Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Stuff from around the world.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
BR
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 18579
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:12 am
Location: On a roll.

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by BR »

dermotmccarthy wrote:
Rolland did not get it wrong IMHO the laws are the laws and he applied them correctly
Firstly -the laws are the laws, but that doesn't stop refs/IRB picking and choosing which ones to apply every week.

Secondly - anyway the laws only demand a penalty and a talking-to. To decide if Rolland was right, we need to forget the laws and look at the O'Directives. Pretty sure it wasn't a 'spear', so the remaining question is did Warburton have any regard to Clerc's safety? Looked to me he had some regard in that he started to lower him before dropping him (On rewatching it, I actually think SW lost his own balance before he dropped Clerc). So by that, O'Brien says "Yellow card!"
Can I come out from behind the sofa yet?
www.stoutboys.co.uk
User avatar
Ardglass2
Red Hand Ambassador
Posts: 2486
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:49 pm
Location: Belfast

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by Ardglass2 »

Some people need to read the directive - it does have to be a spear and it doesn't have to be reckless.

Lifting a players off the ground and not having regard to his safety is sufficient
User avatar
AyeYerMa
Red Hand Ambassador
Posts: 2768
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:44 pm
Location: Belshaft, Norn Iron

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by AyeYerMa »

BR wrote:
dermotmccarthy wrote:
Rolland did not get it wrong IMHO the laws are the laws and he applied them correctly
Firstly -the laws are the laws, but that doesn't stop refs/IRB picking and choosing which ones to apply every week.

Secondly - anyway the laws only demand a penalty and a talking-to. To decide if Rolland was right, we need to forget the laws and look at the O'Directives. Pretty sure it wasn't a 'spear', so the remaining question is did Warburton have any regard to Clerc's safety? Looked to me he had some regard in that he started to lower him before dropping him (On rewatching it, I actually think SW lost his own balance before he dropped Clerc). So by that, O'Brien says "Yellow card!"
The directive never says give a yellow. It says dangerous tackle = red card but in certain circumstances a ref may consider only giving yellow. Whether the tackle in question falls into that category or not could probably be debated until 2015, but in any event Rolland was well within his rights (per the O'Directive).
I came for my woman, he came with a razor blade,
Bound like us all for the ocean
Bart S
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4306
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:48 am

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by Bart S »

Missed the end of ITV's coverage today when they said they were going to reflect on Warburton's red card...again. Did self appointed rugby laws guru Steve Ryder (ie "well if Dallaglio says it was harsh it must be") make any comment about the fact that Warburton has now been banned for 3 weeks??

This punishment would suggest that not everyone would agree with Steve's assertion yesterday that this was a great injustice.
BIGBADDON
Novice
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:35 am
Location: Craigavon

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by BIGBADDON »

Are we going to run into the realms of football where the players managers and supporters dictate what the laws are and when they should be implemented. SW made the tackle took the player off his feet he started to lower the player then let go. Dangerous play. RED card. No arguments if but's or maybe's. The ref had one chance to see it SW let go in the tackle and dropped the player. RED card.
"Never argue with a drunk man or an idiot"
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 23443
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by Snipe Watson »

BaggyTrousers wrote:Rolland in my opinion was harsh in awarding red although I considered it a seriously dangerous tackle. I though in the circumstances of a RWC semi a yellow would have sufficed but I couldn;t really argue that taken out of its important context a ref could seriously give red for that tackle.
The laws are the laws Baggy irrespective of circumstances and should be applied without fear or favour.........you know that.
User avatar
Neil F
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4045
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:34 am
Location: Berlin

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by Neil F »

BIGBADDON wrote:SW made the tackle took the player off his feet he started to lower the player then let go. Dangerous play. RED card. No arguments if but's or maybe's. The ref had one chance to see it SW let go in the tackle and dropped the player. RED card.
You know, until I actually saw the incident, this was the view I was taking; dangerous tackle, red card. A signal needs to be sent that this isn't acceptable to tackle dangerously. That said, I've looked at the incident this morning and I think it is harsh. It certainly looks a lot worse in super slow-motion but at live-action speed, it's almost innocuous. It should have been a yellow card and nothing more, I think - Warburton took the player up and didn't bring him down safely and should be penalised but there was no 'spear'; Warburton dropped the player, rather than forcing him towards the ground. I think there is a big differentiation there.

Consider, for example, Luke McLean's clothesline on Rob Kearney in Italy a few seasons back. Yellow card for, actually, a much worse and probably more dangerous tackle. I think this was an extreme decision. If there's an IRB directive, that's one thing but I think there's a distinction to be drawn between a dangerous tackle (Warburton) and a malicious tackle and that should differentiate between yellow and red. For me, Warburton's was definitely dangerous but not malicious.
Snipe Watson wrote:The laws are the laws Baggy irrespective of circumstances and should be applied without fear or favour.........you know that.
In complete agreement, Snipe. If this tackle wasn't acceptable after 70 minutes in a friendly against Romania, it's not acceptable after 19 minutes in a World Cup semi-final. The rules have to be applied, equally and evenly, regardless of the context. I'm not sure I agree with Roland's decision but I'm glad that he wasn't put off making that kind of decision because of the context of the game only being 20 minutes old or being a World Cup semi-final. It's good refereeing, in a way, even if it wasn't necessarily a good decision, if that makes sense?
Cormac
Initiate
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by Cormac »

There have been a number of these tackles earlier in the tournament. I think four players have been cited during the tournament for similar efforts. In three cases the tackler had received a yellow card while one had been missed by the officials. In all four citing results it was deemed that the tackler should have received a red card at the time. Under the circumstances it's no surprise whatsoever that Rolland produced the red card.
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by rumncoke »

For my part I consider the difference between a red and yellow card---- is intent and a referee should consider the intention of the player before the card.

When two players meet head on with the tackler going low ( about hip level )there is a high probility of the tackled player being lifted with shoulders going to ground before his body . Tackler think ( if I hold on and he hits the ground -- its a spear tackle --- red card --- let go of the tackled player ----- red card -- I'm f@@k@d if I do and I'm f@@ked if I don't ) -- oh where is the cotton wool that I can set him on )

Provided the tackled player is not injured ( other than winded and bruised) a yellow card the post match citing committee can then decide if further penalty is necessary If the referee is of the opinion that was intent to injury then a red card.

ie there is a difference between accidental dangerous play and intentional dangerous play

Witness Australia versus New Zealand this morning there was more blood on the pitch than on Sauchiehall Street after an "Old Firm" derby . Rugby is a dangerous game it is the players who intentional make more dangerous who should be penalised.
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 23443
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by Snipe Watson »

rumncoke wrote:For my part I consider the difference between a red and yellow card---- is intent and a referee should consider the intention of the player before the card.
With all due respect, what you consider is entirely irrelevant. The only opinion that counts is the referees and his, correct, opinion was that it was a red card as stated in the laws of the game..........end of.......
rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by rumncoke »

Snipe

The laws don't define the penalty

The directive defines the penalty as " starting at red card and working backwards " which is a bit like " we'll hang you and then discuss if you guilty or innocent.

I have no doubt Rolland's decision was correct and in accordance with directive .

That does mean the directive is right.
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
User avatar
fuzzylogic
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by fuzzylogic »

I did think when watching the game that a yellow would have sufficed and still when looking at it now I dont think the tackle looks that bad.

But... Going on the IRB letter posted by AyeYerMa

Warburtons tackle 100% meets the second point. "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..."

So Rolland unfortunatly for Wales was correct.
Attachments
Untitled.jpg
Untitled.jpg (34.73 KiB) Viewed 412 times
Mary had a little lamb . . .
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 23443
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by Snipe Watson »

rumncoke wrote:Snipe

The laws don't define the penalty

The directive defines the penalty as " starting at red card and working backwards " which is a bit like " we'll hang you and then discuss if you guilty or innocent.

I have no doubt Rolland's decision was correct and in accordance with directive .

That does mean the directive is right.
Are you arguing that the directive is not part of the Laws of the game? Because the directive clearly defines both offence and punishment.
In this case the directive is right. The laws of the game need to protect players from dangerous play. Too many players are severely injured by tackles that are probably not intentionally dangerous, but are reckless without due consideration for the other player.
User avatar
Rooster
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 40137
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Chicken coop 17

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by Rooster »

Well he has got 3 weeks in the cooler for it so it must have been dangerous
“That made me feel very special and underlined to me that Ulster is more than a team, it is a community and a rugby family"
Rory Best
User avatar
againstthehead
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 6933
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:58 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Wales V France: game over after 20 mins

Post by againstthehead »

By the letter of the law, the call was right, however...

- probably about 90-95% of these types of tackles go unpunished or a yellow at most. To start dishing out reds 20 minutes into a RWC semi-final is bonkers.
Climb up onto the top of your house and start screaming: 'stand up for the Ulstermen, stand.......'
Post Reply