So we're not allowed discuss "The Card" anymore???

gearoidc

Why not?

Ciaran-Irl

Bizarre... Just about the biggest talking point in rugby around the world for years, and we can't discuss it?

.ak

Because it's a loop? I re-read the last few pages of that thread and we were all just repeating each other to be fair.

Out of interest, you should just make a poll and make a note not to discuss. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers. I wager the majority of people in hindsight and of review of the IRB laws would agree that the red card was correct.

duckysauce

there is a poll on planetrugby the majority say it was wrong , lots of welsh voting

duckysauce

The thing is the welsh failed to put SA away, drop goal and penalty misses, and their kicking today was 20% , which is not world class, so bye bye.

Ciaran-Irl

Matt Williams and Franno talking about it now on Setanta.

duckysauce

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Matt Williams and Franno talking about it now on Setanta.

Shaun Edwards @ press briefing "a travesty that the team who should be playing on Sunday isn't going to be there".

duckysauce

Tefral

duckysauce wrote: »

The thing is the welsh failed to put SA away, drop goal and penalty misses, and their kicking today was 20% , which is not world class, so bye bye.

SA? as in South Africa?

EDIT: Im reading that as you thought today was South Africa which im sure you ment their previous match against them

gearoidc

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Bizarre... Just about the biggest talking point in rugby around the world for years, and we can't discuss it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMHfH5lXZqY

Watch it in REAL time.

The slow mo makes it seem so much worse because it gives the illusion that Warburton had plenty of time to think about what he was doing when, in fact, it all happened in less than a second.

duckysauce

cronin_j wrote: »

SA? as in South Africa?

EDIT: Im reading that as you thought today was South Africa which im sure you ment their previous match against them

SA south africa, ie the team they played first in their pool games , they played France today

GerM

gearoidc wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMHfH5lXZqY

Watch it in REAL time.

The slow mo makes it seem so much worse because it gives the illusion that Warburton had plenty of time to think about what he was doing when, in fact, it all happened in less than a second.

Fast motion, slow motion. It happened. I don't think anyone at all is bringing Warburton's thought process into it. It has been highlighted ad nauseum that his intentions have no bearing on the ruling as stated in the rule book.

ambid

In fairness the last thread got out of hand. As .ak said, it did go on a loop with IMO many (but not all) posters becoming a little disrespectful and, frankly, hysterical.

Excellent analysis from Williams and Franno, as always. This morning they thought Rolland was wrong, but when they reviewed the rules and the directives to referees they concluded that in that context Rolland had no choice but to give a red.

MungBean

GerM wrote: »

Fast motion, slow motion. It happened. I don't think anyone at all is bringing Warburton's thought process into it. It has been highlighted ad nauseum that his intentions have no bearing on the ruling as stated in the rule book.

Whether or not there was regard for the players safety is in the actual law. If you cant determine it then a red cannot be given as per the law itself.

efb

lets just have a straight poll, with votes seen.

GerM

MungBean wrote: »

Whether or not there was regard for the players safety is in the actual law. If you cant determine it then a red cannot be given as per the law itself.

I'm aware. That does not equal intent. The point was in response to Warbuton's thought process. I'm sure Warburton had no intention of hurting Clerc but he still did not display regard for his safety. Releasing him and going for the ball when he was still mid-air is clearly not displaying regard for his safety.

duckysauce

ambid wrote: »

In fairness the last thread got out of hand. As .ak said, it did go on a loop with IMO many (but not all) posters becoming a little disrespectful and, frankly, hysterical.

Excellent analysis from Williams and Franno, as always. This morning they thought Rolland was wrong, but when they reviewed the rules and the directives to referees they concluded that in that context Rolland had no choice but to give a red.

yep the breakdown has had the best analysis for this world cup , even if Franno says poor alot:)

ambid

MungBean wrote: »

Whether or not there was regard for the players safety is in the actual law. If you cant determine it then a red cannot be given as per the law itself.

Well Warburton raised Clerc's hips above his head and dropped him from a height onto his head/ neck. He didn't have to do that. He could, like Healy, have dropped the tackled player onto his back rather than his head. I'd say that decision shows a lack of regard for the tackled player.

MungBean

GerM wrote: »

I'm aware. That does not equal intent. The point was in response to Warbuton's thought process. I'm sure Warburton had no intention of hurting Clerc but he still did not display regard for his safety. Releasing him and going for the ball when he was still mid-air is clearly not displaying regard for his safety.

Just releasing him before he has completely upended him shows regard for Clercs safety. Its not as black and white as laws say this so this must be done.

It could very easily have been a yellow if the ref judged Warburton to have released him before lifting him higher (which would have been a spear tackle regardless of releasing) as him showing regard for Clercs safety.

Hagz

Looking back at it now I'm a little bit more understanding. The pictures up on Planetrugby really show just how close Clerc was to being totally vertical, and I'd imagine Rolland saw that and thus it left him with little choice. I think the response from people on here helped my cause in terms of renouncing the decision, but now that that god awful thread is locked, I'm happy to concede defeat.

EDIT: I do still think it should've been yellow though:pac:

irishbucsfan

I don't understand why there is such debate really. Warburton picked him up, inverted him and then released his control of him. It's clear in the rules that it is not allowed, and it is clear from the IRB's memo that it is being cracked down on. Rolland was doing the exact right thing.

It's all well and good thinking it was harsh, but until you're in a position like that, and you are taken from the ground and inverted and then released you'll understand how scary it is. You are a matter of degrees from potentially suffering a hugely serious injury to your shoulder or neck, and in that moment that you are hanging in the air completely unsupported by the player who put you there, at the mercy of fortune, you realise important the law is. Clerc could have easilly come down on his shoulder or neck, that could have been the last thing he ever did on the rugby pitch. The laws are there to protect the players and prevent people like Warburton from doing completely stupid and dangerous things like he did today. Thankfully the law was applied properly.

mikeruurds

MungBean wrote: »

Just releasing him before he has completely upended him shows regard for Clercs safety. Its not as black and white as laws say this so this must be done.

It could very easily have been a yellow if the ref judged Warburton to have released him before lifting him higher (which would have been a spear tackle regardless of releasing) as him showing regard for Clercs safety.

Give it up already. The law is clear whether you agree with it or not. Red card.

MungBean

ambid wrote: »

Well Warburton raised Clerc's hips above his head and dropped him from a height onto his head/ neck. He didn't have to do that. He could, like Healy, have dropped the tackled player onto his back rather than his head. I'd say that decision shows a lack of regard for the tackled player.

He had released before his hips were above his head. Momentum carried him on (dangerous tackle). He landed on his upper back, which wouldnt have happened if Warburton didnt release when he did. If he had absolutely no regard he would have continued with the tackle instead of releasing him.

MungBean

mikeruurds wrote: »

Give it up already. The law is clear whether you agree with it or not. Red card.

This is why the other thread degenerated. If you dont want to discuss it you have no business posting here.

Tim Robbins

Red was correct. It was a hospital pass and ball carrier was going to get creamed. Warburton could have smashed him back or just held him in the air, but he up ended up, so that hips were above his and then dropped him. Two very dangerous things.

If the ball carrier was drico and he went off injured and Warburton only got a yellow we'd be screaming it should have been red.

It was a tough decision for Rolland to make. But the player saftey comes first - an exciting game comes second.

Well done Rolland.

Interesting link here:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?224-Alain-Rolland-and-Sam-Warburton-s-Red-Card

mikeruurds

MungBean wrote: »

This is why the other thread degenerated. If you dont want to discuss it you have no business posting here.

The law is the law. If you believe that it is ambiguous then draft an alternative law and present it to the IRB.

GerM

MungBean wrote: »

Just releasing him before he has completely upended him shows regard for Clercs safety. Its not as black and white as laws say this so this must be done.

It could very easily have been a yellow if the ref judged Warburton to have released him before lifting him higher (which would have been a spear tackle regardless of releasing) as him showing regard for Clercs safety.

He released him just as he was fully inverted and coming back down. He lifted him, turned him and only then did he release him. See the photo below where you can see that Warburton has just let go of Clerc entirely with both hands and has moved one hand onto the ball to contest it. Warburton was concerned with the ball, not Clerc as the Frenchman is about to come down on the base of his neck.

MungBean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Red was correct. It was a hospital pass and ball carrier was going to get creamed. Warburton could have smashed him back or just held him in the air, but he up ended up, so that hips were above his and then dropped him. Two very dangerous things.

If the ball carrier was drico and he went off injured and warburton only got a yellow we'd be screaming it should have been red.

It was a tough decision for Rolland to make. But the player saftey comes first - an exciting game comes second.

Well done Rolland.

If the ball carrier was Drico and he wasnt injured and Warburton got a yellow would we be screaming for red ? Doubtful.

irishbucsfan

MungBean wrote: »

If the ball carrier was Drico and he wasnt injured and Warburton got a yellow would we be screaming for red ? Doubtful.

And if Clerc hadn't bent his neck quite as much, and had come down directly on it and was currently in hospital unable to walk what would you be saying?

Have you ever been dumped like that? I can't believe you have when you are taking this laissez-faire attitude towards player welfare.

MungBean

GerM wrote: »

He released him just as he was fully inverted and coming back down. He lifted him, turned him and only then did he release him. See the photo below where you can see that Warburton has just let go of Clerc entirely with both hands and has moved one hand onto the ball to contest it. Warburton was concerned with the ball, not Clerc as the Frenchman is about to come down on the base of his neck.

Ignore the analysis but go to 0.25. You can see when he releases Clerc he is not vertical. His head is at the same level as his hips. Momentum kept his movement toward the vertical. He was released before it turned into a spear in my mind and that shows regard for his safety. Obviously he's gonna be concerned with robbing the ball as Clerc hit the ground but that doesnt mean he had no regard for Clerc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cps2a0i1Klw

GerM

MungBean wrote: »

He had released before his hips were above his head. Momentum carried him on (dangerous tackle). He landed on his upper back, which wouldnt have happened if Warburton didnt release when he did. If he had absolutely no regard he would have continued with the tackle instead of releasing him.

He didn't. See next still frame of Warburton continuing to turn Clerc after he's inverted as his legs and hips are gone above his head. The only reason Clerc's head is even close to being in line with his hips there is because he has tucked it ahead of the impending drop. By Clerc doing that, he possibly saved himself a serious injury.

MungBean

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And if Clerc hadn't bent his neck quite as much, and had come down directly on it and was currently in hospital unable to walk what would you be saying?

Have you ever been dumped like that? I can't believe you have when you are taking this laissez-faire attitude towards player welfare.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about whatsoever. Are we gonna discuss this or is everyone gonna be taking pot shots at me like the last thread ?

Hagz

Tim Robbins

MungBean wrote: »

If the ball carrier was Drico and he wasnt injured and Warburton got a yellow would we be screaming for red ? Doubtful.

David Wallace got it spot on in the highlights progam. There was a splt second where Warburton flipped him by lifting his helping up, he didn't have to do this. He also could have just held him in the air and not drop him at all.

Samich

How can anyone defend this. Wales bias coming into play as expected.

Warburton lifted clerc over the horizontal, and let go of him in the air.

How people can say letting go of him in the air shows regards for his safety is stupid. There is a thing called gravity. If anything holding onto clerc and leaving him to ground would be less dangerous. No excuse

RED CARD!

mikeruurds

GerM wrote: »

He didn't. See next still frame of Warburton continuing to turn Clerc after he's inverted as his legs and hips are gone above his head. The only reason Clerc's head is even close to being in line with his hips there is because he has tucked it ahead of the impending drop. By Clerc doing that, he possibly saved himself a serious injury.

That's pretty clear. Lifted above the vertical and dropped. Textbook case of what the law describes as a dangerous spear tackle.

I'm still not sure how or why anyone would debate otherwise.

Tim Robbins

GerM wrote: »

He didn't. See next still frame of Warburton continuing to turn Clerc after he's inverted as his legs and hips are gone above his head. The only reason Clerc's head is even close to being in line with his hips there is because he has tucked it ahead of the impending drop. By Clerc doing that, he possibly saved himself a serious injury.

Great shot GerM. This is what Wally was talking about. Look at Warburton's elbow. He lifted that elbow right up to flip the ball carrier. He didn't have to do that as he already had both his legs off the ground.

MungBean

GerM wrote: »

He didn't. See next still frame of Warburton continuing to turn Clerc after he's inverted as his legs and hips are gone above his head. The only reason Clerc's head is even close to being in line with his hips there is because he has tucked it ahead of the impending drop. By Clerc doing that, he possibly saved himself a serious injury.

Yeah but by the same token if he strected out it then becomes a spear tackle. We cant comment on what may or may not have happened. We go by what we see and in that still frame Warburton is no longer in control of Clercs body. In the vid you can see where he releases him clearly. Still frames are not clear enough to make a judgement from.

irishbucsfan

MungBean wrote: »

Ignore the analysis but go to 0.25. You can see when he releases Clerc he is not vertical. His head is at the same level as his hips. Momentum kept his movement toward the vertical. He was released before it turned into a spear in my mind and that shows regard for his safety. Obviously he's gonna be concerned with robbing the ball as Clerc hit the ground but that doesnt mean he had no regard for Clerc.

The fact he let go is the most dangerous part! Warburton takes Clerc from the ground and then completely releases control of him which is exactly what caused Clerc to come down so dangerously. If he had remained in control of him and kept his lower body below his head then THAT would be showing concern for Clerc's welfare. Releasing Clerc was the second most dangerous thing he could have done beyond literally driving Clerc's head into the ground.

If you take a player off his feet, you are responsible for ensuring he returns to the ground safely.

duckysauce

Hagz wrote: »

RED CARD

teednab-el

At the end of the day, this game will haunt many Welsh players for a long time to come in their careers, a bit like Ireland after loosing the game against France in the 6nations 2007 and throwing away a certain Grand Slam. With the red card, the game was still handed to them on a plate and they somehow failed to grasp it. I don't expect Wales to be as good in the 6 Nations next year. They are never consistant as a rugby unit from one good year to the next. This defeat is a big psychological blow to them. Watch this space.

andrewdcs

I think it was desperately sad it happened, esp. from a player like Warburton, but he was incredibly dim, it had to be red BECAUSE it was a semi final and citings / serious bans from earlier games had made it clear, ignorance isn't a defence, tipping someone up is a red, end of. Earlier examples (and all the tripe on ITV) showed that. Listening to them was cringeworthy/shameful.

He'll be back after Christmas, better captain for it.

Wales are the better team, still should have won against all odds with 14 men. Feel that France now have the crown of worst team ever to make final (beating England 07).

EmacB

Matt Williams and Neil Francis went into it with fantastic detail and concluded that according to the laws it was a red card. Williams actually admitted he thought it should have been a yellow at first but agreed in the end that it was a definite red.

I'd ask anybody who thinks it shouldn't have been a red to try find a reply of tonight's episode of the breakdown! You will change your mind!

Phonehead

For me you can't criticise the Ref for giving a red, by the letter of law and following O'Briens guidelines then Wales can't complain on a fact of rules and guidelines, as fan I thought it was a yellow but I can't really argue against the red.

And O'Brien's five key areas are:

The breakdown - the tackler must roll away and assist tackler must release the player, while arriving players must come through the gate from the back foot.

Foul play - Referees must start at red and work backwards in the instance of high tackles, grabbing and twisting of the head and tip tackles.

Mauls - the ball-carrier must be available to be tackled.

Offsides - consistent and strict policing of offside players around the breakdown area and players in front of kicker must remain stationary onside.

The scrum - Referees must quicken the sequence of the four calls "crouch, touch, pause engage". O'Brien expressed the need for the loosehead to have his head and shoulders above hips and the tighthead must bind on the body of his opponent rather than the arm.

GerM

MungBean wrote: »

Yeah but by the same token if he strected out it then becomes a spear tackle. We cant comment on what may or may not have happened. We go by what we see and in that still frame Warburton is no longer in control of Clercs body. In the vid you can see where he releases him clearly. Still frames are not clear enough to make a judgement from.

So Warburton shouldn't get red because Clerc had the presence of mind to try and protect himself from a broken neck? Warburton turns him and releases him after his body has been inverted. Even if he releases at the point you claim, which he doesn't going on the above shots, the momentum and force he has turned Clerc with will ensure Clerc would continue to turn onto his head. Complete disregard for the player.

Hagz

MungBean wrote: »

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about whatsoever. Are we gonna discuss this or is everyone gonna be taking pot shots at me like the last thread ?

Hey MungBean, I'll have a civilised debate with you over the matter. Is it the red card that you have a problem with, or the fact that it doesn't match up to previous punishments given out before. I for one am okay with giving out reds for something like this, as it is such a dangerous situation, but I don't think that's been the way in the recent past, as is evident in this WC and so therefore my question is why should it be the way now? In a world cup semi-final? Would you agree?

gearoidc

Can anyone explain why so few rugby players have agreed with the red card?

I've checked on Twitter and so far it's been 8/8 who say that it should not have been a red.

duckysauce

gearoidc wrote: »

Can anyone explain why so few rugby players have agreed with the red card?

I've checked on Twitter and so far it's been 8/8 who say that it should not have been a red.

where are they from uk and nz ?

Hagz

gearoidc wrote: »

Can anyone explain why so few rugby players have agreed with the red card?

I've checked on Twitter and so far it's been 8/8 who say that it should not have been a red.

Most likely down to empathy. They will have been in similar situations and will understand how these things happen unintentionally. They're probably thinking about Warburton, in a World Cup Semi-Final,biggest game of his career, being sent of for an accident, and are therefore empathizing with him.

Oh here we go, will my words get twisted. "It doesn't matter how big the game was etc etc"

Phonehead

gearoidc wrote: »

Can anyone explain why so few rugby players have agreed with the red card?

I've checked on Twitter and so far it's been 8/8 who say that it should not have been a red.

Because you are unlikely to see any player speaking out against another! also you have the "there but for the grace of God" attitude.

thebaz

I'm not surprised we're not allow discuss it - some of the smugness of the pro Alain Rolland , hollier than though lot , would have led to have a few bans if i had let rip - the tackle was poor , but rugby is a physical pro game - no one wants injuries , but if you enter the ring - accidents , injuries are part of the journey of such a full life - no one walks through life or rugby for that matter unscarred - it was more Warburtons strength rather than maliciousness that caused the spear - nothing like the BOD lions spear , which in my mind was malicious - still gutted for Wales -