Warburton Red Card - IRB Directive

[bill_d]

Not such a random question! :biggrin:

To my view the tackled player lands horizontally, on his arm/shoulder so it isn't category 1, 2, or 3.

No penalty.

Does the regulation actually mention how the player lands? Of course it's critical to the potential for injury, but largely a matter of luck?

 

[davidlandy]

Sorry for the double-post just now - and for my awful maths earlier! :biggrin:

@crossref: To some extent I agree that it's more IRB than AR - but if AR's the only top-level ref blowing this way I think you also have to ask yourself why. Could it be a NH/SH thing? Perhaps more of a "both/and" rather than "either/or".

@bill_d: I couldn't agree more. If we'd seen this before in an international it wouldn't have caused nearly so much shock and dismay (and derision of the ref).

@dixie: I'd like to see agreement between the IRB and the top refs before anything like this gets rolled out again by the IRB, and when it does it should come with a specific launch date (giving time to train refs, coaches, and players in advance), press releases, explanatory web page(s), and training materials for players, coaches, and referees. Basically a full consultation and communications strategy.

And, before each big tournament all the refs should meet to synchronise their styles as much as possible and agree interpretations, and then issue their agreed policy to the players, coaches and the media so we can all know what's going on. That way, it's clear what is being blown and why.

This would make the sport more understandable to everyone, remove uncertainty, and prevent - so far as is possible - controversy and needless derision of refs making tough calls.

 

[TNT88]

Thanks for all the responses. It clears up the confusion in my mind.

 

[davidlandy]

Here's the guidance:

"To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the
ground:

∞ The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card
should be issued for this type of tackle.

∞ The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the
player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

∞ For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty
or yellow card is sufficient."

http://www.deepsouthrugbyunion.com/images/IRB_Memorandum_re_Dangerous_Tackles.pdf

It doesn't mention how the player lands, so I think I was wrong earlier.

It talks about "horizontally" a lot - but I've seen a lot of horizontal tackles let go this RWC. Only ones more than horizontal have been called (or cited). Maybe AR would have blown up! :rc:

 

[crossref]

Sorry for the double-post just now - and for my awful maths earlier! :biggrin:

@crossref: To some extent I agree that it's more IRB than AR - but if AR's the only top-level ref blowing this way I think you also have to ask yourself why. Could it be a NH/SH thing? Perhaps more of a "both/and" rather than "either/or".

@bill_d: I couldn't agree more. If we'd seen this before in an international it wouldn't have caused nearly so much shock and dismay (and derision of the ref).

@dixie: I'd like to see agreement between the IRB and the top refs before anything like this gets rolled out again by the IRB, and when it does it should come with a specific launch date (giving time to train refs, coaches, and players in advance), press releases, explanatory web page(s), and training materials for players, coaches, and referees. Basically a full consultation and communications strategy.

And, before each big tournament all the refs should meet to synchronise their styles as much as possible and agree interpretations, and then issue their agreed policy to the players, coaches and the media so we can all know what's going on. That way, it's clear what is being blown and why.

This would make the sport more understandable to everyone, remove uncertainty, and prevent - so far as is possible - controversy and needless derision of refs making tough calls.

I don't actually think the problem is communication from IRB to top refs. They all read the 2009 memo, many times, and went to the training... and knew exaclty what was wanted but they didn't all apply it.

Why?

I think it's the communication to the wider world. The IRB did little or nothing to convince the wider world that tip tackles are dangerous - as evidence by the bewilderment of everyone last week that SW could be sent off for it.

Refs have all known in their hearts that whatever the rules say, many/most of the people around them: managers, players, coaches, journalists, TV commentators etc etc would not see anything particularly wrong with the 'drop' tip tackle, and therefore would feel that a RC was 'undeserved' therefore they bottle it.

Steve Walsh would (I suspect) rather get a little-noticed bollocking from the citing committee than have to go through what AR has had to deal with this week.


(On a much, much, much more trivial level this is excatly the same reason that I am, TBH, unlikely ever to bother to tell a young player to take off his leggings... it's just not worth it...)

 

[crossref]

It doesn't mention how the player lands, so I think I was wrong earlier.

you need to read the whole note, and the law -- it does mention how a player lands. head/upper body strikes the ground.

 

[StanBoardman]

So... is there general agreement then that this was the first ever on-field RC for spear tackle at international level since the guidance having been issued in June 2009 (i.e. well over three years ago)?

If so, is that not cause for amazement? Surely the semi-final of a RWC is hardly the time to be setting a new standard of on-field refereeing, however much one might want to end one particular kind of dangerous practice.

Er, surely the RWC semi-final demands the very highest standard of refereeing and that the game is not won or lost by virtue of unchecked dangerous play.

Or does AR just blow differently to everyone else?

He made the correct decision according to the Laws and the IRB. Why should he be punished for doing the right thing? Surely those who do the wrong thing should be punished?

And yes, disciplinary committees may have said that RC's "should" have been awarded - but that's still not the same thing as an on-field RC.

No you're right, they got away with murder because of poor refereeing, thank Goodnes AR got it right.

Re the deliberate and fatal injury in Canada, that's awful - and very tragic. Worth noting (perhaps) that this was a case of someone being forced down, with power, head first from a (unspecified) height. Would a physician agree that this carries the same risk of injury as falling under gravity on to your upper back?

Because given the right cervical spine alignment it takes very little force to fracture or cause a subluxation both of which can cause fatality or permanent damage.

And I'm wondering why the mandatory red for spear tackles when other forms of dangerous play which can also cause permanent injury eg deliberately collapsing the scrum (risk of neck injury to front row) or head-to-head contact risking concussion/brain injury are left to the referee's discretion?

So, are you in favour of making the game more dangerous or are you saying that the tip tackle is right and should be joined by deliberate scrum collapse (where it can be very hard to identify the culprit) head butts etc or are you saying we should downgrade tip tackles?

Here are the four videos I found of tip-tackles in international rugby since 2009.

Removed for brevity

(BTW RobLev, no one said on the BBC that these four incidents had been cited - are you confusing them with the three YCs awarded in this RWC which all got cited?)

I've never heard such knee jerk reactions or cavalier attitudes towards player safety than I've seen on this forum (not just from DL) and all because one player was dismissed, exactly as the Laws say he should be. It's compounded even more because if that had been Moody in a similar situation then the whole Welsh nation would have risen as one to applaud the 'correct' decision. The only reason we're hearing so much now is because it's Wales. Wales who have never ever lost a single match by themselves, it was always the cheating this player or that side or they (Wales) scored tries but the opposition won on penalties or the ref was on their side and on and on and on. They do say that when the Welsh Supporters' plane landed at the airport you could still hear the whining 3 hours after they switched the engines off. :wink:

 

[Adam]

I wonder how many on-field RC - for anytrhing at all - there have been in all top level internationals since June 2009. They aren't common, but I take your point. If this is the first RC for a dangerous tackle then it's a point well made. But still it's a criticism of the IRB and how they have rolled this out (or not) rather than of AR who did read the memo.

This is the trouble with this whole governance by memo practice. If the IRB confine themselves to writing memos they an gve the appearance of not really thinking it's important.

Referees have had training and guidance on how to interpret the memo since it was introduced. My mate even had the message repeated last Monday at his meeting (no doubt in response to the enforcement at the start of RWC).

They don't just send out memos, they educate referees at training evenings. I don't understand how people don't seem to see why they think referees have just been sent this memo, read it, and taken their own conclusions from it.

All referees at the high levels spend hours reviewing their matches. Hell, I even spend a good hour speaking to my coach and others about my match at the weekend and I'm only level 10.

 

[davidlandy]

you need to read the whole note, and the law -- it does mention how a player lands. head/upper body strikes the ground.

Ah, OK, thanks.

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. Sanction: Penalty kick

So... is horizontal (ie flat on the back) OK or not? Seems not to be blown by everyone, consistently...

 

[bill_d]

I've never heard such knee jerk reactions or cavalier attitudes towards player safety than I've seen on this forum (not just from DL) and all because one player was dismissed, exactly as the Laws say he should be. It's compounded even more because if that had been Moody in a similar situation then the whole Welsh nation would have risen as one to applaud the 'correct' decision. The only reason we're hearing so much now is because it's Wales. Wales who have never ever lost a single match by themselves, it was always the cheating this player or that side or they (Wales) scored tries but the opposition won on penalties or the ref was on their side and on and on and on. They do say that when the Welsh Supporters' plane landed at the airport you could still hear the whining 3 hours after they switched the engines off. :wink:

If Welsh overreaction leads to something meaningful being said/done about the lack of proper enforcement of the rule (at international level at least) then I would say that was a good thing.

:wales:

 

[davidlandy]

Referees have had training and guidance on how to interpret the memo since it was introduced. My mate even had the message repeated last Monday at his meeting (no doubt in response to the enforcement at the start of RWC).

They don't just send out memos, they educate referees at training evenings. I don't understand how people don't seem to see why they think referees have just been sent this memo, read it, and taken their own conclusions from it.

All referees at the high levels spend hours reviewing their matches. Hell, I even spend a good hour speaking to my coach and others about my match at the weekend and I'm only level 10.

Point taken.

So, what do you think is missing such that AR was the first ref to call this a RC in international rugby?

Do you agree with crossref that it's to do with IRB's communication to the wider world?

 

[OB..]

So, what do you think is missing such that AR was the first ref to call this a RC in international rugby?

No idea what was missing, but I hope the top referees get this sorted out quickly.

Do you agree with crossref that it's to do with IRB's communication to the wider world?

He has a good general point about informing the wider world, but I do not believe it has any relevance here. The refs knew, the coaches knew, the players knew.

 

[davidlandy]

Justin Tipuric has been suspended for three weeks for a dangerous tip tackle in the Ospreys' RaboDirect win in Munster on 8 October.
The flanker was sin-binned for the tackle on fly-half Ian Keatley in the 51st minute of the 17-13 victory.
The ban is similar to the one Sam Warburton received for his dangerous tackle for Wales against France.
And the committee believed Tipuric's tackle warranted a red rather than yellow card.
But having weighed up the video evidence and listened to the player's explanation the committee considered the offence to be at the low end of the IRB scale of offending.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15353043.stm

 

[Adam]

Point taken.

So, what do you think is missing such that AR was the first ref to call this a RC in international rugby?

Do you agree with crossref that it's to do with IRB's communication to the wider world?

Clear (unobstructed) sight, one-on-one tackle, very close to the tackle and clear and obvious.

By the wider world I assume you mean fans? If you do then I think more should have been done however each time a new memo or directive is circulated referees do talk to players and coaches about it. If commentators spent time (like Brian Moore has done) learning the laws, doing a referees' course, attending meetings then that would go a long way to helping the situation.

The elite players and coaches all knew what the guidance is due to numerous briefings, seminars and communications from NGB's, referees and administrators. ANY professional player can have no complaints about receiving a RC for a tip tackle.

 

[Adam]

Justin Tipuric has been suspended for three weeks for a dangerous tip tackle in the Ospreys' RaboDirect win in Munster on 8 October.
The flanker was sin-binned for the tackle on fly-half Ian Keatley in the 51st minute of the 17-13 victory.
The ban is similar to the one Sam Warburton received for his dangerous tackle for Wales against France.
And the committee believed Tipuric's tackle warranted a red rather than yellow card.
But having weighed up the video evidence and listened to the player's explanation the committee considered the offence to be at the low end of the IRB scale of offending.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15353043.stm

The ban isn't similar to Warburton's ban. Warburton got a SIX week ban. He only has to serve three of them due to mitigation. I would assume Tipuric's tackle (having not seen it) wasn't as severe as Warburton's.

 

[Dixie]

Justin Tipuric has been suspended for three weeks for a dangerous tip tackle in the Ospreys' RaboDirect win in Munster on 8 October.
The flanker was sin-binned for the tackle on fly-half Ian Keatley in the 51st minute of the 17-13 victory.
The ban is similar to the one Sam Warburton received for his dangerous tackle for Wales against France.
And the committee believed Tipuric's tackle warranted a red rather than yellow card.
But having weighed up the video evidence and listened to the player's explanation the committee considered the offence to be at the low end of the IRB scale of offending.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15353043.stm

Davidlandy, I think this is the point. It's easy to come up with instances in which the ref bottled it and gave a yellow card, with the citing commissioner taking action and the disciplinary panel imposing bans; indeed, the iRB's guidance was issued because that unsatisfactory situation was recognised. But if this is indeed the first RC for the offence in an international since the guidance of 2009 (as it appears), then the iRB must accept a significant share of blame for not getting to grips with the continuing problem. Indeed, they rewarded a serial offender with a RWC quarter final.

 

[StanBoardman]

Davidlandy, I think this is the point. It's easy to come up with instances in which the ref bottled it and gave a yellow card, with the citing commissioner taking action and the disciplinary panel imposing bans; indeed, the iRB's guidance was issued because that unsatisfactory situation was recognised. But if this is indeed the first RC for the offence in an international since the guidance of 2009 (as it appears), then the iRB must accept a significant share of blame for not getting to grips with the continuing problem. Indeed, they rewarded a serial offender with a RWC quarter final.

Come on now, Wales aren't that bad.

 

[davidlandy]

The ban isn't similar to Warburton's ban. Warburton got a SIX week ban. He only has to serve three of them due to mitigation. I would assume Tipuric's tackle (having not seen it) wasn't as severe as Warburton's.

Not really important, but not quite accurate.

In Warburton's case "[t]he Judicial Officer concluded that the offence was mid range on the scale of seriousness, which has an entry point of six weeks. He found that there were no aggravating features and there were compelling on-field and/or off-field mitigating features including the Player’s admission, outstanding character and disciplinary record and remorse. Therefore, the suspension was reduced to a period of three weeks."

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2059157.html#warburton+suspended+three+weeks

Personally I'm amazed that if so much communication has gone into spreading the word about the tip-tackle getting a mandatory RC, and we are to believe that no one should be surprised to receive a RC for it, how come they are still being yellow-carded?

It does not make sense.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

If commentators spent time (like Brian Moore has done) learning the laws, doing a referees' course, attending meetings then that would go a long way to helping the situation.

That didn't stop BM going off on one (on TalkSport - I had to listen to 3/4 of the match before I saw "the" tackle) when SW got sent off. He blamed AR for ruining the match and used words like ludicrous, ridiculous etc. John Taylor was much more measured in his comments - and he's Welsh! I like JT as a commentator I don't know where he goes between World Cups!

BM's comments were in the same vein as Laurence D's and Francois P's on the telly although in the nebulous world of radio he wasn't afforded the opportunity to make himself sound a complete twat like the telly lot did at half time and full time.

 

[bill_d]

That didn't stop BM going off on one (on TalkSport - I had to listen to 3/4 of the match before I saw "the" tackle) when SW got sent off. He blamed AR for ruining the match and used words like ludicrous, ridiculous etc. John Taylor was much more measured in his comments - and he's Welsh! I like JT as a commentator I don't know where he goes between World Cups!

BM's comments were in the same vein as Laurence D's and Francois P's on the telly although in the nebulous world of radio he wasn't afforded the opportunity to make himself sound a complete twat like the telly lot did at half time and full time.

Agreed, the pundits didn't actually add much of use to the situation, although what did you make of Pienaar's point that if refs blew up for every infringement they saw then we wouldn't have a game at all (or words to that effect)? I am not suggesting that AR was wrong by the way - simply interested to hear from those of you that do referee on that point.