Alain Rolland why

First topic message reminder :

Alain Rolland why is it all about him

Realistically, we're dealing with very borderline calls here.
If we focus on the interception incidents, there have been people on here who have seen it a few times, and some think both were deliberate... others think both were genuine attempts at an interception.... and others are in the middle.

If people can't decide for absolute certain after watching numerous replays, then it's understandable that a ref may see these incidents slightly differently at full speed.... not to mention, at ground level, and potentially with other players in front of him.


Rightly or wrongly, I can understand the decision he made, and why he made them.


As for general inconsistencies of ref's.... The biggest problem is that there is usually more than 1 law being broken at any one time.
At a ruck, you've often got the tackled player holding onto the ball, the tackler not releasing, people on both sides off their feet, and potentially people on the wrong side (who can't be rucked out any more)
The ref has to make a decision as to which of these is the most illegal... and that won't always go the way a fan expects.


Similarly at the scrum when the front rows pop up, it shouldn't always be a penalty.
However, this is an area where the laws have been simplified... or at least the interpretation of them has been.
Front rows usually come up when they're under pressure as a way to diffuse (to an extent - and doesn't always happen) the pressure coming through on them.... thereby potentially getting an advantage, for which they should be penalised.
However, front rows will also pop up sometimes when the pressure goes on if the drive between the 2 packs isn't perfectly level. This won't always be to try to gain an advantage. However, these days, a penalty is award against them.

This is what can happen when laws, or interpretation of laws are simplified... and it won't always make it better.

I agree that some incidents were unusual.
However if I was French, there are probably some decisions of his in that game that I wouldn't have agreed with either.

damage_13 wrote:
When England had the ball on their own line, he blew the whistle for the injury to Dowson, then promptly gave the put-in to France, from which they scored a try. Would any other ref have done this?

Watch this incident again.
France were on the attack.... England were scrambling, and Dowson made a tackle during which he was knocked out.
Croft picks the ball up and is immediately tackled by someone in Blue (Pape, I think) who turns Croft to the French side.
France then ruck over, and in my opinion have probably won the ball back when the whistle is blown.
While Dowson is getting treatment, Rolland says that Blue were going forward, so it will be Blue ball..... hard to argue with that really.


The interception incidents have been done to death, and while I don't necessarily agree, I can kinda understand Rollands reasoning for his decisions there.


I agree with you regarding the wheeling of the scrum....
However, did he ping us for wheeling, or for the scrum going through 90degrees? (I can't remember)
If it went through 90 due to French power, then that's legal and it's fine.
If however, the French actually wheeled it, then it should have been them that got pinged.
Given that scrums are always a lottery with every ref, is it really fair to use this as evidence against him?


The French penalty during the Foden 'mark' is a little odd.
Ashton didn't do a lot to Rougerie to warrant the penalty.
However, it should be a lesson to him not to show that kind of childish petulance.
We've seen that kind of thing from others too (D. Armitage is one that springs to mind), and they need to stop it.
So, while I don't agree with the decision, it will hopefully teach Ashton something (probably not though... he was a league players afterall )



Bottom line, youmay not like all of his decisions, but i'm not convinced he's actually biased.

wasps wrote:
Front rows usually come up when they're under pressure as a way to diffuse (to an extent - and doesn't always happen) the pressure coming through on them.... thereby potentially getting an advantage, for which they should be penalised.

Theres no law that covers that. Its also worth noting that Hartley was pinged for it when England were advancing and lost the advantage he wouldve gained by standing (where this an offence, which it in itself isnt)

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

wasps wrote:
Front rows usually come up when they're under pressure as a way to diffuse (to an extent - and doesn't always happen) the pressure coming through on them.... thereby potentially getting an advantage, for which they should be penalised.

Theres no law that covers that. Its also worth noting that Hartley was pinged for it when England were advancing and lost the advantage he wouldve gained by standing (where this an offence, which it in itself isnt)

Actually, there are laws that govern standing up in the scrum.... but they aren't what I thought they were.

Law 20.3 (i)
Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air, or is forced upwards out of
the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing

Law 20.8 (i)
Lifting or forcing an opponent up. A front row player must not lift an opponent in the air,
or force an opponent upwards out of the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or
afterwards. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

So, in essence, if someone stands up in the scrum, it should be a reset scrum.
if someone is forced out of the scrum (usually by upwards driving, I would think) it should be a penalty against the team driving the player upwards.


So, the question is.... why are front rows always pinged for standing up.... when it sounds like it should be the other way?

wasps wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

wasps wrote:
Front rows usually come up when they're under pressure as a way to diffuse (to an extent - and doesn't always happen) the pressure coming through on them.... thereby potentially getting an advantage, for which they should be penalised.

Theres no law that covers that. Its also worth noting that Hartley was pinged for it when England were advancing and lost the advantage he wouldve gained by standing (where this an offence, which it in itself isnt)

Actually, there are laws that govern standing up in the scrum.... but they aren't what I thought they were.

Law 20.3 (i)
Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air, or is forced upwards out of
the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing

Law 20.8 (i)
Lifting or forcing an opponent up. A front row player must not lift an opponent in the air,
or force an opponent upwards out of the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or
afterwards. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

So, in essence, if someone stands up in the scrum, it should be a reset scrum.
if someone is forced out of the scrum (usually by upwards driving, I would think) it should be a penalty against the team driving the player upwards.


So, the question is.... why are front rows always pinged for standing up.... when it sounds like it should be the other way?

If those are existing laws then you have a pretty hefty question there for sure. BUT........ it would be relatively easy to pretend you were being driven up if you thought you were going to get a decision going your way. But if you're right though, then the rules in practice seem to be operating in completely reverse order on the field itself.

Wasps theres a couple of catch all laws. I dont have the numbers or exact wording but they are all in Law 20

- Players must not do anything likely to collapse a scrum

- Players must be in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the front row player must be in a position to make a forward shove

wasps wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

wasps wrote:
Front rows usually come up when they're under pressure as a way to diffuse (to an extent - and doesn't always happen) the pressure coming through on them.... thereby potentially getting an advantage, for which they should be penalised.

Theres no law that covers that. Its also worth noting that Hartley was pinged for it when England were advancing and lost the advantage he wouldve gained by standing (where this an offence, which it in itself isnt)

Actually, there are laws that govern standing up in the scrum.... but they aren't what I thought they were.

Law 20.3 (i)
Player forced upwards. If a player in a scrum is lifted in the air, or is forced upwards out of
the scrum, the referee must blow the whistle immediately so that players stop pushing

Law 20.8 (i)
Lifting or forcing an opponent up. A front row player must not lift an opponent in the air,
or force an opponent upwards out of the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or
afterwards. This is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

So, in essence, if someone stands up in the scrum, it should be a reset scrum.
if someone is forced out of the scrum (usually by upwards driving, I would think) it should be a penalty against the team driving the player upwards.


So, the question is.... why are front rows always pinged for standing up.... when it sounds like it should be the other way?

That's due to the Andre Watson Accord of 2003 I think.

red_stag wrote:Wasps theres a couple of catch all laws. I dont have the numbers or exact wording but they are all in Law 20

- Players must not do anything likely to collapse a scrum

- Players must be in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the front row player must be in a position to make a forward shove

Good point.... I saw those too.

However, I don't see that standing up is likely to collapse a scrum... so I don't feel that is particularly relevant.
(I believe the law states that it's a security precaution... therefore directly related to collapsing of the scrum, as opposed to it disintegrating in any other way)

As for the other one, the sanction is a free kick, rather than the penalty which is often applied.

Law 20.2 (a)
All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each
front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.
Sanction: Free Kick

If we take it a step further, there was an incident during the France / England game where England were penalised for standing up.
I feel that at that point, both teams were quite evenly matched in the pack.
When the drive came on from both sides, they pretty much evened each other out.
In theory, if one team is driving slightly downwards, that would force the opposing team upwards, and therefore out of the scrum.

That would normally lead to the team standing up being penalised.
However, in theory, the team doing wrong is the one driving downwards slightly as that is likely to cause the scrum to collapse.
(I'm not saying that that is what happened in this instance... just a possible example)

Realistically, it is just one big mess

PJ right...all the laws concern players being forced up.

Wasps..the laws you quote all pertain to the engagement, they have nothing to do with a scrum in progress.
All a ref should look for to penalise the player standing up is did he break his bind and did he force the opposition front row up by driving up to pop up. In that case the question also has to be did the opposition front row force him? Thats the argument the England players were making to Rolland.

Theres a video somewhere that Craig Joubert did explaining his interpretation of these laws.
Usually its just plain ignored if the player coming up is on the side going forward and the ball is likely to come out quickly

Some refs inspire confidence, others don't. Speaking personally, in the light of the comment above about Tri-Nations experiment with refs from a country involved in the game, I would have been happy for Clive Norling to take a Wales-England game at Cardiff, or for Nigel Owens to do so now.

On the other hand, I'd be nervous of any England game Wayne Barnes reffed.

simplify the laws, I will say it now, I will say it again, and I will say it every day.

As much as we blame referees, and I include myself in this as I would like to educate the little New Zealand referee that played his part in our match during the QF, I understand that referees are on a hiding to nothing.

The game is too fast, the laws are ambiguous and it is impossible to get 200+ decisions correct in a match. If you just look at the six nations thus far, 7 out of 12 matches were within a score, and off hand I can think of a few games, England vs scotland, Wales vs Ireland where a decision of the referee changed the course of the match, I am not disputing whether those matches should have been won by the other teams, but when looking at the disallowed hogg try, and the final penalty between Wales vs Ireland, it shows how games are won and lost by these decisions.

when margins are this small, one mistake by an official can be the difference between success and failiure.

Barney McGrew did it wrote: Would be surprised if the majority of the French players don't have reasonable English tbh. Certainly enough to understand basic calls.

Prepared to be surprised it is my understanding a number of this French team have English as poor as my French -i.e nowhere good enough.

Barney McGrew did it wrote: "Height of arrogance to assume English should be spoken by all. "

Arrogance by whom? - English being the international language has got precious little to do with the English. That's down to the Americans (who I believe speak it to a reasonably well).

I never said it was the English - I was referring to English as a language not England as a nation

it isnt arrogant to suggest that sport should have a common language.

also i will add- when it comes to rugby the euglish language has nothing to do with the americans!

the majority speak english due to the commonwealth not americans

mystiroakey wrote:it isnt arrogant to suggest that sport should have a common language.

also i will add- when it comes to rugby the euglish language has nothing to do with the americans!

the majority speak english due to the commonwealth not americans

Sorry but that made me

It was the perfect spelling mistake at that moment

mystiroakey wrote:
when it comes to rugby the euglish language has nothing to do with the americans!

the majority speak english due to [colonialism] not americans

Disclaimer: This sentence has been altered by Fly; and as such bears no relationship to the opinions of mystiroakey, who has neither condoned nor sanctioned the change made.

Someone mentioned Clive Norling of Wales as a ref, who inspired nothing but confidence and fairness, of which i wholeheartedly agree . Unlike Mr Rolland, Clive Norling would have been welcome to officiate at any England game, even against his home country of Wales , because this gentleman was simply the best, and Rolland just isn't.

It's interesting that when I woe a thread about rolland refereeing the semi final I was told I was just a Welshman getting excuses in early and after the game we were all shouted down and tools that in no way was rolland biased and that we should stop complaining. So should I take it that England fans now agree that he shouldn't be shouted to ref France matches? Whether he is biased or not any decision can be open to getting interpreted in that way.

Refs smefs

Rolland thinks that each match is a refereeing game with an occasional slice of rugby tacked onto the side.