Warburton Red Card - IRB Directive

[Mike Whittaker]

Total agreement with all the referees on this forum - clear red.

Perhaps IRB should be a little more public with directives and their incorporation into the Law Book?

Incidentally phrases in directives such as "To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the ground..." should be considered more carefully? Use of English could be more precise even if the intention is clear?

 

[Adam]

I think you misunderstand my point, although it may have been lost in debates across several posts, as a taller player, it is inevitable that Clerc would go up.

How many smaller v larger players do we see implement a successful lift and drive?

I understand your point exactly. You don't understand how physics works.

No I don't. 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.

 

[Mike Selig]

Goodness me, is this still running? I've lost enough of my life attempting to explain why the decision was right, so this is my final word on the matter:

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.

 

[Ian_Cook]

What I think some people are not understanding is that in almost every case where a dangerous tip tickle occurs, the forward momentum of both players is virtually zero. Both the tackler and the ball carrier are stationary or close to it, and the tackler lifts the ball carrier up, usually by grasping them around the thighs.

At this point, they lose control of the ball carrier's body-weight because most of it is above the pivot point, and so the ball carrier starts to rotate. Once this happens, and the tackler continues lifting, the ball carrier flips over, and then it becomes very difficult to avoid him crashing to the ground.

I go back to the argument, that if the tackler does not grasp AND lift the ball carrier, then all of the following dangerous stuff doesn't happen.

Moral: DON'T LIFT THE BALL CARRIER IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

It is not necessary to stop, grasp, lift and rotate the player to put him on his back, when driving him off his feet (as Kahui did to Cooper) achieves the same result, in safety.

 

[The Fat]

To all who believe that AR was wrong to RC Warburton, the judiciary has suspended him for 3 weeks. AR's decision has been justified. A player who deserves to be suspended for 3 weeks does not deserve to stay on the pitch to finish the game and influence the outcome of the match following his indiscretion.
To all who say that AR acted too quickly. Enrol in a referee's course and take up the challenge of be a match official. If you do, I can guarantee that you will have instances where you see a RC incident and you instinctively KNOW you will be digging in your pocket for your cards and you also know what colour card you will issue. If you are arguing that refs should always have to consult with their Assistant Referees every time a card is going to be issued, then you are implying that one of the two best referees in the world is not competent enough to referee and make a decision. AR was on the spot, blew immediately and then blew some more to diffuse the possible flashpoint.
To those who believe AR should not have been appointed to this match due to his parentage, that is rubbish. That is akin to suggesting that Roman Poite should not be considered to ref a match where the winner of that match would play France the following week on the basis that RP could determine the winner by being selective in his decision making.
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.

 

[Darryl Godden]

I understand your point exactly. You don't understand how physics works.

No I don't. 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.

Yet with a lift and drive, as we've trained for, we go up and backwards in an attempt to gain ground.

I merely having a debate with you here chum. It may be 20+ years since my last physics class, but I can remember it fairly well. You have missed by point, SW provided the upward direction, but this is inevitable given the disparity in size. It would be lovely if we could drive forward in the tackle, between the shoulders and the waist, binding perfectly, then rolling away.

I fail to see what the point is of someone stating they're tired of debating the finer points of this incident are, as per the poster above, if you're tired of it, don't post. Personally I think rugby has been refined over the years, by such debates.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

And I have been a police officer for over 20 years at the sharp end.

Perhaps you'd be happier with the explantion that M. Clerc fell down the stairs (m'lud):biggrin:epper:

 

[Darryl Godden]

What I think some people are not understanding is that in almost every case where a dangerous tip tickle occurs, the forward momentum of both players is virtually zero.

Absolute rubbish.

Players train to continue forward momentum throughout a tackle, throughout a ruck, throughout a maul.

 

[Darryl Godden]

To all who believe that AR was wrong to RC Warburton, the judiciary has suspended him for 3 weeks. AR's decision has been justified.

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

 

[dickell]

So who's favourite to get the final, chaps?

CJ, AR, or ANOther?

 

[dave_clark]

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

nonsense.

 

[OB..]

Absolute rubbish.

Players train to continue forward momentum throughout a tackle, throughout a ruck, throughout a maul.

The classic tip tackle does indeed occur when neither player is driving forward. The tackler lifts in order to prevent the ball carrier driving forward. As Ian says, it is this lifting that needs to be unlearned.

 

[Account Deleted]

So who's favourite to get the final, chaps?

CJ, AR, or ANOther?

There's a thread devoted to that subject on the forums. This thread is the topic at the top of the thread.

 

[Darryl Godden]

nonsense.

Care to qualify your remark?

You find it inconceivable that senior figures in the IRB could not be looking at the tackle, the red card and refining the law?

Maybe they're not, maybe they are, but your dismissal was very brief!

 

[PaulDG]

Yet with a lift and drive, as we've trained for, we go up and backwards in an attempt to gain ground.

Yes, like so many things that players are trained to do, they should not be trained to do it.

 

[Adam]

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

There have been many times when a RC has been overturned when it's been proven to have been incorrectly awarded.

 

[Darryl Godden]

There have been many times when a RC has been overturned when it's been proven to have been incorrectly awarded.

After the best part of 32 years, I did not know that.

Any reference material?

 

[RugbyFan]

To all who believe that AR was wrong to RC Warburton, the judiciary has suspended him for 3 weeks. AR's decision has been justified. A player who deserves to be suspended for 3 weeks does not deserve to stay on the pitch to finish the game and influence the outcome of the match following his indiscretion.

I thought SW pleaded 'Guilty', so the Judiciary had to suspend him without justification of the RC of which the minimum term is 3 weeks. Yes it may seem a little pedantic but that is a huge difference to finding the AR decision as being justified.

Note: I am not saying it was not a red card

 

[The Fat]

I thought SW pleaded 'Guilty', so the Judiciary had to suspend him without justification of the RC of which the minimum term is 3 weeks. Yes it may seem a little pedantic but that is a huge difference to finding the AR decision as being justified.

Note: I am not saying it was not a red card

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

 

[ruareftrev91]

If you take another look at the footage you will see the speed of his reaction to display the red card. No consideration, no consultation, no balance, no other option

I have always been told that you know a red card offence instantly, and if you have to think about it then it probably isn't a red card offence.
Your comments would seem to support AR's decision.