Warburton Red Card - IRB Directive

[bill_d]

Seems so acording to:



Wow, didn't you read the very first word of the law? :chin:

Well, yes, but originally I was focused on the end result - i.e. he WAS raised off the ground, his hips were higher than his upper body and he was dropped. Thinking more about the "lifting" word made me consider how he got there, and I realised that being driven into that position rather than lifted was a possibility. In the case of the Kahui tackle however, he was lifted anyway. NI

 

[bill_d]

what is a troll anyway?

 

[chopper15]

what is a troll anyway?

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, mass media uses troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."


:=I was once a troll, bill . . . . . :hap:

 

[bill_d]

Uh oh - back to the cave for me then - thanks for all the laughs guys fftopic:

 

[timinoz]

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.

I agree completely. Wales had the game to win if they could make a kick. The tackle was clearly a RC and we should not let our emotions override our intellect. Would this discussion be this long had it happened in the early stages of the tournament.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Absolute rubbish.

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

Its not rubbish at all. Did you actually READ what I posted?

They may TRAIN to continue forward, but there is no doubt that Warburton was virtually standing still when he lifted Clerc

Take a look at this red card tip tackle

and this one

and now Sam Warburton's one

In every case, the tackler is standing still when he grasps, lifts and tips the player up. He may drive AFTER he has lifted, but that is not relevant.

 

[Darryl Godden]

I don't know. You probably have more posts than me despite being here since ... today. Are you trying to make your mark? Or are you actually a referee?

There may be a degree of referees protecting each other when new people post here in a fashion which clearly indicates the new poster is not a referee, but it has been very polite and nigh on invisible. As opposed to your suggestion, I humbly suggest.

I used to be a member of these forums in the past, but for the life of me I can't remember the email address/username I had. Tried all the usual suspects to no avail.

I do like the fact that everyone assumes I'm not a referee, and to be honest, with 30+ years of playing and watching rugby, with refereeing coming very late to my game, fan credentials outweigh the latter.

Why is it that commentators must try and rubbish posters by questioning their ability to comment on the game? Could a new fan not bring opinion and discourse? Perhaps a different perspective to the jaded opinions of those who've played through four.

 

[Darryl Godden]

Its not rubbish at all. Did you actually READ what I posted?

They may TRAIN to continue forward, but there is no doubt that Warburton was virtually standing still when he lifted Clerc

Take a look at this red card tip tackle

In every case, the tackler is standing still when he grasps, lifts and tips the player up. He may drive AFTER he has lifted, but that is not relevant.

The drive in the tackle is very relevant. It is what every player will try and do, gain the hard yard.

By the way, writing "Did you actually READ what I posted?" is pretty patronising, yes I did, shock, horror, I don't agree with you.

 

[crossref]

By the way, writing "Did you actually READ what I posted?" is pretty patronising, yes I did, shock, horror, I don't agree with you.

rugby-referee forum is a tough, full contact sport with no holds barred, and few RCs

 

[Mike Whittaker]

rugby-referee forum is a tough, full contact sport with no holds barred, and few RCs

But we have a wonderful TMO ...

 

[damo]

The commentary and panel discussion in the clip you posted Ian is quite amazing. One of the commentators appeared to be suggesting that it was barely a PK, and none of the 'experts' seemed to even know about the directives.

Simply appalling.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The commentary and panel discussion in the clip you posted Ian is quite amazing. One of the commentators appeared to be suggesting that it was barely a PK, and none of the 'experts' seemed to even know about the directives.

Simply appalling.

Players and commentators of their experence ought to know better.

Some people, including a few newbies here, just don't get it I'm afraid.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The drive in the tackle is very relevant. It is what every player will try and do, gain the hard yard.

By the way, writing "Did you actually READ what I posted?" is pretty patronising, yes I did, shock, horror, I don't agree with you.

So you looked at the video, and you don't believe that the tacklers were standing almost still when they lifted the ball carrier up?

I guess you would probably also argue that black was white rather then admit to not knowing the difference.

 

[Darryl Godden]

So you looked at the video, and you don't believe that the tacklers were standing almost still when they lifted the ball carrier up?

I guess you would probably also argue that black was white rather then admit to not knowing the difference.

Personally, I think it's you who has a problem with reading. I've never denied lifting, but the lifting comes as part of the move to drive the player back.

Commonly referred to as a great tackle:

Under the directive, shouldn't this have been red? I guess not, because the England player arrests his fall with an arm, but nothing Henson did controls the fall.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Personally, I think it's you who has a problem with reading. I've never denied lifting, but the lifting comes as part of the move to drive the player back.

Commonly referred to as a great tackle:

Under the directive, shouldn't this have been red? I guess not, because the England player arrests his fall with an arm, but nothing Henson did controls the fall.

Irrelevant since the action you have posted was from the 2006 Six Nations, and the IRB Directive wasn't issued until 2009 after the 2007 Designated Members Ruling and the 2008 Lensbury HPR seminar

 

[crossref]

Irrelevant since the action you have posted was from the 2006 Six Nations, and the IRB Directive wasn't issued until 2009 after the 2007 Designated Members Ruling and the 2008 Lensbury HPR seminar

in 2011 that would be a RC - - the laws just got changed to say that if the tackled player manages to get his arm out to break his fall, that makes no difference. If he's lifted and dropped/driven head first, it's still a dangerous tackle.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Players can argue all they like about what constitutes a great tackle or a dangerous tackle, in the end, it is the Lawmakers at the IRB who will decide, and they have decided that this type of tackle is too dangerous to be allowed to continue. They mean to eradicate it from the game, and eradicate it they will.

Anyone who is training players to tackle opponents by lifting them up off their feet, especially when they are doing so by grasping below the hips, is risking the tackle going wrong. If the opponent gets turned over and ends up falling head first to the ground, I hope and prey that a red card and suspension of the player is the only consequence of that action.


If the players still don't get it after what has happened at this world cup, I predict there will be a swarm of red cards issued until they do. Ultimately, I believe that physically lifting (not driving) the ball-carrier off his feet will become illegal in itself.


Darryl Godden

I am keen to know if you think this is a "great tackle"....

 

[chopper15]

. . . . . . and just to complement Ian's last post a few well chosen words from BM :


Elsewhere, zero tolerance is a phrase that has caused trouble. Do you recall the Internationa Rugby Board statement that was supposed to come into effect on Jan 1 2007?

It announced a zero-tolerance policy on crooked feeds to the scrum. It was ignored within days, and although restated periodically, it still is now.

A similar edict on dangerous tackles was issued in November 2009 and because of non-compliance had to be re-issued twice before this World Cup.

Paddy O’Brien, the referees manager, has stated that Alain Rolland’s decision to send off Sam Warburton was “in keeping with the clear instructions that match officials have received in recent years regarding dangerous tackling”.

That may be so, but it was not in keeping with the decisions made by his colleagues in this tournament, who have shown yellow cards after two similar tackles.
This is the problem when you issue edicts that you do not enforce, you put referees and players in invidious positions.

Warburton was culpable for lifting Vincent Clerc off his feet, but, Rolland’s red card, whilst to the letter of the law, did not follow the tournament precedent.

Had he taken more time over the decision and dealt with it as the other tackles there would have been no complaint from anyone. The citing officer could have reviewed the decision and taken any appropriate action.


. . . and so say all of us? :hap:

 

[Ian_Cook]

. . . . . . and just to complement Ian's last post a few well chosen words from BM :


Elsewhere, zero tolerance is a phrase that has caused trouble. Do you recall the Internationa Rugby Board statement that was supposed to come into effect on Jan 1 2007?

It announced a zero-tolerance policy on crooked feeds to the scrum. It was ignored within days, and although restated periodically, it still is now.

A similar edict on dangerous tackles was issued in November 2009 and because of non-compliance had to be re-issued twice before this World Cup.

Paddy O’Brien, the referees manager, has stated that Alain Rolland’s decision to send off Sam Warburton was “in keeping with the clear instructions that match officials have received in recent years regarding dangerous tackling”.

That may be so, but it was not in keeping with the decisions made by his colleagues in this tournament, who have shown yellow cards after two similar tackles.
This is the problem when you issue edicts that you do not enforce, you put referees and players in invidious positions.

Warburton was culpable for lifting Vincent Clerc off his feet, but, Rolland’s red card, whilst to the letter of the law, did not follow the tournament precedent.

Had he taken more time over the decision and dealt with it as the other tackles there would have been no complaint from anyone. The citing officer could have reviewed the decision and taken any appropriate action.

And few things BM forgot to mention

The two officials who gave yellow cards were given a rocket and told they should have given red cards. The players concerned were suspended, so they effectively got retrospective red cards. In other words, the argument that they only got yellow so SW should only have got yellow, is bollocks.

And no-one ever got stretchered off the field or a broken neck from a crooked feed.

. . . and so say all of us?

Don't include me in "us"

 

[Mike Whittaker]

. . .

. . . and so say all of us? :hap:

No. And a precedent is not set by the decisions of referees.