Warburton Red Card - IRB Directive

[Mike Selig]

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.

Not good enough, yes or no, was he biased in your view?

He chose to correctly apply the laws. I'm sorry you think this is a wrong decision. I'm sorry you think getting a major call right in a RWC semi-final opens up questions of integrity.

 

[Mike Selig]

So he is right and all the other referees, including Joubert today, are all wrong?

I don't know about Joubert, I missed the 5 crucial minutes. The other refs were wrong as per the suspensions handed out at disciplinaries.

I have dealt with the argument of "refs always apply discretion": there is a major difference between applying some technical laws liberally and directly ignoring an explicit directive which deals with dangerous play.

 

[bill_d]

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.

His "options" were to do exactly what other referees in the tournament have done. If the intent of the IRB is actually to "remove discretion" then self-evidently they have not done a very good job have they? Perhaps an admission of this might put them on the right path to fixing it. Problems do not go away when you pretend they are not there.

 

[Adam]

What does that even mean?

Before 8th June 2009 RCs weren't being given for this type of tackle. The directive stated that tackles like these (in the past) should have been given. The directive is saying that for this type of tackle after 8th June 2009 RCs are the sanction.

You're taking the meaning of should to be the wrong way round.

 

[dickell]

Those criticising AR for his decision have short memories. He made exactly the same decision in Wasps v Toulouse last season when he RCd one of the French centres (?Medard) for the same offence. He has simply been consistent.

 

[Mike Selig]

Those criticising AR for his decision have short memories. He made exactly the same decision in Wasps v Toulouse last season when he RCd one of the French centres (?Medard) for the same offence. He has simply been consistent.

Fritz.

 

[bill_d]

OK then - there are two facts here. 1. Rolland made a call that was technically on the money. 2. The call is viewed as controversial by a lot of people because it was not consistent with other decisions in this tournament, and because they are Welsh. These are facts and they are not reconcilable. The game is not best served by taking either on it's own. Simply saying Rolland was right and leaving it there does nothing in terms of improving the game. In a situation where the majority of tip tackle decisions in the tournament were wrong shouldn't everyone actually be looking at why they were wrong instead of waving a memo around on the one occasion where the ref was right?

 

[bill_d]

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.

Sorry to clog up your site with questions which sadly do not meet with answers unless it is to wave the memo around again. Nice attitude - and you wonder why the rest of the world consider most refs to be high-handed and out of touch...

 

[Tonyowl]

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.

And I have been a police officer for over 20 years at the sharp end where legalistic interpretations of the 'word' written in sterile unrealistic rooms are tested and implemented - at the time and not with the benifit of hindsight. Are you saying that 'should' does not allow discretion?
No regulation forced Rolland to show red, it was his discretionary choice.
Are you suggesting that because I am Welsh that I am viewing this from a bias view?
If so your suggestion would imply that a person from a French family would view things similarly.
Now please, do not quote reams of legal mumbo jumbo to enforce your 'argument', keep it for the courts. We are talking about sport not criminal law.

 

[jdlk]

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.

You seem to be hanging your argument on the word should. Generally, in formal English (and the directive is a formal document), the word "should" implies obligation (e.g. "passengers should remain seated until the plane stops"). So "a red card should be issued for this type of tackle" is an instruction to issue a red card for that type of tackle, not a suggestion. Rolland was right.

Spear tackles are dangerous. I would go even further than the IRB. I would tell referees that if they see a spear tackle and do not issue a red card, then the referee faces a possible ban.

 

[upnunder]

It appears to me you just asking questions and not liking it because you are not getting the answers you want to hear.

 

[crossref]

to understand the meaning of a single word it's necessary to look at the context.

the context is

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

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

2 - 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.

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

Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) of the circumstances of the tackle.

it's quite clear from this that the authors mean NO discretion in tackles that fit (1) and (2), but for tackles that are dangerous, but DON'T fit (1) or (2) then discretion is allowed.

SW tackles was a (2)

 

[Tonyowl]

Then why did the 6 other spear or tip tackle incidents in the tournement pass by without a red card?

Monsieur Rolland was the only ref to issue a red for this, so absolute, infringement.

IRB, get a grip and clear this mess up so an injustice like this must not (no not should not) happen again. Start with the nationality of the ref!

 

[crossref]

Then why did the 6 other spear or tip tackle incidents in the tournement pass by without a red card?

Monsieur Rolland was the only ref to issue a red for this, so absolute, infringement.

IRB, get a grip and clear this mess up so an injustice like this must not (no not should not) happen again. Start with the nationality of the ref!

the IRB certainly need to get a grip, but as one other poster pointed out the refs who missed their RCs didn't get appointed for any further games (and received a public rap over the knuckles from the disciplinary committees who ruled they were wrong -- read the reports on the IRB website)

but agree the IRB have certainly not covered themselves in glory

1 they issued guidance that removed referee discretion (this is rarely sensible. a referee always needs discretion)
2 they really didn't pubicise this guidance well. yes, I am sure that all the top-class players had a chance to absorb, but millions of people in the wider world are ignorat after two years
3 they haven't done a good job of making referees follow their guidance

I still maintain that (2) and (3) are linked - enforcing rules that aren't well understood makes the referee look a prat. Yes refs should rise above it. but the IRB don't necessarily help

 

[jdlk]

IRB, get a grip and clear this mess up so an injustice like this must not (no not should not) happen again. Start with the nationality of the ref!

There was no injustice. Rolland was spot on. The one problem, as you pointed out, is that other referees didn't have the bottle to obey the laws and directive. Failing to punish spear tackles is a serious mistake, and these referees should be held to account (if they saw the spear tackle and failed to issue a red card).

 

[Account Deleted]

Then why did the 6 other spear or tip tackle incidents in the tournement pass by without a red card?

Monsieur Rolland was the only ref to issue a red for this, so absolute, infringement.

IRB, get a grip and clear this mess up so an injustice like this must not (no not should not) happen again. Start with the nationality of the ref!

What happened at the Disciplinary hearings when the citings were heard?

 

[Account Deleted]

Monsieur Rolland was the only ref to issue a red for this, so absolute, infringement.

You do know he is NOT French. In fact he is a former IRISH international (3 Caps) Born in DUBLIN.

 

[Darryl Godden]

Not the best argument in defence of Warburton, especially questioning Rolland's loyalties.

I do, however, agree that he was too quick to give the decision. The French team reacted and so did AR, whether this affected his decision or he already decided the law allowed no room for maneuver, we will never know.

 

[Adam]

And I have been a police officer for over 20 years at the sharp end where legalistic interpretations of the 'word' written in sterile unrealistic rooms are tested and implemented - at the time and not with the benifit of hindsight. Are you saying that 'should' does not allow discretion?
No regulation forced Rolland to show red, it was his discretionary choice.
Are you suggesting that because I am Welsh that I am viewing this from a bias view?
If so your suggestion would imply that a person from a French family would view things similarly.
Now please, do not quote reams of legal mumbo jumbo to enforce your 'argument', keep it for the courts. We are talking about sport not criminal law.

In the first part of your post you mention a legal term. In the second part of your post you ask for no legal terms and legal 'mumbo jumbo'. At least be consistent.

 

[Adam]

Not the best argument in defence of Warburton, especially questioning Rolland's loyalties.

I do, however, agree that he was too quick to give the decision. The French team reacted and so did AR, whether this affected his decision or he already decided the law allowed no room for maneuver, we will never know.

If I know I'm going to give a RC then I want to get that player off the pitch as soon as is practical. This is to prevent flashpoints. If I was as close to the incident as Rolland and I got the RC feeling then talking to my assistants would not convince me otherwise as they're over 20 metres away.

The quick decision was the correct one. Deal with it.