpot conspiracy theories.

Please call again.

please can people ignore hersh- he doesnt represent the welsh opinion (i think he is english) us welsh posters have moved on and are looking forward to getting a SH scalp (hopefully)

Monsieur Rolland was neutral, of course.

He was only guilty of putting his Personal Performance Review above all that is good and noble about the great game of rugby.

Hits like the one Warburton put in have never been red carded before - and are unlikely to be red carded in future (see Kahui on Cooper in the second semi).

Paddy O'Brien's timely directive has wrecked the RWC as a spectacle (NZ will annihilate France in the final) - and its time to move on.

Cas..Roland red carded Florian Fritz of Toulouse in a hc game this year against wasps. For the same type of challenge.

Just to let you know Fritz was a Frenchman playing for a French team

Why are so many of you using the word "libel" on this forum?

The forum is here to express opinions, and nothing written on any of of posts here will make the slightest bit of difference to the IRB, the players or the referee!

People are starting to get too pedantic.

Casartelli wrote:Monsieur Rolland was neutral, of course.

He was only guilty of putting his Personal Performance Review above all that is good and noble about the great game of rugby.

Hits like the one Warburton put in have never been red carded before - and are unlikely to be red carded in future (see Kahui on Cooper in the second semi).

Paddy O'Brien's timely directive has wrecked the RWC as a spectacle (NZ will annihilate France in the final) - and its time to move on.

His review would be based on whether he reffed the game well, so I don't see your point.

As for other hits not resulting in cards we have covered that, they all resulted in citings because they should have been reds.

AlynDavies wrote:Why are so many of you using the word "libel" on this forum?

The forum is here to express opinions, and nothing written on any of of posts here will make the slightest bit of difference to the IRB, the players or the referee!

People are starting to get too pedantic.

A website, even a forum, must observe the laws of the country in which the servers reside.

Accusations of corruption must be backed up, otherwise they are defamation.

well he is half french soo probally not the best choice by the irb. i am not saying he reffed badly but its not really worth this aftermath- This whole situation should and could have been avoided

HERSH wrote:In a court of law you could.

In a court of law, you'd find that the precedent was that the two previous judgements in the RWC resulted in the Yellow carded player being banned for a dangerous tackle, and the two refs in question being admonished and told that they should have awarded red cards in line with the directive.

Was Rolland supposed to do the same thing and use the wrong sanction for a similar dangerous tackle?

Mysti..Roland is Irish. He has reffed France and French teams previously without issue and even sent French players off (quelle surprise). The only aftermath in question are people like Hersh and others seeing something that doesnt exist.

Its like a mirage..when you are tired and emotional your mind sees things that arent there.

erm i dunno- i do belive he reffed well and fairly- but there will allways be a but in this case- its better to just avoid any chance of bias- however small it is

If he'd awarded a red card against France, could he not be accused of a Celtic bias because of his ancient heritage?

Just thinking he'd be the perfect ref for an Ireland v France 6N match. No one could accuse him of bias.

don t france have ancient celtic heritage as well?

mystiroakey wrote:don t france have ancient celtic heritage as well?

The whole of France? Or do you mean Bretagne region?

ancestory isnt really my strong point

AR made the correct decsion aaccording to the letter of the directive he was bound by.

But I'd like to ask a related question:

Does everyone think, for exactly the same set of circumstances, he'd have done the same if it had been the NZ no. 7?

Can't speak for the other, but I think he would have acted just the same

Davie, Your guess is as good as mine, but I at least suspect the decision would not have been so swift.

Regardless of the fact that he has reffed many games with French teams in them and regardless of the previous whinging from the Brits in being suspicious of his ability to speak french (always a sign of suspicious behaviour) and regardless of his impeccable record, plus the fact that he is Irish and has played for Ireland he should not have reffed the game...

So do you know the parentage of every international referee and their background..

In that case we should not have any British refs when British teams are involved. In effect it is one nationality (one passport) and GSTQ is the national anthem for the whole place. How about if one of the British teams is playing Argentina...what if the ref knew someone from the Falklands war or worse knew someone who got killed during it?

No South African ref with an Afrikaaner background should be allowed to Ref a British team given the Boer war and concentration camps.

What about the French refs...what if Bardos great grandfather was killed at Waterloo?

Australians certainly shouldnt be allowed to ref them as the head of the Australian government is the Queen the same one as in the UK (come to think of it New Zealand is the same as is Canada) and no doubt a lot of Aussies have British heritage. For those with Irish heritage they shouldnt be allowed to ref British teams due to most of their families being sent out as convicts and therefore would have a grudge.

Italians should also not be allowed to ref either the British or French teams due to WW2 or maybe they should..but who knows.

Japanese refs...nope WW2.
USA - ex colony.
Namibia - German background
Russia - maybe...although they did shoot the Czar the Kings cousin


For Irish games I would like to have all British refs completely checked out before hand in case any possible areas of bias exist against Ireland or Irish people....lots of history there.

Maybe we could turn the whole nation of some obscure country into international rugby referees where they have no ties to any of the other countries and in fact dont play rugby at all so that there is no question of bias....sound like a plan?

Ospreydragon wrote:Davie, Your guess is as good as mine, but I at least suspect the decision would not have been so swift.

I wasn't aware speed of decision was a big criterion

dod dude you going many steps to far lol.

edit.

but i will add- what is needed is for us not to be reliant on refs snap judgements- sport is becoming more and more important every day- lets help the reffs out and use technology more, and especially in the case of rugby push for stricter rules and consistnacy

When it comes to dangerous play the rules are clear as day

Davie, It is -- if you want to be absolutely sure. Rash decisions by refs in games have been wrong.

All that said, the decision will not be forgotten. And when similar things happen and are not punished, there will be plenty of protests at the inconsistency.

I'll be at the head of the queue with the protests if/when the inconsistencies happen. There can be no excuse for dangerous play - the precedents set already at the RWC though indicate that the IRB will have zero tolerance for inconsistencies in this area

thats a start then

Davie, Do you remember the IRB directive about throwing in straight at scrums? Why don't refs penalize that, including AR? Refs appear to be selective when it comes to these "directives" (and laws, for that matter).

As for AR, I have no doubt that he is neutral, regardless of his parents or the country he played for, and I'm surprised that anyone would accuse him of bias because of it.

I would suggest Dragon that ones relating to player safety should be of more importance to IRB.

Failure to implement them could leave them open to a law suit.

red_stag wrote:I would suggest Dragon that ones relating to player safety should be of more importance to IRB.

Failure to implement them could leave them open to a law suit.

+1

I'd like to see ALL directives followed (particularly with respect to crooked feeds at the scrum) - but as red_stag says, they really pale into insignificance compared to ones related to personal safety.

I've never heard of anyone paralysed because of a crooked scrum feed

greybeard, Re: "Pretty much every article I've read said it was the right call." -- I would add ... according to the letter of the law/directive.

Most former top players, many current players, and some top coaches universally feel that a yellow was sufficient, but that would not be according to the letter of the directive.

Player safety is paramount. In top-level pro sport, there is a lot at stake in match terms. I'm not suggesting that player welfare comes second to commercial interests, but what about all the people who paid to see a contest of 15 men against 15? Although Wales had chances to win (largely because of France's dull and negative play), most people who know their rugby will know that, in the case of 1 top country against another, the side that has to play for over an hour with 14 men will lose.

The question I'm really asking is: for similar tackles to Warburton's, should the team be penalized to the extent they will lose the match (barring a miracle, as I've mentioned above)? Is there a case for changing the rules to allow a sub to replace the man sent off (of course, that reduces the subs bench)? I've been wondering about the whole thing really. Most people are upset, not simply about the loss, but that it was a player like Warburton AND the team's dreams were shattered by that incident (not to mention that it's universally felt that the best team lost).

Red Stag
Has the IRB ever been sued for contributing to the personal injury of any player? Its only a question.

red_stag wrote:I would suggest Dragon that ones relating to player safety should be of more importance to IRB.

Failure to implement them could leave them open to a law suit.

and would irreparable damage to the image of the game.

Davie, No one is paralyzed because of a crooked scrum feed. But thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who didn't know that. People have been paralyzed in legal play. And people have been seriously injured by accidents on the field too. What about running into a player in the air catching a ball? What about touching a lineout jumper by slightly grabbing his arm so that he falls in a heap? There are other situations too.

Should they all from now on be punished by automatic red cards?

DOD wrote:When it comes to dangerous play the rules are clear as day

Agreed.

Rules are simple:

1. Check to see if the player has actually landed on his head or neck. If not, wave play on, as it will be viewed as nothing malicious and the tackler doesn't have a history of tackling. If yes, move to step 2.
2. Check to see if the tackler's shirt is red - they could be Welsh or just bloody.
3. If bloody, take out red card.
4. If Welsh, check to see if the tackler is young, famous and looks like he is the captain. If yes, go to 6.
5. Administer stern warning and wag finger a few times....and then wave play on.
6. Glance surreptitiously at your watch whilst pretending to blow your nose and check to see how many minutes are left.
7. If less than 10, award penalty to tackler's team, and tell tackled player to stop messing or you'll card him. Try and pat captain on back and tell him not to worry, as he goes by you with the ball for the tryline.
8. If more than 60, make sure to SLOOOOOWWWWWW things down. Look around you and pretend to think heavily (pawing the grass with your boot helps). You can use this time to study the faces in the crowd and see if there any crackers worth talking to later at the bar. Casually call your assistants over to you, and chat to them amiably, with an innocuous question like "did you see anything?". Pretend you can't hear the TMO in your ear saying "he bluddy dropped him".
9. Check your passport to see if you have any Irish or French blood in you.
10. Now, use your judgement.

Ospreydragon wrote:
The question I'm really asking is: for similar tackles to Warburton's, should the team be penalized to the extent they will lose the match (barring a miracle, as I've mentioned above)? Is there a case for changing the rules to allow a sub to replace the man sent off (of course, that reduces the subs bench)? I've been wondering about the whole thing really. Most people are upset, not simply about the loss, but that it was a player like Warburton AND the team's dreams were shattered by that incident (not to mention that it's universally felt that the best team lost).

Erm, no. You can just imagine the situation. That Dan Carter is playing a bit too well so get one of your players injure him, get sent off and bring on a sub. Job done.

For dangerous play it needs to be a serious sanction to heavily impact the offending player's team (there and then) so they won't do it. If it ruins "the spectacle" of the game so be it. You need to protect the players and not reward foul play.

I did my thesis on the subject of referee liability in rugby Auckland so have done a bit of research into this. The RFU and WRU have both have referees sued in the last 15 years for contributing to personal injuries of players. One of these cases was because referee didn't use Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage (he only said Engage and scrum collapsed). The other happened when a prop went off injured. The captain said I'm happy to play prop. One of his players got injured when scrum collapsed. Court held that the ref should have insisted on uncontested scrums.

I have no doubt that if referees kept giving yellow cards for these and leaving it up to citing commissioner, one day somewhere a guy might get badly injured and take a case against IRB for their referees failing to adhere to the safety directive. If they had the tackles would have stopped and there would be no injury.

ospreydragon: Too many players are showing a distinct lack of knowledge of the laws.

I've read opinions that Rolland was 'technically' correct, as if it's killing people to admit he was right.

Standulstermen wrote:

red_stag wrote:I would suggest Dragon that ones relating to player safety should be of more importance to IRB.

Failure to implement them could leave them open to a law suit.

and would irreparable damage to the image of the game.

The cases I referred to in my last post caused a lot of panic for Rugby. I know that several schools in UK stopped offering rugby as a sport and people were reluctant to referee.

Red Stag
But just addressing the issue via punitive means does that not leave the opportunity for other remedies (which may be more successful) end up being overlooked?

greybeard wrote:I've read opinions that Rolland was 'technically' correct, as if it's killing people to admit he was right.

Quite. Another oft-used phrase is 'by the letter of the law'.

red_stag, I am merely raising issues that the incident exposes. The inconsistencies in officiating, especially relating to player wlfare, have to be addressed. I also think the laws and directives relating to player welfare should be rewritten and clarified. And, within the latter, a decision has to be made whether "intent" or "accident" has anything to do with it, and how much latitude or discretion a referee has. And all tackles where a player clearly picks up both a player's legs should be punished by an automatic red card. It should reduce both incidents and injuries.

We all know that rugby is a tough game that, with professionalism, has got a lot tougher. I wonder where it's going to some extent. Will scrums be banned because players can get neck injuries (rucking was banned because of player welfare)? I would not be surprised to see more major changes to the game, so it will become more like League (with less and less contest for the ball or simply a complete shambles at the breakdown), until League is all we'll have, and then I won't watch!

Ah you'd know that you are a SANZAR man. I agree with you 100%. In Australia and NZ they have tended to move to an insurance based system to compensate injury. It takes less time for the victim to get their compensation and it means that they don't have to win a legal battle to do so.

You probably know of Smartrugby, Rugbysmart programmes in Oceania which are all about rugby safety. These make the insurance programme affordable and reduce the premiums.

South Africa have a system they introduced last year called BokSmart which is even a step further. To coach or ref you need a safety licence. They feel spinal injuries are increasing and radical educating of new players is needed . Every 2 years you need to update your "safety licence" to continue reffing or coaching.

We're a bit behind all that in Ireland or the UK unfortunately.

I know you are Dragon, but IMO you will never ever get perfect consistency in rugby without an overhaul of the laws and the entire refereeing system.

greybeard, re: "Too many players are showing a distinct lack of knowledge of the laws." -- that's true. But top players also play the game and they are responding to what they feel is "right", which isn't the same thing as the laws. There's a mismatch between what many people feel was the "right" sanction for that tackle, and what the law/directive states is the right sanction.

I can remember many people responding to the injury Adam J had on the Lions tour. As I recall, Adam J had no problem at all with the incident that caused his injury. Players see things as players, with their feel for the game and the situation and what they think is right. Refs have a different job, but the problem is that different refs do the job differently!

red_stag, One change to the laws should be made immediately, as I suggest: no picking up the player by both legs. I'm sure the IRB have player welfare at heart -- and that would be a good change. All coaches could then instruct their players accordingly.