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.

marty2086 wrote: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

Frankly that's not true. I started a thread and so did two other people on his parenthood. perhaps you've only been a member since the weekend

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

Thats plainly untrue.

David Wallace (who plays the same position as Warburton) knew (unlike most of the other retired pundits) that the tackle was a Red Card offence.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Ireland got Rolland into giving the team a clinic before the RWC. It might have been a good idea if some of the others got a top referee into explaining the sanctions.

Hopefully the Welsh coaching staff will organise something pronto in Wales to get their players up to speed on the laws of the game before they seriously hurt/kills someone. Tipuric got banned for 3 weeks for a similar tackle on Ian Keatley last week.

Red stag

What do you make of the phrasing "from a height"? For me it seems a little unspecific. As far as I could see Clerc wasn't dropped from much height and while it does specify a red for dropping a player "from a height" it also says without care for the players safety. Does this not allow for interpretation of intent?

People say that it was the letter of the law that saw Warburton dismissed. I suspect reading too much into the wording is all that would save him. To me its very clear.

maybe it's my biased side thinking that there's room for manouvre on it.

David Wallace is biased - we beat his team

There is probably room to manouvre but its a massive stretch and is over complixating the issue. Also remember this isnt just something that refs get in the post and interpret. Thwre are seminars where this is explained by IRB

Huwball wrote:David Wallace is biased - we beat his team

Even though some of the other pundits were saying it was a YC offence who would also consider Ireland to be their team?

mckay1402 wrote:maybe it's my biased side thinking that there's room for manouvre on it.

'Height' is totally irrelevant. Both myself and Stag are qualified referees from Ulster, though I don't do it much due to the fact I am still playing. I'm not sure what he was told but on one specific course someone asked this question and we were told it is irrelevant. If you consider height, then why not momentum as that could be more of a factor. People can read whatever they want into the wording of the law but I can guarantee you that the IRB wish it to form no part of the refereeing decision. 'Height' in this context could mean an inch or a metre or 10 metres, it doesn't matter. If you drop a player 'with nor regard to his safety' then it is a red card. Simple. The only way to drop a player with 'regard to his safety' is to drop him back onto his feet. Any other way is a red card. The IRB simply do not want tackled players lifted off their feet risking serious injuries. Why? Well it might not seem it to those whose only interest is international or top level club rugby, but at schools level and low level club rugby dozens of players annually end up with serious injuries, some crippling injuries. The IRB want to stamp it out. Lift a player, drop a player, and do not return him to his feet? Red card. Its simple.

newbie wrote:and again

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

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

That's one of the funniest things Iv'e ever read on a rugby forum!

I am NOT from Ulster

red_stag wrote:I am NOT from Ulster

Yes you are. There are two types of people from Ulster, those who are from Ulster and those who want to be. You are grumpy, argumentative and a know-it-al so you have all the traits. Does rugby on a Sunday disgust you? Ulsterman. Do you loath George Hook? Ulsterman. Do you feel that the IRFU are sectarian against you? Ulsterman. Do you say 'I have no problem with the Soldiers Song', yet spend hours online voicing your disgust at standing for terrorist propaganda? Ulsterman.
Sure *wink wink* You're not from Ulster. I believe you man *wink*
I know you are standing up for the Ulstermen right now this second

RS you devil you . The last post describes you to a tee. Now its out in the open you should embrace it

Being from Ulster is one thing but an Ulster ref. . . . . my god thats Dave Wilkinson

Controversial ?

Sin é wrote:

David Wallace (who plays the same position as Warburton) knew (unlike most of the other retired pundits) that the tackle was a Red Card offence.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Ireland got Rolland into giving the team a clinic before the RWC. It might have been a good idea if some of the others got a top referee into explaining the sanctions.

Hopefully the Welsh coaching staff will organise something pronto in Wales to get their players up to speed on the laws of the game before they seriously hurt/kills someone. Tipuric got banned for 3 weeks for a similar tackle on Ian Keatley last week.

I thought Wallace was excellent. Every argument that was made by Horgan and Sheahan for a yellow he countered citing the laws and they didnt seem to know how to respond. He also alluded to the point Stag made regarding reading too much into the wording. I think he said "You can get lost in the wording; it is either a safe tackle or an unsafe tackle and it was unsafe."


I should add Sin, DOD and Stag are all closet Ulstermen

Be upstanding for the Ulstermen

Stag is standing up for the Ulsterman...in his pants

What the feck does start at red and work backwards mean?

It infers discretion but at the same time suggests use the maximum censure immediately

Gatts, I think this work backwards thing has caused confusion. The directive does not mention it in any way.

Maybe this will help. In a nutshell:

If a tackler lifts a ball carrier up and turns him beyond the horizontal a ref should be thinking "red card". The tackler needs to take active steps to get the ball carrier up the right way to avoid it. If a ref is satisfied that he has removed the danger without tackling him downwards or dropping him he can use a yellow or penalty only.

"newbie Today at 4:50 pm
Not according to the directive.

I repeat

not according to the directive"

If we agree the following directive was followed -

"The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle."

-- the ref might have viewed SW's letting go of Clerc as a sign of "regard", given the wording of the directive. Some regard is not "no regard". If the ref had viewed it that way, he might have given a yellow.

I'm not saying the ref made the wrong judgement -- I'm merely relating the decision and incident to the directive.

BTW, red_stag -- a person on RealRadio tonight, claiming to be a rugby ref, said he would not have issued a red ...

cheers stag but i am still confused, i am certain those are O'Brien's very words as seen on scrm v debate with lewsey last weekend

Yea Gatts start red and work backwards is the term we use - its not in any directive though. The directive says tackling down to ground or dropping "must be a red card". Other tackles can be yellow or red.

Dragon - Im sure he is a ref. I don't doubt that. Did he say why?

I think he said (was busy at the time) a ref cannot ignore the circumstances of the tackle, and that all refs have to make a judgement based on those circumstances. He said he thought a red card was too harsh given what happened in the tackle.

Osprey..with regard to your comments on the directive it is more likely that Warburton thought oh sh.t i am in trouble here and left go of the player as to continue the tackle would have lead to him driving clerc into the ground.

In this case regard for the player = not attempting the type of tackle or lifting and placing back on the ground ala Henson on Flood.

DOD wrote:Osprey..with regard to your comments on the directive it is more likely that Warburton thought oh sh.t i am in trouble here and left go of the player as to continue the tackle would have lead to him driving clerc into the ground.

In this case regard for the player = not attempting the type of tackle or lifting and placing back on the ground ala Henson on Flood.

You thinking of the Tait tackles in 2005?

Whoops yep..not sure why i thought of flood

Standulstermen wrote:

Sin é wrote:

David Wallace (who plays the same position as Warburton) knew (unlike most of the other retired pundits) that the tackle was a Red Card offence.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Ireland got Rolland into giving the team a clinic before the RWC. It might have been a good idea if some of the others got a top referee into explaining the sanctions.

Hopefully the Welsh coaching staff will organise something pronto in Wales to get their players up to speed on the laws of the game before they seriously hurt/kills someone. Tipuric got banned for 3 weeks for a similar tackle on Ian Keatley last week.

I thought Wallace was excellent. Every argument that was made by Horgan and Sheahan for a yellow he countered citing the laws and they didnt seem to know how to respond. He also alluded to the point Stag made regarding reading too much into the wording. I think he said "You can get lost in the wording; it is either a safe tackle or an unsafe tackle and it was unsafe."


I should add Sin, DOD and Stag are all closet Ulstermen

SUFTUM

Frankie, Shane Horgan & David Wallace discussing the tackle here ... http://www.rte.ie/player/#!v=1117182 (approx. 18 mins in).

Anyone think David Wallace would make a great ref? Obviously his own man and an incredibly good disciplinary record for a backrower (2 YC in 200 games for Munster)!

Dragon I would agree that it is harsh on Warburton. I believe he didn't mean to tackle in that manner. That would be reflected in disciplinary hearing (his ban was reduced).

However it was the right call. With a zero tolerance policy you will get some harsh calls and some not harsh. They are all right though.

well its an interesting point....in both those tackles Henson specifically carried the player back and put him down, it was either tactically astute or he was being careful and cautious. You can see why the guy is such a good dancer!

There is no doubt SW could have done that to Clerc, in my view he was caught off guard. He was expecting a backrower off the breakdown and got Clerc instead, hence why he pulls out mid tackle and drops him.

Not sure if Gavin Henson is a good role model but here are some examples from how to ensure a large player doesnt injure a smaller player and how to carry out the tackle safely and effectively...both times on the unfortunate Matt Tait.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzN8Hg7yCkE

arguably the first is a spear - hips above shoulder and he is in contact with him when he hits the ground...the second is pure class

For the first one he places him on the ground, its clear he pulls out of the spear and "lands" tait...its actually done with a lot of skill

DOD wrote:For the first one he places him on the ground, its clear he pulls out of the spear and "lands" tait...its actually done with a lot of skill

well there you go...interpretation is everything!

Nah Gatts...Tait is never in danger. Its an excellent tackle.

not argument here, he wasn't injured, but it just illustrates the point perfectly that refereeing the tackle area is completely grey and open to an individual ref's interpretation.

I dodnt think there is any interpretation here. Tait was not put in danger by Henson. It was a perfectly executed tackle even though he lifted him he did not drive him into the ground or drop him while he was upside down. He drove him back and placed him on the ground, plus Tait is never vertical.

Look DOD we will have to agree to differ. His hips went over his head and Henson remained in contact with him as he hits the ground. henson is lucky that Tait can put his right arm out because he is holding the ball in his left. I f he wasn't then Tait's shoulders would have hit first. Clearly he wasn't injured and because he could manage his landing he did not hit shoulders/neck first.

Maybe...but for me Henson pulls out of the tackle.

Your interpretation.

Clear as day...

can't believe this one is still running, it is kind of funny people justifying their slating of AR for what was a 100% correct decision, but seriously they need new material. Anyway once again the main points.

1. By the letter of the law, and the directives the refs were given, the red card was spot on. Don't bother disputing this, Brian Moore (qualified ref too) says it was correct. Two of the guys on here who know best (red stag and Mike Selig - both qualified refs) have spent hundreds of posts explaining it.

So by 1. you're saying that AR should have made the wrong decision, and usually they're several reasons given.

2.a) It was an important game. Erm really? Reminds me of Alex Ferguson's comments about a penalty which was awarded to Chelsea: "to award a penalty in the last five minutes of a game of this magnitude, on the linesman say-so [...] was absolutely disgraceful". I deduce from this that no penalty should ever be given in important games, or in the last five minutes, or just because the linesman had a clear view of a handball. Similar thing here: the situation DOESN'T matter. Think Burger gougeing incident on the last Lions tour, were you not screaming for a red card?

b) It was early on in the game. Erm again, so what? Again, see Burger incident above. You don't ref differently just because it's early on. Imagine a cricket match: batsman is bowled first ball, umpire says no hang on come back mate, too early in your innings, not fair...

c) Other refs gave yellows for similar incidents. Again, so Rolland is meant to get it wrong because other refs did, and after the IRB publicly admitted these refs got it wrong by banning players at hearings afterwards. Argument then states: these refs by not givind RCs set a precedent. What about the precedent Rolland set by sending off Fritz in that HC game?

d) Warburton didn't mean to hurt Clerc, so Rolland could have worked backwards from the Red. Nope, refs are specifically told not to consider intent. Besides, were you in Warburton's mind as he made the tackle.

e) It wouldn't have hurt to consult his Assistant Referees (stop calling them touch judges!), he made his decision too quickly. Erm, he had a better view of the incident than his ARs, and he doesn't actually make an instant decision.

Please come up with some new material at least, this is getting very dull otherwise...

Gatts, the bottom line is that your belief is based on what it could be like. You may believe that of course. However I think the IRB has been extremely clear in what the approach is.

red_stag wrote:Gatts, the bottom line is that your belief is based on what it could be like. You may believe that of course. However I think the IRB has been extremely clear in what the approach is.

Not with you?

For the record I am only interested in debating the issue and not coming at this with some die hard attitude that it wasn't a red or that it wasn't deserved. It seems to me that the red was justifiable, it was a dangerous tackle.
In my view Wales lost because they failed to take their opportunities, but anyway its academic.
As a ref, which i understand you are, can you explain whether a ref could use his discretion in this case or was he bound by the law and also as a ref, what is your assessment of it?

I appreciate you have probably done this before so if you can send me a link to another thread that would be great

Oh look a football fan "mad for chelsea"has joined in the rugby debate whilst the world cup is on!

Ok, yea. A ref can use his discretion IF (and only if) the player is neither lifted and dropped, or lifted and driven downwards to the ground. Those are straight up red cards - no ifs, buts or maybes. Intent, referee discretion, whether the other guy is injured etc all goes out the window.

If a player gets lifted into the air and turned beyond the horizontal and the ref thinks its dangerous but isn't one of those scenarios above - discretion come into it. A ref in this case should be thinking red card unless the tackler has done something to minimise the danger such as trying to turn him up the right way or tackling him in such a way to make it safer. That can be a yellow or a penalty. Once again intent isn't relevant. Its only the tacklers actions that matter.

ta stag. Then ffs what is Gatland and everyone else on about? Ref left with no alternative if you are correct

viewtothegym wrote:Oh look a football fan "mad for chelsea"has joined in the rugby debate whilst the world cup is on!

check my profile.
check number of posts on the rugby board.
compare with number of posts on the football board.
come back to me.

Is it no longer possible to be a fan of more than one sport?

Still, personal insults are a marginal improvement on just re-hashing the same tired old arguments again I guess, and I did ask for something different...

Should also point out Warburton pleaded guilty at his hearing.

The reason people are moaning is understandable Gatts:

1) Whether ref was right or wrong, it happened at the time most likely to pissss off everyone.

2) Other refs in the tournament have chickened out and left it upto citing commissioners. People will have naturally got it into their head that this is the accepted process.

The wording of the directive was:

"To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the
ground:


- The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) of the circumstances of the tackle"

This was done 18 months ago and fans are obviously bemused as to why red cards have been so rare until now. I join them in my criticism of IRB.