Allan Colm Pierre Rolland set to ref Wales v BaaBaas

First topic message reminder :

This June.
I hope the locals behave themselves and don't take it down the road of football mentality by giving him a hard time.
Lets take a leaf out of our Captain Sam's book and treat the matter with dignity and respect.
In the long term i guess this is the best game for him to come back and ref us on.

My biggest worry is he turns the free flowing ethos of BaaBaas and Welsh rugby into a petulant bore fest,put your whistle in your pocket Allan then your brain might engage before you blow it.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Do you think it didn't warrant a red card? Also, Ferris was pretty clear that he didn't believe he was in the wrong..

It is debatable his tackle merited a penalty! Davies on the other hand should have had a straight red for dirty play. What a plonker!

Totallybiasedscarlet wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:"No, the world IS flat I tell you! Nobody will ever convince me otherwise, nope put the globe away I don't care!"

Arrogance is a funny thing

W H A T E V E R - Tell it to the hand. And as for Warbs accepting the call Been there, done it.

My grud, we are living in times where everyone wants to follow the letter of the law. Fine - you live like that. I for one prefer to THINK for myself.

I certainly don't think Warburton was thinking for himself that day

Cymroglan wrote:The red card was given and so was a penalty against Ferris both decisions were correct within the letter of the law.
The problem we have is consistency with the ref's.

I agree with what you say with regards to consistency (or lack of it), but my point is that Warburton's tackle was a dangerous tackle, that could have been much worse, and was a clear red card. The Tipuric tackle the other day however, was perfectly fine. That is an example of the referees getting things wrong. The trouble is, you lift the player nowadays and you get penalised, regardless of how you put him down it seems. As for Warburton, he lifted the guy and dropped him on his shoulder/neck area. That is a red I'm afraid.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:The red card was given and so was a penalty against Ferris both decisions were correct within the letter of the law.
The problem we have is consistency with the ref's.

I agree with what you say with regards to consistency (or lack of it), but my point is that Warburton's tackle was a dangerous tackle, that could have been much worse, and was a clear red card. The Tipuric tackle the other day however, was perfectly fine. That is an example of the referees getting things wrong. The trouble is, you lift the player nowadays and you get penalised, regardless of how you put him down it seems. As for Warburton, he lifted the guy and dropped him on his shoulder/neck area. That is a red I'm afraid.

Wrong - this is not what happens in any other aspect of the game. Clumsy competing for a high ball- yellow. Driving a linout jumper - yellow. It goes on all the time. If the ref thinks there's no malice but it was dangerous it is 9 times out of 10 a yellow. Rolland was known to have made clear hi opinion on the interpretation of that particular rule prior to the RWC starting. He applied his interpretation without sympathy for the game or consideration of the incident.He was giving a red regardless. It is not the precedent in rugby, and denied the principle of fair play. It never merited a red and for one thing, within seconds of the red being produced, Clerc got up, shook himself down and got on with the game. So much for being "dangerous"!

Sorry mate but I don't think you will find many who agree with you - we will have to agree to disagree.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:The red card was given and so was a penalty against Ferris both decisions were correct within the letter of the law.
The problem we have is consistency with the ref's.

I agree with what you say with regards to consistency (or lack of it), but my point is that Warburton's tackle was a dangerous tackle, that could have been much worse, and was a clear red card. The Tipuric tackle the other day however, was perfectly fine. That is an example of the referees getting things wrong. The trouble is, you lift the player nowadays and you get penalised, regardless of how you put him down it seems. As for Warburton, he lifted the guy and dropped him on his shoulder/neck area. That is a red I'm afraid.

+1.

When i first saw Tipuric's tackle i thought " wow, that was a great hit" and was amazed when play stopped. I am all for the rules and abiding by them but that was a mess. The ref's now seem to deem any lifting in the tackle as dangerous and its becoming a joke. Rolland, although correct by the letter of the law, has set a bad precedent by red carding a player in the 1/2 final of an RWC because now most of the ref's are watching for those tackles and yellow carding players like Tipuric for absolutely no reason.

viewtothegym wrote:I'm well over the French irish man robbing wales of a world cup final game with his petulant style of reffing, I'm just hoping he keeps this game free flowing and the fans just keep it real.
Also why can't the Irish stop booing the kicker when they are losing?

Good one.

The Irish boo a penalty because of a dubious penalty and card - something the citing committee agreed was debatable and then you then being it up as if this one off incident was common place.

Coming from a Welshman it is particularly funny

DOD wrote:If only the welsh could move on from their victim mentality.

WUM!!!

My problem's with everything surrounding 'tip-tackles':

Even after that ridiculously high profile red card at the semi-final of a world cup, where the IRB officials came out and said 'intent doesnt matter' - then why is any tackle deemed to be a dangerous/tip-tackle, not a red card?

Why is taking a player out in the air not a red-card?

Why is taking away the supporting players to a lifted player in the lineout not a red card?

Why are they not using TMO's to help in these decisions?

Why are referees not punished for their inconsistencies?

Why do some referees take 'intent' in mind when issuing a card/making a decision?

Should players deemed to be 'milking it' be cited and punished also?

Theres too many inconsistencies in the rulings of the game for something like this to be so harshly critiscised when just as dangerous antics around the pitch in other areas arent treated as such. Even then theres too many inconsistencies in the rulings of what is/is not a tip-tackle, it should be pretty clear. Intent is another contentious issue, but again, why not use the TMO at the time on-field as the decision on what card is used makes a MONUMENTAL difference to the outcome of the game.

I have no problem with the decision Rolland made in the world cup, his jobs hard enough, but if thats the rule, then it needs to be applied to all, by all in charge and there needs to be a consistent rule on cards across the game for dangerous incidents, not just tip-tackles.

Rant over

Could we get back to Wales, the Barbarians and why or why not some think Rolland isn't the right ref for the game.

Thanks.

I'll start. He isn't the right man for the game because Wales (and perhaps the Barbarians themselves) will want smoother, less reffed breakdowns, smoother, less pedantically reffed scrums so that the mind-blowing spectacular running game the Welsh love will be given precedence over an all too accurate interpretation of law. Meaning - the Harlem Globetrotting game will need a less fussy 'rule-book' ref.

Walsh it is then...............................

viewtothegym wrote:This June.
I hope the locals behave themselves and don't take it down the road of football mentality by giving him a hard time.
Lets take a leaf out of our Captain Sam's book and treat the matter with dignity and respect.
In the long term i guess this is the best game for him to come back and ref us on.

My biggest worry is he turns the free flowing ethos of BaaBaas and Welsh rugby into a petulant bore fest,put your whistle in your pocket Allan then your brain might engage before you blow it.

Rolland and the Barbarians game is a calamatous decision. He is the most pedantic and annoying ref getting around at the moment. But do not despair........

Baldrick I have a cunning plan!

The Barbarians being an invitational side are free to invite whomsoever they please to play for them.

To prevent Rollaind from refereeing this match and ruining it with his constant whistle blowing......

The Barbarians should select Rollaind. And keep him on the bench for the entire match.

Or if feeling mean...stick him on the wing up against George North and throw him a few hospital passes.

Tri

Thats genius, where do I send my letter of recomendation?

Or alternatively bring him on at 10, let sam align himself then a prop can throw a floater...

Light and little men at 10? That's a big task for Sam. I told you lads before to keep that quiet. Better to keep up the guise of GIANT killers...that's sexier than being the slayers of scarecrows

How do you keep up a guise of GIANT killers with the biggest backline in world rugby... get a grip fly!

Also are you comparing all in the 6N to scarecrows, because I see a few resemblances!

thebluesmancometh wrote:How do you keep up a guise of GIANT killers with the biggest backline in world rugby... get a grip fly!

Also are you comparing all in the 6N to scarecrows, because I see a few resemblances!

You're allowed use metaphors here, bluesman... ; hence the GIANT analogy.

It's just funny that a big man running through slight men is considered a big talent. It's a BIG plus for talented players to have biggness - but using it to screw small men into the turf isn't talent per say just size doing its thing. Sam certainly has high talent as do many of his Welsh comrades...but the 'funny' bit about running into small men isn't one of them.

Totallybiasedscarlet wrote:It was a poor, clumsy tackle. he got himself in the wrong position and tried to bail out when Clerc started going the wrong way.

Which was precisely the problem. If he'd brought him down safely rather than dropping him, he'd have stayed on the field.

Given a hard time ? What he may get a few boos ?Highly likely ,will it bother him not in the slightest .Probably as likely as him taking a more relaxed view in his officiating .

Will anyone be going to the game?

Most likely it will be Wales 3rds/4ths against some burnt out journeymen.

It's a shame Rolland is constantly picked for games when France are playing.

Also have heard the not so great news that he will be reffing Saracens vs Clermont in the HC quarter final.

beshocked wrote:It's a shame Rolland is constantly picked for games when France are playing.

Also have heard the not so great news that he will be reffing Saracens vs Clermont in the HC quarter final.

He speaks fluent French so that's why he gets more of their games.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

beshocked wrote:It's a shame Rolland is constantly picked for games when France are playing.

Also have heard the not so great news that he will be reffing Saracens vs Clermont in the HC quarter final.

He speaks fluent French so that's why he gets more of their games.

Being half French that's not much of a surprise. Still don't think it's right he is given games involving French teams.

Hartley is a 'half' New Zealander. Maybe he might throw a game their way whenever England meets them?

There are a few 'half' South Africans too - they might let a ball slip or pass them by when the English meet them. Lancaster played for Scottish underage didn't he? Wonder why he let Scotland lose their game against England in this year's 6N. Bad show there.


If we're going to talk about half-bloods and half-allegiances, we'll be here all night and for the next few days on the complications, and implications, of that one for teams as much as refs.

beshocked wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

beshocked wrote:It's a shame Rolland is constantly picked for games when France are playing.

Also have heard the not so great news that he will be reffing Saracens vs Clermont in the HC quarter final.

He speaks fluent French so that's why he gets more of their games.

Being half French that's not much of a surprise. Still don't think it's right he is given games involving French teams.

I really do agree with this. Not because i think that he is biased but because it leaves himself open to a lot of critisism if he awards an odd penalty in favor of the French.

eirebilly wrote:
I really do agree with this. Not because i think that he is biased but because it leaves himself open to a lot of critisism if he awards an odd penalty in favor of the French.

Then the French complain that they have to play matches with refs who they can't understand.

Yeah thats the other side of the coin ASLS. Maybe they can invest some time and effort into training more refs to speak French, Argentinian and Italian but where does it stop?

The thing is, Rolland will always have his credibility questioned when refeering the French if he awards something odd in their favor.

But that's not Rolland's problem, Billy.

No, its not Rollands problem lucky, i agree, but there does seem to be alot of controversial decisions when he is refing matches involving the French and thats what gets highlighted more because of his ancestry.

It needn't get highlighted 'because of his ancestry' because that plays no part in his thought processes when he's refereeing, I guarantee it. Didn't he red-card Florian Fritz a while ago when Toulouse played Wasps? Wouldn't he have died a bit inside if his 'ancestry' had such a power over him?

Can anyone tell me why wales is the only test nation that gives caps against the barbarians as a test and not a first class game?

luckless_pedestrian wrote:It needn't get highlighted 'because of his ancestry' because that plays no part in his thought processes when he's refereeing, I guarantee it. Didn't he red-card Florian Fritz a while ago when Toulouse played Wasps? Wouldn't he have died a bit inside if his 'ancestry' had such a power over him?

Lucky, i think that your mis-understanding me. I am saying that it always gets highlighted when he is reffing a French game and awards them a dodgy penalty. Its like a sore toe, only when you have one does everybody stand on it.
Award a dodgy penalty against the French, nothing said. Award a dodgy penalty for the French, his acncestry is called into question.

Its something that i would like to see adressed, maybe they can teach a few refs more french. The French ref's learn English.

eirebilly wrote:Award a dodgy penalty against the French, nothing said. Award a dodgy penalty for the French, his acncestry is called into question.

I understand you, Billy, but again, that's not Rolland's fault. My only gripe with Rolland is that he's a pedant. Now, as a pedant myself, maybe I should like him; but I wish he'd let games flow a bit more - that he refereed not just to le mot de la loi but in l'esprit du jou.

Ok, fair dues then lucky

biltongbek wrote:Can anyone tell me why wales is the only test nation that gives caps against the barbarians as a test and not a first class game?

Sentimental answer -so we can pick Martyn Williams stick him on the bench and bring him on with 5 minutes to go to get his 100th cap .

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Award a dodgy penalty against the French, nothing said. Award a dodgy penalty for the French, his acncestry is called into question.

I understand you, Billy, but again, that's not Rolland's fault. My only gripe with Rolland is that he's a pedant. Now, as a pedant myself, maybe I should like him; but I wish he'd let games flow a bit more - that he refereed not just to le mot de la loi but in l'esprit du jou.

The only problem with the 'operation freeflow' theory is that many say it's what they would like refs to do but it is positively open season on refs that do. For then we get the fans who despise the fact that a ref let things run just a tad too freely for the other side when he should have been pinging them back to the stone age. We all think we want things but the only true test is when we get those things...and the subsequent reactions. A freeflow, letting-things-run-smoothly game is, by definition, an unfair game as the side that freeflows more readily picks up the Lion's share of the result on a ref's blind eye.

It sounds like you skimmed over the 'a bit more' in my post, Fly. A referee who lets too much go is just as bad as a referee who lets next to nothing go.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:It sounds like you skimmed over the 'a bit more' in my post, Fly. A referee who lets too much go is just as bad as a referee who lets next to nothing go.

But that's also muddy water territory, luckless. A referee needs to know the rules and apply them when he sees them being broken. If he doesn't see a few, so be it - games are often won and lost on the unseen bits but that's the game, and that's the circumstances we all must accept if we still want a field game with a real ref.

But the 'letting some go, but not letting too much go, and making sure you're fair in dishing out the letting-it-go bits........................ it happens already but no, it's much too imperfect a plan to be demanding of a ref. Rules enforced when he sees infringements... the bits he doesn't get to see, well they'll take care of themselves. It's the demands for 'interpretation' over 'pedantry' that actually hang refs when they comply.

Of course it's muddy water territory. That's the problem. The job of a rugby referee is so much harder than, say, a tennis or cricket umpire. The laws in those sports don't need interpreting but simply applying. You even get to sit down in tennis.

and eat a banana.................................slowly!