Warburton Red Card - IRB Directive

[OB..]

He hooks his thighs, lifts for the drive

That is where he went wrong. If you lift a player like that you take responsibility.

Yes you would implement the law, if the law changes, you would implement that - that is what we're discussing here. Do you need support to discuss a potential bad law?

But you were arguing that the referee was wrong in this case.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Put your teddies back in your cot.

Yes you would implement the law, if the law changes, you would implement that - that is what we're discussing here. Do you need support to discuss a potential bad law?

I don't see it as a bad law, I see it as a good law. I think its needs enforcing vigorously.

IMO, this incident will be a watershed; there will either be a wave of compliance from players, or a raft of red cards and lengthy suspensions.

I would prefer the former, but I have no problem with the latter if that is what it takes for players to get the message.

I know that the iRB will not budge on this, not even an inch.

BTW Darryl, as I have stated elsewhere in the forum, I have spent time at a Spinal Unit where I met two young victims of spear tackles, both of whom will spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair being fed through a tube. I don't want to see this happen to anyone else.

 

[Darryl Godden]

That is where he went wrong. If you lift a player like that you take responsibility.But you were arguing that the referee was wrong in this case.

You've just proved to me that you have either not read my posts or chosen to ignore my posts.

 

[Darryl Godden]

I don't see it as a bad law, I see it as a good law. I think its needs enforcing vigorously.

IMO, this incident will be a watershed; there will either be a wave of compliance from players, or a raft of red cards and lengthy suspensions.

I would prefer the former, but I have no problem with the latter if that is what it takes for players to get the message.

I know that the iRB will not budge on this, not even an inch.

BTW Darryl, as I have stated elsewhere in the forum, I have spent time at a Spinal Unit where I met two young victims of spear tackles, both of whom will spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair being fed through a tube. I don't want to see this happen to anyone else.

As someone who can say hello to Matt Hampson on a regular basis I say this, with that in mind.

You will continue to see players confined to wheelchairs, much like you'll see racing car drivers burn up in vehicles, jockeys recieve multiple broken bones, boxers with brain damage.

It's how far we take the laws before the game becomes overly watered down.

Lest we forget, the game has run for at least a hundred years before the tip-tackle law came in.

Let's try and makes this a discussion about this law, rather than the bloody Wales game.

Does anyone agree that the law was introduced, I think in a knee-jerk reaction, to heavy criticism about the BoD incident?

Does anyone agree that the dangerous tackles laws allow for a degree of interpretation by the referee, yet this law specifically calls for a red card?

Does anyone agree that momentum and size disparity in a game can produce the unwanted outcome that a player is lifted?

I'm not looking to for yes men or for everyone to agree with me, it's all about the game and improving it. Some people have made some excellent points on both sides of the debate.

 

[Boesman]

@Boesman

The keyword is potential, that is why it was used. The enjoyment of all, includes those people who may not agree with all the changes the IRB makes.

But the vast majority of people do agree. That is the way it is supposed to work isn't it?

 

[Darryl Godden]

But the vast majority of people do agree. That is the way it is supposed to work isn't it?

They may here. And forgive me, this is a referees forum. There are plenty of dissenters on other forums, newspapers etc...

 

[Ian_Cook]

Lest we forget, the game has run for at least a hundred years before the tip-tackle law came in.

....and for the vast majority of that time, players were NEVER EVER lifted in a tackle.

Let's try and makes this a discussion about this law, rather than the bloody Wales game.

I agree, and I agree with the law and the directive, and its recent tightening up

Does anyone agree that the law was introduced, I think in a knee-jerk reaction, to heavy criticism about the BoD incident?

No, it was in response to an increasing number of incidences of spinal injury to players, world wide. Scrum management and CPE (then CTPE) was brought in for the same reasons. So was the Law about tackling players in the air.

Does anyone agree that the dangerous tackles laws allow for a degree of interpretation by the referee, yet this law specifically calls for a red card?

Yes. see the previous answer as to why

Does anyone agree that momentum and size disparity in a game can produce the unwanted outcome that a player is lifted?

Yes, on rare occasions it can, but that is not what we are talking about here. The issue is with players coming to a near standstill, then

1. DELIBERATELY grasping the ball carrier below the waist
2. DELIBERATELY lifting the player up vertically into a precarious position
3. DELIBERATELY or NEGLIGENTLY turning him over so that his head is below his hips
4. DELIBERATELY driving him downward or NEGLIGENTLY dropping him to the ground.

This is the difference between Kahui's (legal and safe) tackle on Cooper, and Warburtons (dangerous and unsafe) tackle on Clerc. Until you understand this, you will never understand the issue.

 

[crossref]

They may here. And forgive me, this is a referees forum. There are plenty of dissenters on other forums, newspapers etc...

the thing is - most people are completely unaware of the Laws and the 2009 directive and are ignorantly chastising Rolland for doing exactly what the laws say.

every referee is going to tell you that the Law and the 2009 ruling were completely clear and Rolland followed them, and his decision was quite right.

If we then turn to the disucssion of whether the Laws, and the 2009 ruling are Good Thing or a Bad Thing, then opinions will differ and referees will no longer speak with one voice. Many no doubt beleive the IRB has gone soft... but a ref still has to do what the IRB says, and right now it's a RC.

 

[OB..]

You've just proved to me that you have either not read my posts or chosen to ignore my posts.

I actually quoted from your post to make the reference clear, but here is a fuller quote

So you don't see Ioane as in any way culpable for the the injury to Laulala, and you don't think the tackle was dangerous.

No I do not.

He hooks his thighs, lifts for the drive, the players weight takes him over to the side. Ones he's reached the tipping point, you'd need Herculean strength to righten him.

You are clearly referring to a specific case.

Just to get it clear: you agree that Rolland was correct to red card Warburton because that is what referees are currently required to do. However you think that lifting can be caused by driving into a player and should only be a yellow card or less. I think that is situation #3 in the memo.

 

[Darryl Godden]

Roger that.

I think there's nothing new coming to this debate, especially from my side.

Thanks for your time.

 

[OB..]

Let's try and makes this a discussion about this law, rather than the bloody Wales game.

good idea - but let's start a new thread that does not have Warburton in the title.

Does anyone agree that the law was introduced, I think in a knee-jerk reaction, to heavy criticism about the BoD incident?

They must have very slow reactions. The O'Driscoll incident occurred in 2005, the tip tackle law was introduced in 2009.

Does anyone agree that the dangerous tackles laws allow for a degree of interpretation by the referee, yet this law specifically calls for a red card?

Yes. Why not? It was brought in to deal with a specific type of dangerous tackle.

Does anyone agree that momentum and size disparity in a game can produce the unwanted outcome that a player is lifted?

I agree with Ian Cook that the lifting is what players are doing wrong. Driving into a tackle and thus inadvertently (or even recklessly) knocking a player up into the air is different. I think the memo says so.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

good idea - but let's start a new thread that does not have Warburton in the title.

Thought I had? But nothing attracts more than controversy...

 

[Adam]

No I do not.

He hooks his thighs, lifts for the drive, the players weight takes him over to the side. Ones he's reached the tipping point, you'd need Herculean strength to righten him.

We can play this game all day. As stated, if the IRB want rugby to be risk free, change it to touch. My opinion is the IRB are trying to implement total control in large fellas colliding at speed. There are obvious offences which are easily categorised and penalised, the easiest are high or charges, a chap trying to tackle and drive is going to come a cropper under this law.

If it is punished a la AR we're going to see lots of red in upcoming seasons.

I qualify my statement with this remark, if someone was deliberately targeted like BoD then yes, the full force of the law should be applied.

If you lift someone from his thighs then you can guarantee that his weight will tip him over if he has any momentum. That is a definite. How you cannot understand that I have no idea.

 

[Robert Burns]

Ex Wales Captain has the right idea and understanding.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15323153.stm

Agrees red card was right, but believes it's the law that needs scrutinised, not Alain Rolland.

Well done Robert Jones.

 

[Shane D]

Can I just add. Do you seriously believe someone tackles a player with the intention of breaking his neck?

I've wanted to knock some people into yesterday, but I would have been gutted if I'd caused someone injury by going too far.

I retired from playing in 1999. Early on in my career the lifting & driving back technique you seem to be describing was taught. However from 1995 onwards we were trained NOT to lift any player in a tackle (ie grab them & force them upwards) but rather to drive through the player to force them backwards. This meant a change of target area & technique - more of a pushing over than a lift post impact.
I find it strange that players are still being trained to lift a player in a tackle. All that does is place them at risk of being penalised & red carded.
It can be a fine line but as with the Warburton incident once you do end up having a player lifted from the ground in any manner the onus is on the tackler to bring the tackled player back to ground safely. Warburton made no attempt to do this but simply dropped a player in a compromised position. The red card was justified, it can be argued it was harsh but it was not an incorrect decision.

 

[davidlandy]

Ex Wales Captain has the right idea and understanding.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15323153.stm

Agrees red card was right, but believes it's the law that needs scrutinised, not Alain Rolland.

Well done Robert Jones.

Couldn't agree more.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a similar incident in an international when a red card was awarded, prior to this RWC?

I would have thought there'd have been quite a few since the the directive was issued in June 2009, but unfortunately all I can find on YouTube is examples of yellow cards being shown.

I'm similarly puzzled by the lack of any serious injury in all the examples I've found so far. From what I've read here, I would have thought that a spear tackle was so dangerous that it was bound to lead to serious injury, up to and including paralysis and/or death - but all the videos I've watched show the player getting up and continuing play.

 

[bill_d]

Couldn't agree more.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a similar incident in an international when a red card was awarded, prior to this RWC?

I would have thought there'd have been quite a few since the the directive was issued in June 2009, but unfortunately all I can find on YouTube is examples of yellow cards being shown.

I'm similarly puzzled by the lack of any serious injury in all the examples I've found so far. From what I've read here, I would have thought that a spear tackle was so dangerous that it was bound to lead to serious injury, up to and including paralysis and/or death - but all the videos I've watched show the player getting up and continuing play.

It does happen > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10575238

 

[bill_d]

Ex Wales Captain has the right idea and understanding.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15323153.stm

Agrees red card was right, but believes it's the law that needs scrutinised, not Alain Rolland.

Well done Robert Jones.

Total agreement.

 

[RobLev]

Couldn't agree more.

Can anyone point me in the direction of a similar incident in an international when a red card was awarded, prior to this RWC?

I would have thought there'd have been quite a few since the the directive was issued in June 2009, but unfortunately all I can find on YouTube is examples of yellow cards being shown.

As I pointed out when you brought this up on the BBC thread, all four tacklers you found on YouTube were subsequently cited and punished by a suspension - so the yellow cards were thought to be insufficient. That's probably why the IRB has been toughening up its stance - because refs have overused discretion. Which, if you think about it, is a very good reason why the law (as interpreted) should provide for mandatory penalties.

I'm similarly puzzled by the lack of any serious injury in all the examples I've found so far. From what I've read here, I would have thought that a spear tackle was so dangerous that it was bound to lead to serious injury, up to and including paralysis and/or death - but all the videos I've watched show the player getting up and continuing play.

It seems to be a bit like fencing in this respect; injuries are either relatively minor (although nobody jumped straight back up again and carried on play in any of the videos you found) or they're catastrophic/fatal.

 

[StanBoardman]

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.

So why is all the hate going towards AR who made the right decision and had an excellent game (with the one exception of not awarding the late {in the game} penalty to France? Why not direct your name to Craig Joubert who maybe got it wrong.

Mais, mon Dieu! Joubert! That's a French sounding name, he mustn't referee the final.