Warburton Red Card - IRB Directive

[bill_d]

finally this directive makes it on to a 'official' website. Perhaps they'll put it on the IRB website now

Yes, covers Warburton's red but not Cahui getting off scot free today or any other of the lackadaisical decisions in this area in the pools. Woeful lack of responsibility RWC...

 

[Adam]

Yes, covers Warburton's red but not Cahui getting off scot free today or any other of the lackadaisical decisions in this area in the pools. Woeful lack of responsibility RWC...

Or you could wait until the citing commissioner has done his job before getting all uppity.

 

[bill_d]

Or you could wait until the citing commissioner has done his job before getting all uppity.

If the player is cited that is simply an admission of a failure on the part of the officials on the pitch and there have been too many with regard to this type of offence in this tournament. With the eyes of the world upon these games you would think they could establish continuity across a small pool of officials. Someone should take responsibility otherwise it will be the same in 4 years time!

 

[JohnP]

guys
actually for once disappointed in the responses provided to a legitimate question asked on this thread an one i posted during the game (#9) on the other thread. The directive talks about legs above the horizontal it says nothing about height or how much above the horizontal. The tackle on Cooper resulted in legs above the horizontal and he was driven ( as part of the tackle) into the ground his back landing first. My read of the directive says nothing re height etc or the angle the body is above the horizontal. are we mortals missing something?

 

[crossref]

guys
actually for once disappointed in the responses provided to a legitimate question asked on this thread an one i posted during the game (#9) on the other thread. The directive talks about legs above the horizontal it says nothing about height or how much above the horizontal. The tackle on Cooper resulted in legs above the horizontal and he was driven ( as part of the tackle) into the ground his back landing first. My read of the directive says nothing re height etc or the angle the body is above the horizontal. are we mortals missing something?

what's your question?

 

[Adam]

guys
actually for once disappointed in the responses provided to a legitimate question asked on this thread an one i posted during the game (#9) on the other thread. The directive talks about legs above the horizontal it says nothing about height or how much above the horizontal. The tackle on Cooper resulted in legs above the horizontal and he was driven ( as part of the tackle) into the ground his back landing first. My read of the directive says nothing re height etc or the angle the body is above the horizontal. are we mortals missing something?

It makes no difference about the legs. The point is that the shoulder (or neck and head for that matter) cannot be lower than the level of the hips.

 

[Tonyowl]

There is no doubt that Warburton's tackle was dangerous.
There is no doubt that the IRB's directives are clear.
What is not clear is the consistency of ref's interpretation and the IRB's prudence when electing a ref to a particular game.
Firstly, this was a rugby World Cup semi final that comes around but once every 4 years. What were the IRB thinking allocating a ref called Alain 'Colm Pierre' Rolland to officiate a game at this level involving France, it is ridiculous before the first whistle is blown.
Then there is interpretation. This was the only red card for such a tackle in the whole tournement, committed by a clean player who made an error of jugment. Rolland had a choice, he knew which choices he would be making in the changing room. If it hadn't been Warburton it bwould have been another welshman or even men. France have performed poorly throughout the tournement, his fellow countrymen needed all the help they could get - and the got it. Disgraceful.

 

[Mike Selig]

There is no doubt that Warburton's tackle was dangerous.
There is no doubt that the IRB's directives are clear.
What is not clear is the consistency of ref's interpretation and the IRB's prudence when electing a ref to a particular game.
Firstly, this was a rugby World Cup semi final that comes around but once every 4 years. What were the IRB thinking allocating a ref called Alain 'Colm Pierre' Rolland to officiate a game at this level involving France, it is ridiculous before the first whistle is blown.
Then there is interpretation. This was the only red card for such a tackle in the whole tournement, committed by a clean player who made an error of jugment. Rolland had a choice, he knew which choices he would be making in the changing room. If it hadn't been Warburton it bwould have been another welshman or even men. France have performed poorly throughout the tournement, his fellow countrymen needed all the help they could get - and the got it. Disgraceful.

Welcome to the forums. I hope you aren't suggesting Rolland was biased. he is Irish, he has played for Ireland, he has reffed France (and French teams) on numerous occasions. It is a false argument.

Tournaments are not decided on the basis of who has played the most attractive or better rugby in previous stages.

 

[bill_d]

It makes no difference about the legs. The point is that the shoulder (or neck and head for that matter) cannot be lower than the level of the hips.

Shoulder neck and head all lower than hips - ref and touch judge a little behind the play but unobscured sight lines. The fact that this can go without comment really makes a nonsense of yesterday's decision.

 

[bill_d]

I hope you aren't suggesting Rolland was biased. he is Irish, he has played for Ireland, he has reffed France (and French teams) on numerous occasions. It is a false argument.

AR's actions have left him open to the charge - he has no one to blame but himself. And perhaps the IRB for selecting him for this game...

 

[Mike Selig]

AR's actions have left him open to the charge

What, by doing what he's expressly been told to do? Are you saying that he was biased (yes or no)?

 

[crossref]

AR's actions have left him open to the charge - he has no one to blame but himself..

what rubbish -- AR's decision is easily and demonstrably explained by the 2009 guidance that the IRB require him to follow.
the referees you should be questioning at the ones who failed to follow the guidance.

 

[Tonyowl]

Welcome to the forums. I hope you aren't suggesting Rolland was biased. he is Irish, he has played for Ireland, he has reffed France (and French teams) on numerous occasions. It is a false argument.

Tournaments are not decided on the basis of who has played the most attractive or better rugby in previous stages.

The directive states:
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.

The single word SHOULD is the center of the argument of interpretation. Rolland was not doing what he was told to do, he was doing what he wanted to do. That is what makes this a disgrace. The IRB should hold an enquirey and make his actions accountable and sanctionable.

 

[bill_d]

What, by doing what he's expressly been told to do? Are you saying that he was biased (yes or no)?

I have no opinion on whether he was being biased or not. In choosing to issue the only RC of the tournament for this kind of offence he is obviously inviting the criticism. He had other options - he chose the wrong one - he will now have to live with it.

 

[Adam]

The directive states:
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.

The single word SHOULD is the center of the argument of interpretation. Rolland was not doing what he was told to do, he was doing what he wanted to do. That is what makes this a disgrace. The IRB should hold an enquirey and make his actions accountable and sanctionable.

The reason the word 'should' is used in that case is because prior to that directive RCs weren't being issued for this type of tackle.

People ask for clarity and when clarity is given people complain.

 

[Tonyowl]

If the word MUST were to be used then clarity of the situation would have been settled and there would be no argument.

As each incident must be judged on its own, the world SHOULD has to be used to allow the ref descretion. With descretion comes choice. Rolland had a choice and got it wrong.

 

[bill_d]

what rubbish -- AR's decision is easily and demonstrably explained by the 2009 guidance that the IRB require him to follow.
the referees you should be questioning at the ones who failed to follow the guidance.

So he is right and all the other referees, including Joubert today, are all wrong? As Pienaar said today, you could take any and every breakdown in any game and find at least one penalty offence if you chose to - and I would add every scrum seeing as nobody bothers about the put-in any more. It was a poor decision that spoilt the tournament for an awful lot people, exposed AR to charges of bias and showed up the IRB as a bunch of incompetents who simply cannot enforce their own barmy legislation. A law that is not enforceable is not a law at all...

 

[bill_d]

The reason the word 'should' is used in that case is because prior to that directive RCs weren't being issued for this type of tackle.

What does that even mean?

 

[MattyP]

I have no opinion on whether he was being biased or not. In choosing to issue the only RC of the tournament for this kind of offence he is obviously inviting the criticism. He had other options - he chose the wrong one - he will now have to live with it.

What are these "options" that you keep referring to, here and on other threads? The ref taking the option to ignore what he saw? I think that the consensus understanding amongst the majority of referees, here and elsewhere (I'm not claiming to speak for them here, only relaying my observation) is that the intent of the IRB directive is that the spear tackles and tip tackles without the tackler actively assisting the ball carrier back to ground safely are automatic red cards.

By the way, I don't buy into the legalistic approach set forth by Tonyowl (another newly-minted member of the site who's a Welsh supporter). I've been a lawyer for 15 years, I wrote an undergraduate jurisprudence paper on the interpretation of rugby laws 20 years ago, and have followed them closely ever since. The intent of the IRB statement is clear, and the legalistic interpretation of the word "should", which sometimes has been held by English courts in contractual interpretation to mean other than the imperative as distinct from "must", is putting to finer point on it. The plain English intent is that he should get a red card - it's only applying legalistic pedantry that one may argue that "should" creates discretion. If you followed the origin and circumstances of this memo from 2005 and the "big whinge" from the home unions about Brian O'Driscoll "incident" onwards, the clear intent of the IRB memo was to remove discretion, and have referees send off players for spear and tip tackles.

Now please, either give some substance as to your "options" argument, or stop clogging up the site with the gain-saying through your red-tinted lenses of every substantiated comment that is made trying explain something for your benefit.

 

[MattyP]

The reason the word 'should' is used in that case is because prior to that directive RCs weren't being issued for this type of tackle.

People ask for clarity and when clarity is given people complain.

D'accord:clap: