Warburton Red Card - IRB Directive

[RugbyFan]

Just further weight to the argument that AR was correct if SW did in fact plead guilty to a dangerous tip tackle.

Not really. Sometimes it is easier to take a guilty verdict and get the lesser sentence then to dig your heels in on a situation that may not go your way, and thus getting a harsher sentence. You see SW will now be free to play again on 7 November, so will be available for the start of the Heineken Cup which I think is the 11th? If the IRB really wanted to make an example of this incident they could have banned him for 6 weeks which could have affected his role in the HC.

 

[Darryl Godden]

Just further weight to the argument that AR was correct if SW did in fact plead guilty to a dangerous tip tackle.

Mildly naive if you think SW/Welsh coaching staff capitulation to the card indicates an actual admittance of guilt in real terms.

No one knows either way, but if you're going to base the validity of the card on what the Welsh camp did, then I think you're grasping at straws.

Like this article for example:

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059124.html#wales+admit+poor+kicking+downfall

The headline that the IRB have used doesn't actually reflect the interview with Shaun Edwards. However, it all adds to the IRB case that they are right, AR was right and critics of the law are wrong.

 

[dave_clark]

Care to qualify your remark?

ok. it's nonsense to suggest that the IRB would slap a ban on SW just to protect the referee.

 

[Darryl Godden]

ok. it's nonsense to suggest that the IRB would slap a ban on SW just to protect the referee.

Fair enough.

Agree to disagree and all that.

 

[Simon Thomas]

To all who believe that AR was wrong to RC Warburton, the judiciary has suspended him for 3 weeks............. Some of you guys need to let go.
I have already accepted that the ABs deserved to win last night just as I accepted that Warburton deserved a RC and that AR did not cause Wales to lose to France by that decision, Wales lost because they could not kick just one of the 4 at goal they missed.

Well said The Fat.

 

[Simon Thomas]

I think the IRB have to affirm AR's decision, whether they agree or not.

That is not how the IRB (or RFU) judicial & disciplinary process works.

 

[Darryl Godden]

That is not how the IRB (or RFU) judicial & disciplinary process works.

I'm sorry, but even at the level I played, 20+ years at senior level have shown me there was more to disciplinary proceedings that what went on, on the pitch.

 

[chopper15]

You don't understand how physics works.
If you tackle someone by imparting forward force then the ball carrier will go backwards. If you tackle someone by imparting upward force then you will (or at least attempt to) lift the player off the ground.

If you tackle a ball-carrier by running into him with a lowered shoulder into his thighs, yes he may go backwards but his forward momentum could rotate his upper body forward over your back to horizontal without having to lift him. His feet as a consequence will naturally leave the ground.:hap:

 

[Simon Thomas]

I'm sorry, but even at the level I played, 20+ years at senior level have shown me there was more to disciplinary proceedings that what went on, on the pitch.

Darryl - more than happy to discuss in more detail on PMs but not here in public forums.

I have sat on numerous Disciplinary Panels, and after 7 season's as Hampshire Society Chairman I have a detailed practical knowledge of RFU Disciplinary processes, and have pretty goiod insight with both Judge Blackett and Bruce R2 being Hampshire members.

 

[Darryl Godden]

Darryl - more than happy to discuss in more detail on PMs but not here in public forums.

I have sat on numerous Disciplinary Panels, and after 7 season's as Hampshire Society Chairman I have a detailed practical knowledge of RFU Disciplinary processes, and have pretty goiod insight with both Judge Blackett and Bruce R2 being Hampshire members.

No earth shattering revelations here Simon. I've been retired since 2006.

 

[crossref]

If you tackle a ball-carrier by running into him with a lowered shoulder into his thighs, yes he may go backwards but his forward momentum could rotate his upper body forward over your back to horizontal without having to lift him. His feet as a consequence will naturally leave the ground.:hap:

if I was reffing I'd say that if the tackler DIDN'T lift him, then I wouldn't be reaching for my card.

 

[chopper15]

if I was reffing I'd say that if the tackler DIDN'T lift him, then I wouldn't be reaching for my card.

Sensible, cr. IMHO, of course.:hap:

 

[Darryl Godden]

if I was reffing I'd say that if the tackler DIDN'T lift him, then I wouldn't be reaching for my card.

Inadvertent.

But hey, if you can't make your mark on a game then what can you do.

 

[bill_d]

"Lifting" as opposed to "Downward"


You can't lift by applying downward pressure - "try again"!

There is lifting in the Kahui tackle - just not as much and more forward momentum.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

But hey, if you can't make your mark on a game then what can you do.

Only mark these refs are after is good ones. And they only get those by making the right decisions. As did Rolland.

 

[Rushforth]

Inadvertent.

But hey, if you can't make your mark on a game then what can you do.

I don't know. You probably have more posts than me despite being here since ... today. Are you trying to make your mark? Or are you actually a referee?

There may be a degree of referees protecting each other when new people post here in a fashion which clearly indicates the new poster is not a referee, but it has been very polite and nigh on invisible. As opposed to your suggestion, I humbly suggest.

 

[MrQeu]

Are we being trolled?

Seems so acording to:

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.

June 09 Memo: In 2007, the IRB Council approved a Laws Designated Members Ruling which essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and constitute dangerous play.

Direction of tackler not mentioned - try again.

Note the words in red.

Thanks - makes sense now.

Wow, didn't you read the very first word of the law? :chin:

 

[coonor]

I agree with the decision completely and straight away new Rolland would issue a red card after the incident. The main problem is the the media has influenced peoples understandings and opinions. ITV and most other media sources clearly have no understanding of law 10.4 (j), Regulation 17- appendix 1 and The IRB Spear Tackle Memorandum 2009.

 

[didds]

I think the IRB have to affirm AR's decision, whether they agree or not.

they effectively did by the panel giving SW a 3 week ban.

Next!

didds

 

[Mike Selig]

they effectively did by the panel giving SW a 3 week ban.

Next!

didds

You misunderstand. He is suggesting that the IRB felt obliged to agree with AR's decision. That the fact that they did publicly doesn't mean they actually do. He is of course talking nonsense, there are numerous examples of referees having RCs rescinded (it has happened to me once!).