Is this a red card offence?

First topic message reminder :

Yes I know, "let it go.. move on.. what's happend, has happened" etc, etc.

This thread is not to debate whether the red card was the right call but how the laws should be interpreted.

The picture below is from an incident that I for one didn't even notice in the Wales v South Africa pool match and just happened to stumble apon in an article on the rugby world cup website. What I do remember is that no cards were handed out, the question is, should there have been?

As posters have rightly stated "Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play".

This photo suggests that Shane Williams has been tackled, lifted (as his body is off the ground), tipped past horizontal and the tackling player has no control over how he lands as he only has hold of one leg. Now this does not look in any way intentional, there is no driving into the ground, no intentional tipping motion and is just one angle, but what would your judgment be using only this picture as evidence?

Spoiler:

Please note that this is not a dig at South Africa, I don't think this tackle deserved a card and have no gripes about the win. This is just an example of one of the many tackles that could cause referees a bit of a headache.

Really he seems so good in what I've seen of him. To be fair even that lump Spies can look decent in Currie Cup and Super Rugby - test level is another thing entirely.

I like that list of players Bekky

Stag, i dont know if you watched our first two test of this year's tri nations, but Potgieter played in those two tests and he was dismal.

Ahhh Bil, i always thought of him to be schalk m2, the times (not all that often to be fair) ive seen him hes played really well, at S15 level mostly.

Comfort wrote:its true bil, wales only lost games due to refereeing decisions.....

.... the 3 points that never was against SA and the redcard that should have never been against France

Just be glad you didnt get an 11 point try disallowed

Comfort wrote:Ahhh Bil, i always thought of him to be schalk m2, the times (not all that often to be fair) ive seen him hes played really well, at S15 level mostly.

comfort, the problem we have is there are many real good quality loosies in SA, Brussow, Burger, Smith, Alberts, Deysel, Vermeulen, Botes, Kankowski, Josh Strauss and probably a few more I can't remember right now. He is way down the pecking order.

Biltong - Ive only seen him at S15 level. I didn't know he was capped.

yeah, one thing you guys are never short of is quality back rowers. any potential (or need) for one of these to play lock to international standard (even Super standard?), I'm not too clued up (at all) on the upcoming SA locks, Bekker obviously is a standout. But who'll partner him in future?

(also sorry for hijacking this thread)

The sharks used Deysel as a lock last weekend, and by all accounts it seems he had a good game there.

The mna to watch in my opinion is Josh Strauss from the Lions, he is the same mould as Juan Smith, very good ball carrier and is having a great season for the lions.

Comfort wrote:(also sorry for hijacking this thread)

Oh really really DONT be sorry. There are loads of articles about the red card already.

Comfort wrote:(also sorry for hijacking this thread)

We aren't hijacking the thread, the Lions have RED in their jumpers.

Just to give you guys some stats on coenie Oosthuizen, as a loose head prop.

Made the 5th most tackles in currie Cup pool rounds.
Was top in the pool rounds for being one of the first three at the breakdowns.

red card, what red card?

Griff wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Comfort wrote:

Sin é wrote:

deadfred wrote:It's what happens going forward that matters now. I expect to see a lot more red cards and a lot more over the top reactions from players to tackles - which is great as that's just what the game needs. It really added to the occasion on Saturday I thought and has led to the right final of the WC with the two best teams of the tournament shooting it out for glory. Fantastic to know that both teams will be briefed by their coaches to react in the strongest way to any dodgy tackles in the knowledge that this will help get the other team down to 14 men and therefore make a much better spectacle for all the fans that put so much time and love into this game. The future is bright...the future is RED.

Ospreys/Wales would know all about the Hollywood performances to get someone sent off and banned. An Oscar winning performance by Jonathan Thomas in Thomond Park! The Ospreys even announced that he wouldn't be able to play the following weeks Thomas was so bad .... but guess what, as soon as the citing was over, Thomas was back in the starting line-up the following week with mission accomplished - Paul O'Connell suspended.

Sin, Im gonna assume that the posts where you're having a dig at welsh players are the minority of your posts, and its an unfortunate coincidence that these seem to be the majority of the posts i see.

Forgive me if this is the case, but otherwise, you do seem a little bitter bro!

I'm just totally fed up of some Welsh supporters still banging on about Warburton getting red carded. Only way to deal with such bitterness emenating from Wales is to respond in kind - they might understand that. Just being tough to be kind

Sin e, it's not just welsh fans though is it. One of the biggest posters on the subject on these boards, and someone hugely against the decision, is PJ Holybloke who is an English poster. Don't tar a whole nation with 1 brush.

Correct Griff, I am English with Irish spice on the side. I am not happy with remote control reffing and I'm not happy with the ever increasing spotlight of H&S being focused on our game, and within those terms of reference nationality doen't matter to me, I'm not unhappy with the decision because it went against Wales, I'm unhappy with it because for me it goes against Rugby Union.

If the current trend continues to it's natural end i.e. that of player safety being more important than the game, contested scrums will be next, then the breakdown and finally the lineout - sound familiar anyone? Take out the two big loose forwards that usually have the job of nailing the gobby wee shoites (on the basis that they're bigger and stronger and sometimes quick enough to catch the poor little mites - which could be dangerous) and we'll have a whole new game....

I've never suggested it's a good idea to let players pick other players up and smash them headfirst into the turf, but from some of the stick I've had you could have been mistaken that I did.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Griff wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Comfort wrote:

Sin é wrote:

deadfred wrote:It's what happens going forward that matters now. I expect to see a lot more red cards and a lot more over the top reactions from players to tackles - which is great as that's just what the game needs. It really added to the occasion on Saturday I thought and has led to the right final of the WC with the two best teams of the tournament shooting it out for glory. Fantastic to know that both teams will be briefed by their coaches to react in the strongest way to any dodgy tackles in the knowledge that this will help get the other team down to 14 men and therefore make a much better spectacle for all the fans that put so much time and love into this game. The future is bright...the future is RED.

Ospreys/Wales would know all about the Hollywood performances to get someone sent off and banned. An Oscar winning performance by Jonathan Thomas in Thomond Park! The Ospreys even announced that he wouldn't be able to play the following weeks Thomas was so bad .... but guess what, as soon as the citing was over, Thomas was back in the starting line-up the following week with mission accomplished - Paul O'Connell suspended.

Sin, Im gonna assume that the posts where you're having a dig at welsh players are the minority of your posts, and its an unfortunate coincidence that these seem to be the majority of the posts i see.

Forgive me if this is the case, but otherwise, you do seem a little bitter bro!

I'm just totally fed up of some Welsh supporters still banging on about Warburton getting red carded. Only way to deal with such bitterness emenating from Wales is to respond in kind - they might understand that. Just being tough to be kind

Sin e, it's not just welsh fans though is it. One of the biggest posters on the subject on these boards, and someone hugely against the decision, is PJ Holybloke who is an English poster. Don't tar a whole nation with 1 brush.

Correct Griff, I am English with Irish spice on the side. I am not happy with remote control reffing and I'm not happy with the ever increasing spotlight of H&S being focused on our game, and within those terms of reference nationality doen't matter to me, I'm not unhappy with the decision because it went against Wales, I'm unhappy with it because for me it goes against Rugby Union.

If the current trend continues to it's natural end i.e. that of player safety being more important than the game, contested scrums will be next, then the breakdown and finally the lineout - sound familiar anyone? Take out the two big loose forwards that usually have the job of nailing the gobby wee shoites (on the basis that they're bigger and stronger and sometimes quick enough to catch the poor little mites - which could be dangerous) and we'll have a whole new game....

I've never suggested it's a good idea to let players pick other players up and smash them headfirst into the turf, but from some of the stick I've had you could have been mistaken that I did.

PJ - you remind me of Lloyd George - (not to be trusted).

Why don't you run a poll and see if posters think that the game is more important than safety.

You could also add in a question like "Do you think its possible for Wales to win a game without spear tackling the opposition"?

Sin E
Isn't this like George bush, another elder statesman, saying You are either with us or against us?

Fascinating polarisation of the issue. I am not sure that the game and safety are inextricably linked but because of the nature of debate we have turned this into a safety v the game argument. Where it is possible to remove overtly dangerous elements we should do that, but when the game becomes diluted because of what ifs we are truly screwed. I am not averse to risk management but there is a limit and there is also a tendency for the H and S prevention agenda to take precedence over the object itslef...i often use the Apollo programme as an example, albeit extreme, had H and S law been allowed to determine that we would still be on the launch pad.

Not going to rise to the cheap shot about the spear tackle since the red card was not the reason we lost...can you tell me what other game has been notable for a Welsh spear tackle (this case obviously was not a spear but a dangerous drop deserving of a red within the law). I have never thought Wales had a problem with dangerous tackling...Henson has been close to the bone a few times but apart from that i think Warburton's dangerous tackle stands out as being the exception not the rule

the game is more important than safety when safety changes the game. The game is played by consenting adults who are all able to decide whether they wish to play. The rules protect the players as much as is possible but those rules must not prevent the game being played as it was intended by those consenting adults. There has to be a limit.

Just out of interest I too like to climb, what are your views on summit fever and safety?

Well trust me on this much, when I make my mind up about something, it's not on the basis of what somebody has told me to think, it's formed from an entirely independent point of view.

I'm a "fool", a "dinosaur", belong to a "different era" etc. etc. I'll just chuck "untrustworthy" on the pile with the rest of them.

If safety were of primary importance, the game couldn't go on in it's present state as it's intrinsically unsafe, so why don't you tell me where the line should be drawn?

The danger element and test of pure physical confrontation was the biggest buzz I ever got out of playing.

Maybe that's just me?

Send my post to the edge baby, that's where I'm living.

PJHolybloke wrote:Well trust me on this much, when I make my mind up about something, it's not on the basis of what somebody has told me to think, it's formed from an entirely independent point of view.

I'm a "fool", a "dinosaur", belong to a "different era" etc. etc. I'll just chuck "untrustworthy" on the pile with the rest of them.

If safety were of primary importance, the game couldn't go on in it's present state as it's intrinsically unsafe, so why don't you tell me where the line should be drawn?

The danger element and test of pure physical confrontation was the biggest buzz I ever got out of playing.

Maybe that's just me?

Send my post to the edge baby, that's where I'm living.

Gatts wrote:Sin E
Isn't this like George bush, another elder statesman, saying You are either with us or against us?

Fascinating polarisation of the issue. I am not sure that the game and safety are inextricably linked but because of the nature of debate we have turned this into a safety v the game argument. Where it is possible to remove overtly dangerous elements we should do that, but when the game becomes diluted because of what ifs we are truly screwed. I am not averse to risk management but there is a limit and there is also a tendency for the H and S prevention agenda to take precedence over the object itslef...i often use the Apollo programme as an example, albeit extreme, had H and S law been allowed to determine that we would still be on the launch pad.

Not going to rise to the cheap shot about the spear tackle since the red card was not the reason we lost...can you tell me what other game has been notable for a Welsh spear tackle (this case obviously was not a spear but a dangerous drop deserving of a red within the law). I have never thought Wales had a problem with dangerous tackling...Henson has been close to the bone a few times but apart from that i think Warburton's dangerous tackle stands out as being the exception not the rule



the game is more important than safety when safety changes the game. The game is played by consenting adults who are all able to decide whether they wish to play. The rules protect the players as much as is possible but those rules must not prevent the game being played as it was intended by those consenting adults. There has to be a limit.

Just out of interest I too like to climb, what are your views on summit fever and safety?

lol you have gone from dangerous tackles to health and safety at nasa-

The only thing i have got to say is please remain grounded gatts, and opponents need to be grounded, and err nasa shouldnt reamain grounded- christ what have i got myself into.