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.

Are you in the habit of forgetting the odd 90k?

Flash!

aucklandlaurie wrote: KIWI
Thanks for that link, I was going off memory (which in itself is dodgy) I think i got most of it right, But I just couldnt recall the $90k bit.

No worries. Wikipedia links to that article, but claims he got a $1m payout which is what I went off

Kiwi
In light of recent events you did raise a good analogy.because in my opinion that was a real Spear tackle (the McCracken one) but moreover, it was the way the NRL addressed the problem by addressing the hands between the legs technique, thus preventing or minimising thelikelihood of spear tackles being repeated.
Dare I say it but maybe the IRB should have a look at that perspective as opposed to just sending out red card edicts,just a thought?

The IRB could learn a lot from NRL judicial processes in general. Except the rule that says "thou must aways throw the book at NZ players the week before an ANZAC test" of course

Spear tackles in the NRL are now very rare, but if rugby stopped them occurring completely then noone would have anything to talk about.....

greybeard wrote:What precedent?

The 2009 directive is all that matters. If a cop lets me off for speeding that's not a precedent, that's me getting away lightly. The next person caught can't use my luck as an excuse.

Er... Yes you can.

The precedent was Rolland sending off the French player in the hc game.

Seems like poor ref analysis by welsh management to me

slartibartfast wrote:

greybeard wrote:What precedent?

The 2009 directive is all that matters. If a cop lets me off for speeding that's not a precedent, that's me getting away lightly. The next person caught can't use my luck as an excuse.

Er... Yes you can.

you see he cant, there is nothing you can do in that situation- we have all had results and non reulst in those situations(a cop let me off the other week at 15 miles over the limit, yet i have been been done 7 miles over before). There is nothing we can do to change that history

Its all about your mind set- there is NO GOOD in making excuses, there is no good that will come from it, if you are puinished for doing something worng be A MAN and accept it. By all means think of soloutions to help refs out with the seemingly lack of consitancy. but stop whinging- you didnt desrve to win the game and that is fact, time to move on from that

As far as the theory goes that Rolland's neutrality to officiate a match between France and Wales goes. And the question of his father being French. 85% of posters thus far have voted to say he was neutral.

That is about as conclusive as you will get.

If you are looking for a conspiracy theory to pass the time.

This is one that has come to light in SA.


Has the hierarchy at New Zealand Rugby at last lost faith in their team? Have they (or at least some powerful individuals) at last reached a stage where they no longer believe that their team can win the World Cup on their own steam?

Well, from where I’m sitting it certainly seems to be the case.


Was it really a coincidence that referee (is it fair to call him that?) Bryce Lawrence was given the most crucial Group C match? Is it coincidence that he had an “off-day” and through sometimes strange decisions knocked the strongest of the Group C contenders right into South Africa’s path?

Well, if you look at the incident on its own, then yes, this can in fact be seen as only that …. a coincidence.

Everyone now and then has an off-day, so why shouldn’t referees have one? They’re human after all, aren’t they? Bryce Lawrence admits as much when he said that he “might’ve made a few errors” that “might’ve cost Australia the game”.

But was it really that, just a coincidence? I certainly don’t believe so. Wouldn’t it have made it that much easier to manipulate a game when you’re almost assured that there wouldn’t be much to choose between two teams from the start?

Then Bryce Lawrence, although he changed the whole complexion of a Group, get (yet again) the most crucial Quarterfinal Match (from a New Zealand perspective anyway) and (another coincidence?) had yet another off-day, knocking the strongest of the two contenders out of the World Cup and out of New Zealand’s way!

Problem for Bryce Lawrence was the difference between the two teams on the day was not marginal as expected (although the scoreboard suggests that).

The margin between the two teams was huge, making “what needed to be done”, that more obvious.

Now, where’s my proof for all this. Where is my proof that there’s a puppet master behind the scenes pulling strings to ensure that the monkey gets off New Zealand’s back?

This is where it becomes sticky and the thing is, I don’t have any proof, just as we wouldn’t have had any proof New Zealand and Australian officials were out to get us, had we not wrongfully received that infamous “Get the Japies”-email.

Now, I hear someone say, “they could’ve had a change of heart” and / or “that was way back in the 90’s, surely it can’t be true anymore?”. Well, do the way we were treated since then suggest that our alliance counterparts had a change of heart?

Does the lengthier bans of our players for similar offences than their New Zealand / Australian counterparts suggest they had a change of heart?

“But this is a World Cup” I hear someone say, “surely no-one can be accused of not being impartial?”

Well, does the way the boss of Referees, Paddy O’ Brien, has treated our National side, our coaches, our officials over the last few years even suggest that he’s impartial in any way?

No! How about him visiting the New Zealand side after their match against Italy to apologize in person for the way Australian referee Stuart Dickinson officiated that game.

Why do I find that strange? Try and talk to anyone at the IRB about a referee’s performance and you’ll get the normal “we do not discuss the performance of referees” –response, but when it comes to his beloved New Zealand, it doesn’t seem that the same rules apply.

Or how about a South African journalist, when trying to get hold of O’Brien during the 2010 Tri-Nations tournament, is told that O’Brien would not talk to any journalists during the tournament?

Well, in the same week he gave an audience to New Zealand journalists.

Now, when you experience that from those who need to be impartial, the question immediately arises whether there might perhaps be others who misuse their powers “to get you”, how can you not see something sinister in “coincidences” like the Bryce Lawrence ones?

This is a sad day for me indeed, I’ve been (because of our South African history) a staunch All Black supporter for a long, long time and here I (and I think many others too) believe, even before New Zealand has one hand on the trophy, that they would’ve succeeded in this World Cup mainly because of the unfair efforts of some people behind the scenes.

Biltongbek, makes sense until you realize NZ wanted to play anyone but Australia in the semi. Unrealistic,maybe,but Australia is the team the coaches and fans feared. The same goes for the final, I'm sure they would rather have faced the welsh.

p.s. boks fans have been outstanding on tour.

Back to the semi. I was at the the game and was standing not far from the incident in welsh colors with a welsh flag. Without the aid of TV replays I thought &^%$ he's going to be red carded. The crowd around us, almost all, thought the same (Welsh and French, as well as kiwis). I didn't actually realize he was carded until the announcer said so. I'd have to back the referee on the call. Haven't seen the replay, but it might have looked much worse than it was at the game in real time,

That was also the forst words out of Justin Marshall's mouth when he saw the incident.

" That is red card territory for me"

Clive Norling (the welsh ex-ref) said he was watching it with a few younger refs at the time and said that to a man they all immediately said red-card.

he also said (and i may not have this 100%) that anyone blaming Rolland or that incident for the defeat is doing a massive disservice to the 14 other guys who stood up to and outplayed France.

I'm amazed how stubbornly people can refuse to accept reality.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:I'm amazed how stubbornly people can refuse to accept reality.

Coincidentally i read that his first game after the RWC will be to ref the Dragons v Blues at Newport

Really? It's sad, but he's going to get some stick wherever he goes in Wales.

I'm glad 16% of you have seen sense, lets hope in the future that this situation doesn't happen again.

So Rolland never gets to ref a French game again,thus putting France at a disadvantage since their players don't all speak English.
That seems biased against France.

English is the international language of the IRB as it is with most things like air traffic control, and whilst at sea etc, why should a rugby pitch be any different.

So no its not biased against France its just the way it is and always has been.

17%

Hersh I would agree with that. However it air traffic control etc there are recognised calls so everyone knows whats happening.

I think if we want to do that - we need to limit what refs can say. This colloquial way that referees shout instructions leads to confusion.

"English is the international language of the IRB as it is with most things like air traffic control, and whilst at sea etc, why should a rugby pitch be any different. "

Hi Hersh...not sure if you know it but the empire fell apart about 100 years ago.

toodle pip and all that.

is there actually anything wrong with abit of bias against france!

Red_Stag you are a referee apparently? Can you point out where it says in the statutes that English is the language of the IRB in terms of game management.

Are you saying a game between say Italy and France should be refereed in English, even if the ref speaks both languages, or even two french clubs with a french ref should do it in English

I've heard Nigel Owens speak Welsh to players in the past and I've heard referees speaking Afrikaans in matches between South African sides. Should referees be forbidden from speaking anything other than English?

HERSH wrote:English is the international language of the IRB as it is with most things like air traffic control, and whilst at sea etc, why should a rugby pitch be any different.

So no its not biased against France its just the way it is and always has been.

17%

You have to pass a certain standard of English before you're allowed work in international air traffic control,do you suggest we apply these standards to rugby?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

HERSH wrote:English is the international language of the IRB as it is with most things like air traffic control, and whilst at sea etc, why should a rugby pitch be any different.

So no its not biased against France its just the way it is and always has been.

17%

You have to pass a certain standard of English before you're allowed work in international air traffic control,do you suggest we apply these standards to rugby?

of course dear boy

newbie wrote:Red_Stag you are a referee apparently? Can you point out where it says in the statutes that English is the language of the IRB in terms of game management.

Are you saying a game between say Italy and France should be refereed in English, even if the ref speaks both languages, or even two french clubs with a french ref should do it in English

It doesn't say that nor is that the case currently. I know from my own experience how much more compliance a ref will get reffing in a teams own language (I speak 2 languages).

I am suggesting that it is easier to have a set of clear defined terms that referees shout/use so that language isn't a factor. It is far too fluid and colloquial at the minute.

Either you need referees to be competant in several different languages, have all players competant in English or have clear and defined terms which everone undetstands.

Fencing terms are all French, Judo is all Japanese, Rugby will no doubt be all English. However the key thing is that it must be universal terms.

Lol okay then wirte to the IRB and lobby for this change.If they can get it by the European Union all this will be settled.

Rugby will no doubt be all English

Why?

As it is an English originated game and most of the largest countries Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand all speak English.

By contrast French, Italian, Spanish, Georgian, Japanese etc are limited to individual countries.

As it stands I think that non speaking English teams find things harder in relation to the referee.

Newbie you're writing in English why do you hate it so much?

18% and going up

Well not sure what language you think Bryce Lawrence and Steve Walsh speak or some of the scottish refs but I suppose certain aspects make sense but if the ref is good it doesnt matter what language it is.

The one thing I would say is that having someone who can speak the lingo like Rolland make a difference in explaining decisions. I noted Walsh explaining his decisions in the second half to Dusatiois in the English game and the French all looked a little confused to say the least.

I suppose having it all in English would eve the playing field though Hersh as France for example are that far ahead in the NH at least.

"I suppose having it all in English would eve the playing field though
Hersh as France for example are that far ahead in the NH at least."

you what lol

Everyone knew going into the game where his family where from and noone said anything he was choosen because he speaks fluent English and French and hes a top ref

I've never liked him as a Ref.

In fact when I've found his refereeing a game I have decided not to go because he kills games.

HERSH wrote:I've never liked him as a Ref.

In fact when I've found his refereeing a game I have decided not to go because he kills games.

yeah lol

Its true I have given my match tickets away rather than go and watch the Alain Rolland show.

You could give away your computer as well so that you dont have to see peoples comments supporting him....

Graham Henry believes he got it wrong too.

There seems to be a lot of rugby people who agree he got it wrong.

The directive given for this type of tackle was to start at red and work backwards so in effect the Refs had been given the green light to us their discretion, unless they were 100% sure it was a tackle to cause injury to a player, which this clearly wasn't.

If there had been some previous in the game between the two teams then it could have been seen to be a retaliation, which there hadn't been.

So why was Rolland so sure Warburton had set out to cause an injury?

Seems strange why he didn't consult the touch judges on such an important decision?

Hersh you have the memory of a gold fish...

The directive says nothing about causing injury or the intent of the tackler....

Just in case....

Hersh you have the memory of a gold fish...

The directive says nothing about causing injury or the intent of the tackler....

and again

Hersh you have the memory of a gold fish...

The directive says nothing about causing injury or the intent of the tackler....

But he could have used his discretion which covers everything!

So it could include the intent of the tackler!

Not according to the directive.

I repeat

not according to the directive

HERSH wrote:But he could have used his discretion which covers everything!

So it could include the intent of the tackler!

No it couldn't. Referees are specifically told by the IRB not to consider intent, just as they are not with high tackles and gouging. Intent is left to the citing officer. Deal with the law as it is, not as you think it should be.

Not true, on such tackles at this RWC they were told to take other circumstances into account, like intent.

Gold fish is back.

blub blub blub

Hersh, I commend you on your persistence on our behalf, unfortunately no one wants to listen to you. A few of us passionate welsh fans still think it was yellow, but that's not what lost us the game, it was Hook & Jones' incompetence at kicking that did that.

Still it's a good effort to keep this thread going for 6 pages

What's the record?

Does anyone know who the ref is for Friday? Hopefully a decent one who isn't related to an Aussie or Welsh descendant

HERSH wrote:The directive given for this type of tackle was to start at red and work backwards so in effect the Refs had been given the green light to us their discretion, unless they were 100% sure it was a tackle to cause injury to a player, which this clearly wasn't.

If there had been some previous in the game between the two teams then it could have been seen to be a retaliation, which there hadn't been.

So why was Rolland so sure Warburton had set out to cause an injury?

Seems strange why he didn't consult the touch judges on such an important decision?

To be honest this is rather a silly point. There are plenty of ways to wum without falling back on that. Intent or injury doesnt matter. The directive doesn't say start at red and work backwards. Its says Red Card.

You could have made much more valid points rather than that.