Varndell's Yellow Card

sorry, but what?

I understand it was given for a dangerous tackle (tip tackle) but can anyone else fail to see the danger in that tackle?

He picked up and drove the player over the touchline before knowingly placing the player down on his thighs/backside first. Not even a single Bath player expected even a penalty.....

Now, if a referee had made this decision then ok, we can use the whole 'the referee only gets to see it once at full speed" argument, but this decision went to the TMO who looked at it numerous times from different angles in different speeds.

Penalty, possibly, at the very worst.

Disgusting decision.

Good that they're going to the TMO for it I suppose. Floods tackle looked far more dangerous although nobody was hurt in that incident either. Nor did anyone 'milk it' which is strictly a French trait.

Utter joke of a yellow card, penalty at most for recklessness much like recklessly running into a player in the air or interfering with the lifted player in the lineout but no way should Varndell have been sent off.

I thought that Varndel was hard done by to be honest.
Yes he lifted him up, but it seemed more like momentum than any think else.

Shocking decision by the TMO.

The player was placed rather gently on the ground and the only reason his head was briefly below the hips is because the tackled player was trying to get the ball on the ground.

Mind the Day YC was worse. A clear balancing up YC

Awful decision by the ref for bottling it and then even worse by the TMO. worst of all, it mean that the red had to give day a card as well, citing the "2 wrongs to make a right" as his reason. What a tool.

Wasps have been great in the second half, but the refereeing has been appalling.

Pathetic, the sport is getting soft.

Correct me if im wrong but the Yellow card was introduced for cynical play whilst defending in your own 22?

Just watched the game on Sky and it certainly wasn't a yellow card. The other worrying thing was when Heathcote beat Daly to the ball in the in goal area and Stuart Barnes started saying the ref might give a penalty try. Do they want to remove all physical aspects of rugby?

MacKnocked-on wrote:Just watched the game on Sky and it certainly wasn't a yellow card. The other worrying thing was when Heathcote beat Daly to the ball in the in goal area and Stuart Barnes started saying the ref might give a penalty try. Do they want to remove all physical aspects of rugby?

Well one angle made it look bad because he clearly had no intention of playing the ball and leaned towards Daly. Anyway it wasn't given so fair enough.

I'm going to have to disagree with the bulk of you in that it was a deserved yellow card. The tackle wasn't dangerous and certainly in my playing days would be classed as a good old fashioned dump tackle, but by the letter of the law the tackle was an offense. I don't think the law is right, but it is the law the IRB have seen fit to introduce, so Varndell had to go.

MacKnocked-on wrote:Just watched the game on Sky and it certainly wasn't a yellow card. The other worrying thing was when Heathcote beat Daly to the ball in the in goal area and Stuart Barnes started saying the ref might give a penalty try. Do they want to remove all physical aspects of rugby?

Heathcote didn't beat Daly to the ball, he shoulder barged him

I think Daly's issue was Hipkiss pulling him back off the ball rather than Heathcote.

HongKongCherry wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with the bulk of you in that it was a deserved yellow card. The tackle wasn't dangerous and certainly in my playing days would be classed as a good old fashioned dump tackle, but by the letter of the law the tackle was an offense. I don't think the law is right, but it is the law the IRB have seen fit to introduce, so Varndell had to go.

Letter of what law? IIRC the offence that mentions the "beyond horizontal" talks about putting that player down safely. Nothing says you can't do it in some part of the tackle. The "letter of the law" thing is if they're dropped on their head. As far as I'm aware that's it. Could be wrong of course.

Rugby is going to always plagued with these ridiculous incidents of yellow cards being issued for innocuous "offences", until people start discovering the solution ....The white card.

HammerofThunor wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with the bulk of you in that it was a deserved yellow card. The tackle wasn't dangerous and certainly in my playing days would be classed as a good old fashioned dump tackle, but by the letter of the law the tackle was an offense. I don't think the law is right, but it is the law the IRB have seen fit to introduce, so Varndell had to go.

Letter of what law? IIRC the offence that mentions the "beyond horizontal" talks about putting that player down safely. Nothing says you can't do it in some part of the tackle. The "letter of the law" thing is if they're dropped on their head. As far as I'm aware that's it. Could be wrong of course.

Hammer, I very much stand to be corrected, but my understanding was that the moment a player's hips go above their shoulders that is deemed an offence.

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059102.html

Law 10.4(j) reads: 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.

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

Regular directives to Unions, Match Officials and Judicial Officers have been issued to reinforce the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance regarding dangerous tackles and the promotion of player welfare.

Even if you deem the tackle to be dangerous, thinking that Varndell drove or dropped the player (I do not) then there is still room in the law and the guidlines issued to give just a penalty.

for me the law was not broken as although lifting the player he did not drop or drive him to the ground.

I thought when I saw that tackle that it was OK.
But, as others have said - to the letter of the law, its a yellow - fair enough.

But compare that to the tackle on Goode which was completely missed by the ref (Flood has now been cited for) - that tackle is a real spear tackle where the head and shoulders were driven into the floor.

To me, that was a perfect wing on wing tackle over the touchline. Im with Londontiger, although the player was lifted, it was 1. not dangerous 2. he was placed on the ground safely (even the commentator at the time mentioned that it looked like varndell had placed him down very softly).

When you compare that to lineouts where a players support is taken away or someone runs under and tackles a player in the air catching a high ball.... well, ridiculous.

Just to say, Varndell suffered the same on-field punishment as Bradley Davies did for his tip-tackle in the 6nations... (im assuming there'll be no ban for varndell - although I wouldnt be too surprised with the inconsistencies in citings).

Agree with Auckland, the white card is great. but my problem with this is that it went to the TMO at the time and he viewed the tackle numerous times in different speeds and from different angles and still managed to give a yellow.

It was a joke I thought, by the letter of the law a penalty, but I dont see how it was dangerous.

Also the precedent of 'he had a yellow for that so you should go too' for Day is a bit worrying I think. Surely every offence should be judged on its own merit? The exception being for repeated infringments near the line.

Bathman, agreed, 2 wrongs do not make a right. I was annoyed at the level of refereeing in the main over the weekend - to me, it was poor.

I dont blame the ref for the Varndell yellow (that was the TMO's fault - the referee did the right thing in referring it as he wasnt sure it was a dangerous tackle) but to then 'even it up' essentially was shocking and something you'd expect at grassroots.

propdavid_london wrote:I thought when I saw that tackle that it was OK.
But, as others have said - to the letter of the law, its a yellow - fair enough.

But compare that to the tackle on Goode which was completely missed by the ref (Flood has now been cited for) - that tackle is a real spear tackle where the head and shoulders were driven into the floor.

No it isn't. The letter of the law is that if a player is lifted up and dropped on their head it's a red. That is the ONLY thing that is cut and dry.

For everything it's just 'dangerous tackles'. Dangerous isn't specified as lifting or tilting. It's just something that's 'dangerous'. There was nothing dangerous in Varndell's tackle so it shouldn't have been a card.

The main aspect of this card that annoyed me was the TMO even stating that the player landed on his back but then recommended a yellow anyway. Utter tosh and the evening up yellow just made the entire thing worse. Poor reffing I thought.

From what I saw, Varndell made sure that having lifted his opponent, he returned him safely to the ground, with the contact happening on the tackled player's hip and back-side. As such, it does not contravene the law quoted above:

"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"

So, unlucky to be carded, although if the ref made the judgement on a single viewing I could understand why it was given. If the TMO provided guidance, he needs some re-education on basic human anatomy.

It was a TMO decision

We could see the same replays the TMO saw on the screen at the ground. Everyone was astouded that Varndell was carded, when he placed the Bath player on his harris.

The card for Day looked equally daft. A penalty yes, as Day interfered with the player in the air; but it wasn't dangerous.

This was the same TMO (Grashof) who ruined the Tigers v Bath game five weeks ago for recommending three red cards, and a series of yellows.

He seems a bit power crazy and definitely could do with some education in the application of the laws, and some empathy with the players. It was not a dirty game yesterday; others are and cards can be used to allow offenders to calm down.