Wales v France SF

[dave_clark]

so something is worth a ban, but not worth being removed from the current game. interesting.

 

[Adam]

How do you come to that question from my question? Really rather obtuse of you. The point I'm making is that at the time a yellow card and a three week ban were considered sufficient. And reasonable. So the same response for warburton's tackle would also be sufficient and reasonable. Rolland chose the wrong correct response.

If it's worth a three week ban then it means it was worth a RC.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Really, there is a lot of BS being spoke by people who have never held a whistle in their lives

I will repeat what I said earlier. The only person responsible for Warburton's red card is Warburton

He picked up Clerc, not Rolland
He flipped Clerc over, not Rolland
He dropped Clerc on his head, not Rolland

This directive about dangerous tackles has been around for two years. A large number of these tackles have resulted in red cards and/or suspensions over that time including three in this RWC prior to Warburton's

Its up to the players to learn NOT to stop, grasp and lift players up and then turn them over and drop (or drive) them to the ground. If they don't to that, they are not going to be in any danger of being red carded for a tip tackle.

 

[OB..]

How do you come to that question from my question?

The implication was that if we hadn't complained then it wasn't a red card.

The point I'm making is that at the time a yellow card and a three week ban were considered sufficient. And reasonable. So the same response for warburton's tackle would also be sufficient and reasonable. Rolland chose the wrong correct response.

A three week ban means that the referee got it wrong and should have given a red card. In fact the Judicial Officer said so:

the Judicial Officer was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the referee’s reasons for his decision were wrong.

 

[B52 REF]

if the welsh coach can accept the RC as the correct decision why can't the fans? "if POB backs ar i'll accept that"
as i've said before some refs are uncomfortable with the lack of discretion afforded by trhe directive- it has been a hotly debated issue here and disquiet/representtions to IRB have already been made through normal channels. All refs strive for consitency from themslves and across "tourney teams" but sometimes we fail to acheive (as arguably here ) but tend to be our own worst critics and do front up and apologise (when so allowed by IRB/tourney rules e.g RWC where POB or even a.watson do it for us)

 

[Mike Selig]

As my final word on the matter (which I shall post on all relevant threads) unless other salient points come up:

SW picked Clerc up, took him past the horizontal and dropped him. Whatever his intent, the outcome was that Clerc fell and put all his body weight onto his head and shoulders. Under IRB guidance, a red card is mandated for this kind of tackle, regardless of intent or circumstance. AR gave the correct decision, and the only person to blame for these events is SW, not AR (or as has laughably been suggested Clerc for somehow breaking the tackle so that he landed on his head). Earlier in this WC we have seen similar tackles (although for me this one was more clear cut) for which RCs haven't been issued. This is regrettable, but subsequent disciplinary procedures have left no doubt that the refs on those days were wrong (and notice none of them were refereeing this week-end) and AR was right. To suggest AR should have given the wrong decision because other refs have previously is clearly nonsense.

 

[FlipFlop]

Can we stop talking about a 3 week ban? It was a 6 week ban, reduced to 3 weeks due to remourse & good character.

That is quite a long initial period (6 weeks) for a professional player to get.


And perhaps we need to restate a simple point - citings are only allowable for incidents that should have been red cards. If a citing is upheld it means the referee did not get it right on the pitch.

And for those talking about the size difference - say Shane Williams had his head taken off by a tackle by a tall 2nd row. Is height difference an excuse not to red card for a high tackle? I say no - you need to adjust to the opponent, size, speed etc. As the tackler, you have that duty of care.

And if Alain had taken his time and spoken to the ARs the conversation would have gone:
Alain: He picked him up, turned him and dropped him. Do you have anything else to add?
AR: No.
Alain: That's a red card
AR: Okay

Then the comentators would be saying: He can't have been sure, he had to ask his AR's. If he was sure he wouldn't have needed to ask...

 

[RugbyFan]

He dropped Clerc on his head, not Rolland

I have seen many people say this but it is clearly wrong.

Lets look at it here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMHfH5lXZqY
27s you see Blue14 on floor clutching his head.
38s you see slow motion of left shoulder hit floor before anything else.
53s you see left arm hitting ground a split second before left shoulder.

Other than that, I agree it was dangerous play and players should be taught/told not to tackle in this manner.

 

[bill_d]

I have seen many people say this but it is clearly wrong.

Lets look at it here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMHfH5lXZqY
27s you see Blue14 on floor clutching his head.
38s you see slow motion of left shoulder hit floor before anything else.
53s you see left arm hitting ground a split second before left shoulder.

Other than that, I agree it was dangerous play and players should be taught/told not to tackle in this manner.

He's right - he's not dropped on head or neck. Did he require any treatment by the way beyond the magic sponge?

 

[FKlopper]

And if Alain had taken his time and spoken to the ARs the conversation would have gone:
Alain: He picked him up, turned him and dropped him. Do you have anything else to add?
AR: No.
Alain: That's a red card
AR: Okay

Then the comentators would be saying: He can't have been sure, he had to ask his AR's. If he was sure he wouldn't have needed to ask...

Two things here:
1) What could Rolland have done if he called Kaplan and/or Barnes over, and they both gave him different versions e.g Barnes saying just a penalty, Kaplan a yellow and Rolland thinking it was a red. Would have made it much more confusing, and given the commentators plenty of ammo to aim at Rollers if he had persisted with a red card, and if not, the wrong decision would have been made.

2) You could see Jonathan Kaplan in view just after Rolland stopped play, and he didn't have his flag out - so why should Alain go over if he's not signalling foul play? (Obviously Kaplan could be using the comms, so this point may be irrelevant)

 

[Shaggy]

Welcome to the forum, and nice to see a non-ref understand the directive and be content with it. We have been facing an uphill battle persuading people that the RC was right and that just because other refs (Only Steve Walsh, Alain had another citing but hadn't seen the incident) hadn't RC'd meant Alain shouldn't have.

Thanks Robert ... I've seen the consistency argument on another forum that i'm on, but a lot can't seem to grasp the fact that in terms of the laws and directives, it's the other refs that need to be consistent Mr Rolland, not the other way around

 

[chopper15]

'If a player, with only his legs lying in touch, deliberately knocks a ball in the FoP into his chest, is it a PK?'

Anybody else want a go before I give you the answer?. . . . that is, of course, if you're interested in knowing.:hap:

 

[Mike Selig]

'If a player, with only his legs lying in touch, deliberately knocks a ball in the FoP into his chest, is it a PK?'

Anybody else want a go before I give you the answer?. . . . that is, of course, if you're interested in knowing.:hap:

Chopper,

I like your hypotheticals as much as anybody, but could we forget this one until the furore over the RC has died a bit? I find myself using a lot of energy and don't have much left to engage my brain in some whacko idea of yours.

TBH I can't remember the incident, but I'll have another look later in the week. Can you wait until then?

 

[OB..]

He's right - he's not dropped on head or neck.

Irrelevant.
[LAWS]Law 10.4 (j) 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.[/LAWS]

You may be interested to know that the original version of that law was [LAWS]Law 10.4 (j) 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 first is dangerous play.[/LAWS]Note that the word "first" was subsequently removed. It was realised that a player sticking out his hand to protect himself was still at significant risk, and the aim was to get rid of that type of tackle.

 

[chopper15]

Chopper,

I like your hypotheticals as much as anybody, but could we forget this one until the furore over the RC has died a bit? I find myself using a lot of energy and don't have much left to engage my brain in some whacko idea of yours.

TBH I can't remember the incident, but I'll have another look later in the week. Can you wait until then?

Agree, mike, but will just point out it wasn't a hypo it was the first post on this series of threads.:hap:

Agree, mike, but will just point out it wasn't a hypo

 

[Mike Selig]

Agree, mike, but will just point out it wasn't a hypo it was the first post on this series of threads.:hap:

Agree, mike, but will just point out it wasn't a hypo

You're right of course, the word "hypothetical" was ill-employed. Apologies. The thrust of my post remains the same, I shall look at the incident you mention sometime during the week and get back to you then.

 

[chopper15]

You're right of course, the word "hypothetical" was ill-employed. Apologies. The thrust of my post remains the same, I shall look at the incident you mention sometime during the week and get back to you then.

Have you had a chance yet to read BM's aricle? #138

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...-IRB-Directive&p=180704&highlight=#post180704

 

[Davet]

Chopper - I don't need yo to give me the answer, I've already told you what it is.