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.

The judicial hearing for citings is as close as rugby gets to a court of law. In the citing hearings it was said the ref was wrong. So there is no precedent.

Now, do you want to continue bailing out that leaky boat you're in, or would you rather pretend it didn't happen and go back to accusing the ref of being corrupt?

"The judicial hearing for citings is as close as rugby gets to a court of law. In the citing hearings it was said the ref was wrong. So there is no precedent."

But if taken to a law court you could argue this case hadn't followed what went before because a precedent had already been set earlier in the RWC.

Case closed.

HERSH wrote:"The judicial hearing for citings is as close as rugby gets to a court of law. In the citing hearings it was said the ref was wrong. So there is no precedent."

But if taken to a law court you could argue this case hadn't followed what went before because a precedent had already been set earlier in the RWC.

The citing hearing has acted as a court of appeal Hersh, overturning the earlier lenient treatment by some referees by imposing long bans. Ergo there is no precedent.

But keep grasping at those straws if you like.

HERSH wrote:Case closed.

There never was one in the first place.

But nice try all the same.

But if it were taken to a Court of Law (i.e. real court) then the waters are very muddy as to whether a precedent had already been set or not therefore there is a case to answer

Lawyers would have a field day seeing as Rolland's half French.

You do talk some rubbish HERSH.

"some"????

Why because you don't agree?

You're bordering on harassment today Ozzy!

Despite the fact that his decision was influential I think it would be a mistake to lose sight of the fact that we had enough clear chances to win this game. Yet again we have choked when it really mattered. This is the most important issue we need to address.

Having said that I have to agree that his family connections should have precluded him from taking this game. To suggest that his exposure fron birth to the French culture does not subconsiously affect his decision making flies in the face of accepted wisdom. I am not saying that he cheated, but that all decisions we make are inflenced by our subconsious mind. Anyone who has seen the performances of the mentalist Derren Brown can see how it is possible to influence decision making, by subtley implanting information into the mind of a subject. If this is possible in a 1 hour television show, how much more powerful is 40 years of immersion in an appreciation of all things French. This subliminal influence was the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RED AND YELLOW, especially when the decision was made immediately and instinctively without taking the time to consider. Not his fault he is human like the rest of us, but a huge misudgment on behalf of the IRB.

So tell us Hersh, seeing as you asked the question. Was there jiggery pokery? Is there corruption? And if the answer is yes... any proof other than subjective opinion?

Thank you 'Just my view'

Just my view wrote:Despite the fact that his decision was influential I think it would be a mistake to lose sight of the fact that we had enough clear chances to win this game. Yet again we have choked when it really mattered. This is the most important issue we need to address.

Having said that I have to agree that his family connections should have precluded him from taking this game. To suggest that his exposure fron birth to the French culture does not subconsiously affect his decision making flies in the face of accepted wisdom. I am not saying that he cheated, but that all decisions we make are inflenced by our subconsious mind. Anyone who has seen the performances of the mentalist Derren Brown can see how it is possible to influence decision making, by subtley implanting information into the mind of a subject. If this is possible in a 1 hour television show, how much more powerful is 40 years of immersion in an appreciation of all things French. This subliminal influence was the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RED AND YELLOW, especially when the decision was made immediately and instinctively without taking the time to consider. Not his fault he is human like the rest of us, but a huge misudgment on behalf of the IRB.

What was the subliminal influence? Was it the directive from the IRB to use a red card in exactly the circumstances that occurred during the match? The same circumstances that led to him red carding a French player, on a French team, against non-French opposition last year in the HEC? Don't those facts blow your argument out of the water and instead suggest the ref is someone who takes his job seriously and will not let outside influences affect his decision making in any way?

Greybeard

Corruption at the IRB?

It would be foolish to think otherwise, why was the world cup given to NZ when Japan had the better deal not just in terms of the revenue it could have produced but also the fact that rugby needs to grow, having it in NZ and then England stinks of backhanders at the IRB.

You're going off topic on your own topic.

You know very well what I'm asking. Was the ref corrupt? Was the decision to appoint him a corrupt one? Is Rolland biased and unfit to ref rugby matches?

greybeard wrote:

Just my view wrote:Despite the fact that his decision was influential I think it would be a mistake to lose sight of the fact that we had enough clear chances to win this game. Yet again we have choked when it really mattered. This is the most important issue we need to address.

Having said that I have to agree that his family connections should have precluded him from taking this game. To suggest that his exposure fron birth to the French culture does not subconsiously affect his decision making flies in the face of accepted wisdom. I am not saying that he cheated, but that all decisions we make are inflenced by our subconsious mind. Anyone who has seen the performances of the mentalist Derren Brown can see how it is possible to influence decision making, by subtley implanting information into the mind of a subject. If this is possible in a 1 hour television show, how much more powerful is 40 years of immersion in an appreciation of all things French. This subliminal influence was the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RED AND YELLOW, especially when the decision was made immediately and instinctively without taking the time to consider. Not his fault he is human like the rest of us, but a huge misudgment on behalf of the IRB.

What was the subliminal influence? Was it the directive from the IRB to use a red card in exactly the circumstances that occurred during the match? The same circumstances that led to him red carding a French player, on a French team, against non-French opposition last year in the HEC? Don't those facts blow your argument out of the water and instead suggest the ref is someone who takes his job seriously and will not let outside influences affect his decision making in any way?

No none of those, the subliminal element is best illustrated by his next gross error which was to award Halfpenny and Wales a penalty when it was clearly not. His repressed guilt clearly got the better of him as he unconsciously tried to restore some psychological equiliberium - Unfortunately for him, 1/2p missed. That was one of the worse reffing decisions I've ever seen and I'd like to see some of the many Rollain fans explain why they think he gave that opportunity to Wales when Stevie Wonder could see it was not a penalty

Repressed guilt? Oh good grief.

So explain why the penalty was awarded to Wales greybeard - its a simple question -

Maybe, maybe not, I wasn't in his hotel room to see if a new Rolex was left outside with some flowers and a bottle of French red wine!

But he should never have been appointed to ref this game due to the fact he is half French, did nobody at the IRB think that his might cause a problem if things went a little off the wall, no doubt people are paid a lot to think this stuff up.

RubyGuby wrote:So explain why the penalty was awarded to Wales greybeard - its a simple question -

Because the ref decided it was a penalty to Wales.

The first penalty for Wales (before the sending off) which hook scored from was also a non penalty as Philips clearly has his hands on the ball when Dusatoir comes around, also he was very sympathethic to Wales in the Scrum when James came on.

Maybe he was being biased towards Wales from the beginning because if you know anything about Roland its that the French arent great fans of him as a ref either (because he is unbiased). The last penalty looked like it was an incorrect call he says its coming in from the side...technically he might be right but I would think it was a penalty to France for the initial holding on from charteris....definitely a 50/50 in favour of Wales.

HERSH wrote:Maybe, maybe not, I wasn't in his hotel room when the new Rolex was left outside with some flowers and a bottle of French red wine!

But he should never have been appointed to ref this game due to the fact he is half French, did nobody at the IRB think that his might cause a problem if things went a little off the wall, no doubt people are paid a lot to think this stuff up.

So you have proof of this bribery? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

greybeard wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:So explain why the penalty was awarded to Wales greybeard - its a simple question -

Because the ref thought it was a penalty to Wales.

Thought!

he should know!

Maybe he thought it was a red card, but got it wrong.

with great power comes great responsibility.

Well if you don't like the word 'thought' I've changed it for you

Please prove the bribery claims Hersh, or retract them.

Greybeard, I'd give up if I were you!

Sounds to me like your argument is on the ropes Greybeard

As I said Maybe, maybe not!

Owned!

I wouldnt worry about Hersh claims...he is probably spending too much time reading Biggles or some such.

Anyhow as has been posted Roland is Irish end of story.

But Rolland could have played for France because he is half French.

Who did Roland play for Hersh?

"Balls said the queen, if I had them I would be king".

Manu could have played for Samoa but he didn't, I bet it didn't stop him cheering on Samoa!

Please prove the bribery claims Hersh, or retract them.

He isn't Spanish or Swiss so, no.

I have nothing to retract, as I said "maybe, maybe not I wasn't there" but please feel free to take the matter further if you so wish.

You weren't there when it happened, as you state. You're making an accusation of bribery.

Look, we both know you're full of it, so let's not pretend. You want to stir up Poopie because that's the kind of thing that you enjoy. Rolland did his job, he's not corrupt and it's clear that you prefer to think otherwise because it suits your purpose to disrupt this forum. Well done you.

Some rugby fan you are.

You havent answered the question either Hersh. What clubs, province, country did Roland play for?

Thats libel Greybeard!

Newbie look it up on google, but seeing as his dad is French implies he is half French.

HERSH wrote:Thats libel Greybeard!

Newbie look it up on google, but seeing as his dad is French implies he is half French.

Yes it is libel. And you still haven't retracted it.

HERSH wrote: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?

No, it leaves him open to conspiracy theories in the event anything controversial happens.

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

Yes he had a good game and is the most consistent ref in the world.

So you dont know?

Has he ever lived in France for any length of time?

I have consulted my legal team and I'm in the clear due to the fact I said I wasn't there.
But keep bad mouthing me Greybeard, as that believe it or not that is Libel and could be taken further.


Newbie save me the trouble of looking it up as I don't care, he is half French.

It's only libel if it's not true. But you're a wum, so....

I look forward to hearing from your 'legal team'

Guys - I would stop feeding them

The laws state Rolland was correct. The IRB state Rolland was correct. Now all the pundits admit Rolland was correct according to the IRB laws. The newspapers think Rolland was correct. Most Welsh now realise that Rolland was correct. Most rugby fans now realise that Rolland was correct.

There area few that prefer to try to wind people up and say things that are close to liable - let them - it is their opinion and if facts stated clearly can not change their mind, why bother

Unlucky to the Welsh team, played some good rugby and made enough chances to win. A few better kicks and you would be facing the All Blacks next week.

Good luck and hope you can get the third place - its going to be a cracker

Back to that old chestnut, its only a wum if you want it to be or it suits your argument, the truth is we don't know what Rolland was thinking but he shouldn't have been put into that position by the IRB, his dad is French and the precedent had already been set earlier in the RWC for that type of tackle.

Should have been a yellow

Of course he will be biased, even if he doesn't believe he is acting in that way.

His father is French and by the fact he is fluent would suggest he has strong ties with his paternal ancestral home.

Who here has strong blood ties (at least a grandparent) to a particular rugby nation outside of their 'home' team who doesn't support this particular side?

I'm a quarter Italian myself and my Da & I are near passionate when it comes to supporting Italy but we're as Italian as Ronald MacDonald. Yet am I biased when I watch Italy play... of course I am.... its natural, we all watch our own sides with tinted glasses.

Its similar to people saying because Steve Walsh represents Aus, he should be able to officiate NZ in test matches. Does his job stop him from being a kiwi? No.
He was stood down by the NZRU for being a booze hound so he moved to Aus to continue his career, it would be like saying Grey Ghost is a Brit because he lives here.

Was he neutral... well I don't see anybody else in great number in the rugby world bar Frenchman agreeing with the sending off. Aus, NZ, SA & in Europe are pretty much united in this one.. kind of says it all really. Was it malicious, in my view no.... but biased... potentially yes.

HERSH wrote:and the precedent had already been set earlier in the RWC for that type of tackle.

Not really. That tackle sparked a big debate and the IRB realised that there was a hole in the laws and wanted to address them in the instance of safety. As such they drew up a new law that would cover this.

This is exactly the same as in normal law, when the latest laws take precidence over previous one that they replace.

Such as the Human Rights act or even simple things like speed limits.

Someone may have gone to court for a speeding fine on a road that was 40 miles an hour when going 50, but a few years later the council changes it to 60mph. The fact that there =was a case previously for someone going 50mph, does not mean everyone should still get fined, as the new law has been updated and imposed

Just thought would help on a point of law :-)

fa0019 wrote:Of course he will be biased, even if he doesn't believe he is acting in that way.

His father is French and by the fact he is fluent would suggest he has strong ties with his paternal ancestral home.

Who here has strong blood ties (at least a grandparent) to a particular rugby nation outside of their 'home' team who doesn't support this particular side?

I'm a quarter Italian myself and my Da & I are near passionate when it comes to supporting Italy but we're as Italian as Ronald MacDonald. Yet am I biased when I watch Italy play... of course I am.... its natural, we all watch our own sides with tinted glasses.

Its similar to people saying because Steve Walsh represents Aus, he should be able to officiate NZ in test matches. Does his job stop him from being a kiwi? No.
He was stood down by the NZRU for being a booze hound so he moved to Aus to continue his career, it would be like saying Grey Ghost is a Brit because he lives here.

Was he neutral... well I don't see anybody else in great number in the rugby world bar Frenchman agreeing with the sending off. Aus, NZ, SA & in Europe are pretty much united in this one.. kind of says it all really. Was it malicious, in my view no.... but biased... potentially yes.

Pretty much every article I've read said it was the right call.