Wales considered cheating but didn't...! Says Gatland

by maestegmafia Tue 18 Oct 2011, 8:25 am

First topic message reminder :

Fresh leading article on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15347253.stm

by Comfort Tue 18 Oct 2011, 1:40 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:The Welsh players and the majority of Welsh fans have been a credit to the sport and a credit to the country as a whole. The press on the other hand, well, thats another matter altogether

and i dont think any of us need to go into detail on the problems with the reporting of incidents like these in the media.......

On the original post, Gatland's again just trying to point out that in his opinion the magnitude of the event should temper extreme decisions in the interest of a fair contest. I dont agree, although I understand his fustrations, it wasnt a great idea coming out with these comments.

by Davie Tue 18 Oct 2011, 1:41 pm

Noted and agreed, Griff. Pretty much all of the media (at least the populist media) have been at fault

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Tue 18 Oct 2011, 1:47 pm

Griff wrote:Just to clarify, a lot of the press that has been 'another matter altogether' has been non-welsh. Just don't want ONLY the Welsh press to get the blame!

Sorry Griff, that is indeed what I meant. Living in Ireland I don't get the Welsh press so I am not sure what they had to say at all. I thought Scrum V got the balance remarkably well the other night in comparison to the shamefully poor coverage from ITV. Shanklin, as a player just out of the squad, showed the views of most players including myself. The law is an ass and it should have been a yellow card. Jones and Edwards, who I met once when he came to my old school when my wee brother was in the 1st XV and he was without doubt one of the most gentlemanly people I have ever met, said as the law stands it was red but the law needs looking at. Lewsey I thought spoke very well for an Englishman on enemy territory at a time of national pain!

I play at a decent level and I would be absolutely gutted if that red card was given against me. I am also a qualified referee due to my school coach making me and a fellow backrow player go so we might not break so many rules and give away mountains of penalties. As a referee I know the decision was right. It doesn't mean I think the law is right, but we are living with how the law stands not how we think it should be.

by Guest Tue 18 Oct 2011, 2:10 pm

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:
Griff wrote:Just to clarify, a lot of the press that has been 'another matter altogether' has been non-welsh. Just don't want ONLY the Welsh press to get the blame!

Sorry Griff, that is indeed what I meant. Living in Ireland I don't get the Welsh press so I am not sure what they had to say at all. I thought Scrum V got the balance remarkably well the other night in comparison to the shamefully poor coverage from ITV. Shanklin, as a player just out of the squad, showed the views of most players including myself. The law is an ass and it should have been a yellow card. Jones and Edwards, who I met once when he came to my old school when my wee brother was in the 1st XV and he was without doubt one of the most gentlemanly people I have ever met, said as the law stands it was red but the law needs looking at. Lewsey I thought spoke very well for an Englishman on enemy territory at a time of national pain!

I play at a decent level and I would be absolutely gutted if that red card was given against me. I am also a qualified referee due to my school coach making me and a fellow backrow player go so we might not break so many rules and give away mountains of penalties. As a referee I know the decision was right. It doesn't mean I think the law is right, but we are living with how the law stands not how we think it should be.

Completely agree with everything you say. I keep changing my about it. It's a red due to the law. However, when you have stars of the game, ex worldcup winners, etc. saying that they think the rules need changing then I tend to sit up and take notice. I expect us welsh to be bitter and our players and coaches to defend Warburton, but when those from other countries do it too then I wonder if there isn't something in it.

I feel sorry for the next referee in a big game who has a player dropped from a tackle in front of him. They ALL have to be red from now on or we won't hear the end of it on here and in the media. No interpretation. No consulting with touch judges. No yellow card. Just straight red. That's the only way that any dropped tackle can be officiated as this one has set the precedent. The pressure on refs will now be huge.

One question though. Is there 'interpretation' on the part of the body that a player lands on? If a player is tackled, momentum tips him, he's not returned safely to the ground, but he lands on a knee or his butt, would this then not be a red???

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Tue 18 Oct 2011, 2:26 pm

[quote="Griff"]

Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:Completely agree with everything you say. I keep changing my about it. It's a red due to the law. However, when you have stars of the game, ex worldcup winners, etc. saying that they think the rules need changing then I tend to sit up and take notice. I expect us welsh to be bitter and our players and coaches to defend Warburton, but when those from other countries do it too then I wonder if there isn't something in it.

I feel sorry for the next referee in a big game who has a player dropped from a tackle in front of him. They ALL have to be red from now on or we won't hear the end of it on here and in the media. No interpretation. No consulting with touch judges. No yellow card. Just straight red. That's the only way that any dropped tackle can be officiated as this one has set the precedent. The pressure on refs will now be huge.

One question though. Is there 'interpretation' on the part of the body that a player lands on? If a player is tackled, momentum tips him, he's not returned safely to the ground, but he lands on a knee or his butt, would this then not be a red???

As far as I was told on various refereeing courses the basis of the rule is that the IRB don't want the tackled player lifted off their feet at all. The only way in their eyes is that the players must be returned to his feet. That is extremely difficult to do, therefore, don't lift the player. People have said that Warburton was caught out that it was Clerc and it was momentum and whatnot, but the simple fact is this, he had no need to lift the player. Make the hit as normal and this would never have been an issue.

As to the body part itself, I don't know exactly what a citing official looks at, but it is my understanding that this informs exactly what the range of the offence. Warburton dropped Clerc on the top of his back/shoulders so it was mid-range with the starting point of six weeks, knocked down to three due to various mitigating circumstance such as Warburton's record. Compare to the similar offence of Lekso Gugava of Georgia who received 5 weeks due to a poor disciplinary record. As I understand it, if Clerc had been dropped on his neck then it might have been a higher range offence.

The problem is that the tackler must drop a player 'with no regard to his safety.' It has been stated, with some justification, that Warburton did drop Clerc with his safety in mind otherwise he would have speared him into the ground. However, in that case, it would have become another offence
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

The only way that a player could be dropped 'with regard to his safety' is to return him to his feet.

by Guest Tue 18 Oct 2011, 2:42 pm

[quote="Hookisms and Hyperbole"]

Griff wrote:
Hookisms and Hyperbole wrote:Completely agree with everything you say. I keep changing my about it. It's a red due to the law. However, when you have stars of the game, ex worldcup winners, etc. saying that they think the rules need changing then I tend to sit up and take notice. I expect us welsh to be bitter and our players and coaches to defend Warburton, but when those from other countries do it too then I wonder if there isn't something in it.

I feel sorry for the next referee in a big game who has a player dropped from a tackle in front of him. They ALL have to be red from now on or we won't hear the end of it on here and in the media. No interpretation. No consulting with touch judges. No yellow card. Just straight red. That's the only way that any dropped tackle can be officiated as this one has set the precedent. The pressure on refs will now be huge.

One question though. Is there 'interpretation' on the part of the body that a player lands on? If a player is tackled, momentum tips him, he's not returned safely to the ground, but he lands on a knee or his butt, would this then not be a red???

As far as I was told on various refereeing courses the basis of the rule is that the IRB don't want the tackled player lifted off their feet at all. The only way in their eyes is that the players must be returned to his feet. That is extremely difficult to do, therefore, don't lift the player. People have said that Warburton was caught out that it was Clerc and it was momentum and whatnot, but the simple fact is this, he had no need to lift the player. Make the hit as normal and this would never have been an issue.

As to the body part itself, I don't know exactly what a citing official looks at, but it is my understanding that this informs exactly what the range of the offence. Warburton dropped Clerc on the top of his back/shoulders so it was mid-range with the starting point of six weeks, knocked down to three due to various mitigating circumstance such as Warburton's record. Compare to the similar offence of Lekso Gugava of Georgia who received 5 weeks due to a poor disciplinary record. As I understand it, if Clerc had been dropped on his neck then it might have been a higher range offence.

The problem is that the tackler must drop a player 'with no regard to his safety.' It has been stated, with some justification, that Warburton did drop Clerc with his safety in mind otherwise he would have speared him into the ground. However, in that case, it would have become another offence
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

The only way that a player could be dropped 'with regard to his safety' is to return him to his feet.

Cue lots of red cards!

by Davie Tue 18 Oct 2011, 2:51 pm

Griff wrote:
Cue lots of red cards!

Or fewer dangerous tackles

by Portnoy Tue 18 Oct 2011, 2:57 pm

I haven't read the intermediate posts.

It struck me that after Adam then the Sam incidents that non-contested may become an issue.

And I give every credit to Gats that he didn't go down that path.

A 'double vision' faux injury would have been an easy one to simulate.

But it does re-raise the 23-man bench issue. Some coaches in some situations may well have been less admirable.

Respect to Gats!

by ScarletSpiderman Tue 18 Oct 2011, 2:59 pm

Beeb reckon that IRB are miffed that Gatland has come out with this. Personally I can understand thinking it, but why ruin a good RWC run by becoming so sour after losing out in a semi that you were never expected to get to.

by Guest Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:02 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:but why ruin a good RWC run by becoming so sour after losing out in a semi that you were never expected to get to.

+1

It just makes him look bitter by trying to play the martyr/holier than thou card.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:02 pm

Portnoy wrote:I haven't read the intermediate posts.

It struck me that after Adam then the Sam incidents that non-contested may become an issue.

And I give every credit to Gats that he didn't go down that path.

A 'double vision' faux injury would have been an easy one to simulate.

But it does re-raise the 23-man bench issue. Some coaches in some situations may well have been less admirable.

Respect to Gats!

This is very strange indeed. How can you praise Gatland for doing the absolute minimum required of him. This is simply ridiculous. People in sport should be praised when they go above and beyond what is expected of a sportsman, not what they should be doing day in and day out. Should we now praise every coach after a match for not cheating?

by Portnoy Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:06 pm

Cheating is easy.

The refusal to cheat in this day and age is commendable.

by Guest Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:07 pm

Forget the video ref, it's time we used "thought police" technology on cheating. Except with Gatland where you don't need to as he can't wait to tell you that he 'thought about cheating'.

Gatland would really have cut down on Big Brother's admin in 1984.

by Hookisms and Hyperbole Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:08 pm

Portnoy wrote:Cheating is easy.

The refusal to cheat in this day and age is commendable.

Nonsense. The refusal to cheat is what we expect as a bare minimum of our sportsmen. When they cheat they are widely reviled. So refusing to cheat deserves absolutely zero praise.

by tomathy Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:12 pm

Roger Lewis appears to have realised the Gatland has screwed up here. He's come out praising Gatland for not doing it and trying to fudge what Gatland said

Roger Lewis wrote:But Warren honestly said: 'Yes, we knew that was an option and it was an option we didn't consider because the semi-final of a World Cup is so important, we have got to play the game.'

Warren Gatland wrote:We had already lost Adam Jones and we discussed in the box: did we fake an injury to one of our props to go to uncontested scrums?

...so they obviously did consider it. The most bizarre bit is this:

Warren Gatland wrote:But in the spirit of the game, in the spirit of a World Cup semi-finals, I didn't think that was the fairest or the right thing to do.

...which implies that in a less high profile game they would have no qualms doing it. I doubt the IRB can do much about this, since they didn't go through with it. I imagine it wont be long before we see 23 man squads in internationals though. This whole story does seem to add credence to the idea that Dean Richards was desperately unlucky to be the one that got caught, and that such practises are much more widespread than previously acknowledged.

by Luckless Pedestrian Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:14 pm

So much for honesty being the best policy!

by ScarletSpiderman Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:14 pm

Warren Gatland wrote:But in the spirit of the game, in the spirit of a World Cup semi-finals, I didn't think that was the fairest or the right thing to do.

To be perfectly honest this is the most stupid thing the man could have said. Out of interest did Ireland/Wasps/Wales ever beat anyone with incontested scrums?

by Comfort Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:16 pm

Comfort wrote:On the original post, Gatland's again just trying to point out that in his opinion the magnitude of the event should temper extreme decisions in the interest of a fair contest. I dont agree, although I understand his fustrations, it wasnt a great idea coming out with these comments.

Personally, I think he's just changing his approach to the (in his views) non-red card tackle. The IRB have come out and said it was correct, so he cant say it wasnt correct, he can use the elevated status of that particular game to stress his point that the ref still should have not given a red.

Again, stress Gatlands views, not mine. He's just going about calling the decision rubbish but in a demented way.

by tomathy Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:23 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Warren Gatland wrote:But in the spirit of the game, in the spirit of a World Cup semi-finals, I didn't think that was the fairest or the right thing to do.

To be perfectly honest this is the most stupid thing the man could have said. Out of interest did Ireland/Wasps/Wales ever beat anyone with incontested scrums?

Have seen plenty of comments on the rugbynetwork.co.uk forums to the effect that Shaun Edwards' teams are renowned for doing it. I don't know of any specific examples myself.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:24 pm

Hardly news is it? What are the IRB actually going to investigate?? At least they didn't go through with it and who thinks this hasn't actually be done before by other sides? It was an obvious consequence of having the laws about only genuine front rowers in the front row and the possibility that one side is getting mullered at scrumtime.

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:27 pm

bit of a non story isn't it TBH? but it does show that the sooner we move to a 23 man squad with two props on the bench the better IMO. Is there any particular reason we haven't done so yet? Surely all teams have at least four props in their squad in the first place?

by chewed_mintie Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:29 pm

I think it's now done in the Heineken Cup, you're right it would sort out the nonsense of old timers scrums!

by Guest Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:33 pm

Yeah, it is a non-story.

So, what's Gatland really trying to say?

1. Wales are gallant losers.
2. We could have cheated and won but didn't. Get us and our superior morals!
3. Man is generally a weak and fallible creature but I have risen above my mortal failings for the good of rugby and humanity in general.

I think it's number 3 angel

by Sin é Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:36 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:bit of a non story isn't it TBH? but it does show that the sooner we move to a 23 man squad with two props on the bench the better IMO. Is there any particular reason we haven't done so yet? Surely all teams have at least four props in their squad in the first place?

Super Rugby still have 22 man squads. Only in NH are there 23.

I think the reason they haven't moved to 23 man international match day squads is to help out the poorer countries who don't have huge resources.

by Davie Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:48 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Warren Gatland wrote:But in the spirit of the game, in the spirit of a World Cup semi-finals, I didn't think that was the fairest or the right thing to do.

To be perfectly honest this is the most stupid thing the man could have said. Out of interest did Ireland/Wasps/Wales ever beat anyone with incontested scrums?

I wonder if he actually said that because it then gave him a hook on which to hang his "the tackle should only have been a yellow card in such a high profile game" comment

by ScarletSpiderman Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:50 pm

Dave - most likely he did. However Gatland does have a tendancy to make somewhat silly comments to the press and I wonder if this is a bit of a screw up as it doesn't make the point it was meant to, but instead makes him and the WRU look a bit iffy.

by tomathy Tue 18 Oct 2011, 3:51 pm

Davie wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Warren Gatland wrote:But in the spirit of the game, in the spirit of a World Cup semi-finals, I didn't think that was the fairest or the right thing to do.

To be perfectly honest this is the most stupid thing the man could have said. Out of interest did Ireland/Wasps/Wales ever beat anyone with incontested scrums?

I wonder if he actually said that because it then gave him a hook on which to hang his "the tackle should only have been a yellow card in such a high profile game" comment

If you watch the clip I think you are right that he is trying to do that. It's a bizarre connection for him to try to make. "The referee shouldn't have followed the letter of the law because it was a high profile game, just like we decided not to completely break the law because it was such a high profile game." Completely incoherent point.

by Pot Hale Tue 18 Oct 2011, 4:21 pm

Gatland has now provided succour to those who think Wales have been milking this issue.

Attempting to put yourself on a pedestal in order to point the finger at those who you think are less "moral" is a highly dangerous tactic.

Has anyone asked Gatland what he felt morally bound to do after he saw his team cheating to score an illegal try in the 6N earlier this year? Why was that behaviour morally acceptable on that occasion, but this entirely legitimate ruling immoral in some way?

by Rava Tue 18 Oct 2011, 4:33 pm

Portnoy wrote:I haven't read the intermediate posts.

It struck me that after Adam then the Sam incidents that non-contested may become an issue.

And I give every credit to Gats that he didn't go down that path.

A 'double vision' faux injury would have been an easy one to simulate.

But it does re-raise the 23-man bench issue. Some coaches in some situations may well have been less admirable.

Respect to Gats!

Did you have anyone in particular in mind Portnoy? Wink

BTW I got my Welford Road HC tickets today. You still not going?

by Comfort Tue 18 Oct 2011, 4:34 pm

Pot Hale wrote:Gatland has now provided succour to those who think Wales have been milking this issue.

Attempting to put yourself on a pedestal in order to point the finger at those who you think are less "moral" is a highly dangerous tactic.

Has anyone asked Gatland what he felt morally bound to do after he saw his team cheating to score an illegal try in the 6N earlier this year? Why was that behaviour morally acceptable on that occasion, but this entirely legitimate ruling immoral in some way?

because pot hale, the ballboys mother was actually on the dole, and the hefty payout he received for his role in winning the game enabled the family to eat at weatherspoons for 6 months solid. Moral balance restored. Whistle

by fa0019 Tue 18 Oct 2011, 4:47 pm

Give credit to someone who doesn't cheat... where is the logic in that.

By all accounts its been a pretty clean world cup so why should we applaud a team for not cheating.... when that is the bare minimum expected.

The fact that this comes from the old Wasps coaching team of Gatland & Edwards who were renowned for forcing uncontested scrums when they were getting battered shows they have done it before and have form.

Did they decide not to cheat because they love & respect the game or because any fool would have put 2 and 2 together and realised something was up.... sure the IRB would have missed it though if it did happen... given they're not the brightest of people at the best of times.

by maestegmafia Tue 18 Oct 2011, 5:09 pm

www.bbc.co.uk wrote:

The International Rugby Board is to review Warren Gatland's claim he considered cheating in Wales' defeat by France in the World Cup semi-finals.

Gatland admitted he considered asking a prop to fake an injury, which would have led to uncontested scrums.

That would have helped Wales, as their pack was already a man down following the dismissal of captain Sam Warburton.

The IRB is "privately stunned" by Gatland's comments, BBC Sport understands, and will review them.

It guards against faking by having doctors at pitch-side to assess injuries.

Welsh Rugby Union chief executive Roger Lewis said Gatland should actually be praised for choosing not to claim a fake injury though.

"Warren Gatland should be applauded in this professional era where tough things and tough decisions are made that he didn't go into that particular zone," said Lewis.

Wales Rugby Union chief executive Roger Lewis praises Gatland's honesty
"That was something that was considered… and the guys said 'we are not going there'.

"In professional sport there is always an opportunity to manipulate the laws and that opportunity could have presented itself.

"But we did not go there and I think it is a tribute to Warren that he honestly expressed that. Warren Gatland is a brutally honest rugby coach. He is a very serious thinker and he tells it as he sees it.

"He said very honestly today: 'One could have considered the possibility of taking a prop off and going to uncontested scrums'.

"But Warren honestly said: 'Yes, we knew that was an option and it was an option we didn't consider because the semi-final of a World Cup is so important, we have got to play the game.'"

The former England coach Dick Best has told the BBC he is amazed Gatland did not cheat, as it goes on all the time in the sport.

BBC rugby commentator Ian Robertson believes Gatland was unwise to publicly admit his thoughts about cheating.

Robertson said it was "not a clever thing" to say and had spoilt the reputation Wales had built up during the tournament.

Scarlets coach Nigel Davies, a former Wales assistant, said he would not break the rugby rule book but understands the pressure on coaches.

"Would I ever consider cheating? I'd have to say no," said Davies.

"But we have to be very careful here because it is a very competitive game, it is a very competitive arena - you are talking about a World Cup. There is everything to play for.

by maestegmafia Tue 18 Oct 2011, 5:11 pm

fa0019 wrote:Give credit to someone who doesn't cheat... where is the logic in that.

By all accounts its been a pretty clean world cup so why should we applaud a team for not cheating.... when that is the bare minimum expected.

I think credit is due and those that are cheating should be dealt with by the IRB and not just an in-house internal punishment.

by fa0019 Tue 18 Oct 2011, 5:33 pm

maestegmafia

by your comments it would suggest you think teams have cheated then at this RWC?

Care to highlight which ones and where?

We are not talking ref bias or breakdown interpretation etc... this is all subject to the referee controlling and good players play the ref, not the rules.

No team should be given credit for doing the absolute minimum... because it sends out the signal that cheating is therefore the natural option.

by tomathy Tue 18 Oct 2011, 5:39 pm

Had they done it and been caught, they'd have been up for a three year ban. You can't make out that deciding against doing something that carries a three year ban is somehow noble. For all we know the only reason they didn't do it is because of the potential ban anyway.

by Huwball Tue 18 Oct 2011, 5:47 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15350332.stm

What a complete bunch of idiots!

He is a bit of a tool saying what lots of people thought, but the IRB need to take their collective heads out of their collective backside. Doh

by Sin é Tue 18 Oct 2011, 5:56 pm

Huwball wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15350332.stm

What a complete bunch of idiots!

He is a bit of a tool saying what lots of people thought, but the IRB need to take their collective heads out of their collective backside.

They need to be consistent though - some players were fined for twittering ref decisions - Gatland gives press conferences about them.

Anyway, Welsh fans be happy - the ABs won't want Gats because of his big mouth.

by Runster Tue 18 Oct 2011, 6:02 pm

bedfordwelsh wrote:Maybe not but Charteris should have been penalised.

Yes Charteris should have been penalised, that's how shoie the ref was to award a penalty to Wales, and that shoite ref wrongly gave Warburton a red card. Shoite through and through. I hope the Kiwis utterly humiliate an intensely undeserving French team.

Kiwis have been sublime - that FB Dagg is a master of the game, that offload for the try was just breathtaking. Wales should be playing them. God I'm depressed.

by Runster Tue 18 Oct 2011, 6:11 pm

Davie wrote:Taff - this has been gone over hundreds of times already, those earlier offenses that were "only" given yellow cards were all reviewed after the match and effectively increased to red card offenses. Not only that, but the referees in question were warned that they hadn't performed their duties correctly

Call me old fashioned, but how could allowing a team to continue with 15 men when they should have had 14 be addressed after a match? Wales had their man sent off, the other offending teams did not. Wales managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not putting their kicks over, but surely it wasn't a level playing field when Wales had 14 and the other offenders were allowed to continue with 15. Am I alone in thinking this is unfair?

by Guest Tue 18 Oct 2011, 6:13 pm

This is a complete nonstory to be honest

by tomathy Tue 18 Oct 2011, 6:39 pm

Runster wrote:
Davie wrote:Taff - this has been gone over hundreds of times already, those earlier offenses that were "only" given yellow cards were all reviewed after the match and effectively increased to red card offenses. Not only that, but the referees in question were warned that they hadn't performed their duties correctly

Call me old fashioned, but how could allowing a team to continue with 15 men when they should have had 14 be addressed after a match? Wales had their man sent off, the other offending teams did not. Wales managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not putting their kicks over, but surely it wasn't a level playing field when Wales had 14 and the other offenders were allowed to continue with 15. Am I alone in thinking this is unfair?

It's unfair on the teams playing Tonga and Fiji that they had to face 15 rather than 14. It's not unfair on Wales in any way. The referee misjudged the other incidents, and the bans after the game demonstrated that. That has no bearing whatsoever on the Warburton incident.

by Gatts Tue 18 Oct 2011, 6:44 pm

at a stroke Gatland has let the press in to the welsh camp. Huge miscalculation. If he had to draw this comparison - i think it is pretty weak - he should have waited until after friday....thi steam deserved better from him, poor judgement

by Gatts Tue 18 Oct 2011, 6:46 pm

IronMike wrote:This is a complete nonstory to be honest

in the context of the red yes it is a total non story, but as a cracking headline

Gatland was going to cheat in semi final

It will run and run and blemish the whole squad

by Runster Tue 18 Oct 2011, 6:51 pm

tomathy wrote:
Runster wrote:
Davie wrote:Taff - this has been gone over hundreds of times already, those earlier offenses that were "only" given yellow cards were all reviewed after the match and effectively increased to red card offenses. Not only that, but the referees in question were warned that they hadn't performed their duties correctly

Call me old fashioned, but how could allowing a team to continue with 15 men when they should have had 14 be addressed after a match? Wales had their man sent off, the other offending teams did not. Wales managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not putting their kicks over, but surely it wasn't a level playing field when Wales had 14 and the other offenders were allowed to continue with 15. Am I alone in thinking this is unfair?

It's unfair on the teams playing Tonga and Fiji that they had to face 15 rather than 14. It's not unfair on Wales in any way. The referee misjudged the other incidents, and the bans after the game demonstrated that.

That has no bearing whatsoever on the Warburton incident.

But don't you concede that Tonga and Fiji had an unfair advantage and their opponents had an unfair disadvantage? The results of those games would surely have been different if the laws had been applied to the letter. Wales were the first team to have the law applied.

by maestegmafia Tue 18 Oct 2011, 7:02 pm

fa0019 wrote:maestegmafia

by your comments it would suggest you think teams have cheated then at this RWC?

Care to highlight which ones and where?

We are not talking ref bias or breakdown interpretation etc... this is all subject to the referee controlling and good players play the ref, not the rules.

No team should be given credit for doing the absolute minimum... because it sends out the signal that cheating is therefore the natural option.

Sure

THe England team admitted to cheating by switching balls illegally for Jonny Wilkinson. Two coaches were banned.

by Guest Tue 18 Oct 2011, 7:07 pm

Gatts wrote:
IronMike wrote:This is a complete nonstory to be honest

in the context of the red yes it is a total non story, but as a cracking headline

Gatland was going to cheat in semi final

It will run and run and blemish the whole squad

Its a nonstory because they thought about cheating but didn't, its not even an admission to anything.

by tomathy Tue 18 Oct 2011, 7:10 pm

Runster wrote:
tomathy wrote:
Runster wrote:
Davie wrote:Taff - this has been gone over hundreds of times already, those earlier offenses that were "only" given yellow cards were all reviewed after the match and effectively increased to red card offenses. Not only that, but the referees in question were warned that they hadn't performed their duties correctly

Call me old fashioned, but how could allowing a team to continue with 15 men when they should have had 14 be addressed after a match? Wales had their man sent off, the other offending teams did not. Wales managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not putting their kicks over, but surely it wasn't a level playing field when Wales had 14 and the other offenders were allowed to continue with 15. Am I alone in thinking this is unfair?

It's unfair on the teams playing Tonga and Fiji that they had to face 15 rather than 14. It's not unfair on Wales in any way. The referee misjudged the other incidents, and the bans after the game demonstrated that.

That has no bearing whatsoever on the Warburton incident.

But don't you concede that Tonga and Fiji had an unfair advantage and their opponents had an unfair disadvantage? The results of those games would surely have been different if the laws had been applied to the letter. Wales were the first team to have the law applied.

Read what I said again. I DID concede that Tonga and Fiji had an unfair advantage in their games. I don't see how that impacts on the Welsh one. Just because another team in another game got an unfair advantage doesn't mean Wales are entitled to one as well. Take this to its logical conclusion and you'd have people moaning about breakdown penalties given against them on the basis that Richie McCaw once got away with it in a different game.

by tomathy Tue 18 Oct 2011, 7:14 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
fa0019 wrote:maestegmafia

by your comments it would suggest you think teams have cheated then at this RWC?

Care to highlight which ones and where?

We are not talking ref bias or breakdown interpretation etc... this is all subject to the referee controlling and good players play the ref, not the rules.

No team should be given credit for doing the absolute minimum... because it sends out the signal that cheating is therefore the natural option.

Sure

THe England team admitted to cheating by switching balls illegally for Jonny Wilkinson. Two coaches were banned.

If Gatland had gone through with faking the injury then it would have been in an entirely different league to switching a ball for a conversion in completely one-sided game.

In any case, there were 20 teams in the tournament. Why should the fact that England switched a ball mean that Gatland is some sort of great hero for deciding not to completely cheat in a way that would have got him a three year ban?

by Gatts Tue 18 Oct 2011, 7:16 pm

IronMike wrote:
Gatts wrote:
IronMike wrote:This is a complete nonstory to be honest

in the context of the red yes it is a total non story, but as a cracking headline

Gatland was going to cheat in semi final

It will run and run and blemish the whole squad

Its a nonstory because they thought about cheating but didn't, its not even an admission to anything.

we'll see, if the press were as circumspect as you i would agree but i am afraid it is such a naive admission which will only fuel the press agenda to hunt out cheating in the game in the name of a story

by Shifty Tue 18 Oct 2011, 7:37 pm

Pot Hale wrote: Has anyone asked Gatland what he felt morally bound to do after he saw his team cheating to score an illegal try in the 6N earlier this year? Why was that behaviour morally acceptable on that occasion, but this entirely legitimate ruling immoral in some way?

Because hearing Bod crying and whinging about how unfair everything is any time Ireland lose, is always a lot of fun and makes rugby worthwhile!
Whilke O'Gara's bottom lip sticking out in a little jib is just as much fun Whistle

by Sponsored content