The card thread *mod warning post 1*

justsomebloke

The last thread about this was a reported post generator and if it happens again I will lock the thread. Please make sure you have read the memorandum and law before posting or you will be infracted or banned

law 10.4 (j) wrote:

Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

fryup

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

can we have a poll??????????

was the ref correct > yes or no

wonton

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

as much as I would have liked to see a yellow for the sake of the match, if he done that, it gives players the impression they can get away with more in match of high importance.

bamboozling

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AWFf7EAc4

Finally the ban on discussion in a discussion forum has been lifted.

Anyway I do think it was a red card, dangerous, let him go in mid air and the whole arguement that Clerc didn't become a quadriplegic so it should only have been a yellow is frankly incredible.

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

wonton wrote: »

as much as I would have liked to see a yellow for the sake of the match, if he done that, it gives players the impression they can get away with more in match of high importance.

The importance of the match shouldn't have come into it. We've seen lengthy bans and citing for similar tackles recently and as COS and Joe Schmidt said last night they were all informed of it by referees before the start of last year

I feel sorry for Warburton but at the same time he has no-one to blamu but himself

fryup

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

wonton wrote: »

as much as I would have liked to see a yellow for the sake of the match, if he done that, it gives players the impression they can get away with more in match of high importance.

and no better place than a world cup semi final to get the message out there

players from now on will certainly think twice about doing it

well done Alain Rolland you did the game a sevice

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Fishooks12 wrote: »

The importance of the match shouldn't have come into it. We've seen lengthy bans and citing for similar tackles recently and as COS and Joe Schmidt said last night they were all informed of it by referees before the start of last year

I feel sorry for Warburton but at the same time he has no-one to blamu but himself

I do feel sorry for Warburton. A player of his quality shouldn't see his tournament end in such a manner but unfortunately that's how it played out and he can have no arguments. It's nothing new that this type of tackle has resulted in a red card. There have been similar tackles given red in the past and those that saw the tackler banned after a citing. When you take into account what Rolland saw standing a few feet away, you have to understand his decision on the grounds of safety and reckless play.

Shammy

It was only ever a yellow

If you follow the letter of the law then yes he was correct to send him off. But this is where common sense should prevail , imo there was no intention to hurt the other player , some players are a lot lighter than others . I think Mr Rolland should have waited a few minutes before making his decision . The play acting by the french didnt help either.

Either way whats done is done .

endabob1

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

It was 100% a red, Justin Marshall called it immediately in the commentary, I thought it was harsh at first but in the replay Rolland was spot on. It's the risk you take when you lift a player, the onus on you is to bring him down safely, Warburton didn't and deserved to go.

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

If you follow the letter of the law then yes he was correct to send him off. But this is where common sense should prevail , imo there was no intention to hurt the other player , some players are a lot lighter than others . I think Mr Rolland should have waited a few minutes before making his decision . The play acting by the french didnt help either.

Either way whats done is done .

But intention doesn't come into it when it's a dangerous tackle and that's clearly stated in the rules

If he didn't mean it and Clerc ended up seriously injured would that have made it better than him meaning it and Clerc not getting injured?

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

If you follow the letter of the law then yes he was correct to send him off. But this is where common sense should prevail , imo there was no intention to hurt the other player , some players are a lot lighter than others . I think Mr Rolland should have waited a few minutes before making his decision . The play acting by the french didnt help either.

Either way whats done is done .

As mentioned under the laws, intention cannot be taken into account by the referee. It's the responsibility of the tackler to ensure a player is returned to ground safely. The light player card can go either way: the player was light so, unfortunately, was flipped upside down very easily or the player was light so the tackler should have had little problem controlling the tackle and returning him to ground safely. Given that Warburton tipped him and then released him, I would have to look at it from the second perspective. He could easily have held onto him and driven him back but he released and went for the ball whilst Clerc was still coming down.

.ak

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

I've made myself clear about how I perceived the incident - Alain Rolland was 100% correct, and fair play to him for showing the courage to pull a red for a text-book incident that was he informed to work from red by Paddy O'Brien. Intent, occasion, deliberateness doesn't come into this. The occasion and the pressure must've been huge, and it would be very easy for the ref in that situation to use a yellow and weasel out of making the hard choice.

That's why Alain Rolland in my eyes is the best rugby union ref in the world at the moment. I have not seen one bad game from him in years. It's just such a pity he'll never ref an Irish game. Also such a pity he's not getting the final. Joubert is good, and is definitely one of the best, but often lets things slide. That can be good the fluidness of the game, but it can bleed into letting more serious things slide...

On a side note; how bad were the ITV pundits after it happened? (Pieenar, Dallaglio, Fitzpatrick?) It's sickening that former players think that's acceptable, and couldn't look at it objectively. I know these guys are oldschool, and thus probably don't scrub up on new rules (i.e; from 2009 onwards), but they just didn't seem to have a grasp on why the tackle was a red card; because he lifted him it was dangerous [starting point penalty], but because he let him go was the reason it was red. No one commented on the fact he'd let him go, or rather when they did it was seemingly a reason to revert to only a penalty kick.

Dropping the player is just as dangerous as driving him downwards into the ground. That's the reason for the red. Rolland was in the perfect position to make the call. Why didn't the pundits pick up on the dropping part? Ridiculous bad message to send out to young players around the world. If I was the producer of the show, after hearing the IRB's clarification and condoning of Rolland's call, I'd make them issue an apology before the next match. Pundits get things wrong; not a big deal, however in this case their blatant disregard for the players safety could filter out as a message that this type of tackle is OKAY.

Ofcourse, what do you expect from someone who thinks the ref should've used the video ref to look at the tackle again. :rolleyes:

And ofcourse the one person we forget about in this debate. Warburton. Feel absolutely gutted for him. He's a great player, if not one of the best in the tournament, but unfortunately this will be what he's remembered for by a lot of the casual viewers.

I honestly believe there was no intent. If you watch a lot of Warb's tackles over the tourny, he constantly lifts players. But he's always either driven them back, or placed them back to ground, thus executing the tackle correctly and safely. I figure the occasion got to him, he was fired up, tried to turn Clerc but lifted far too aggressively for his own good. Realized his error and then dropped the player - in that milisecond he had to think about that, he probably thought this was the best option, and probably thought it was the safest thing to do. A brain-fart if you will. Completely understandable, and that's why I feel for Warburton. I think we can all agree the intent was not there.

But the issue is; the law does not mention intent, because if it did we'd enter into all sorts of debate. Ref's would have to make calls based on whether or not players intended to do one thing or another - that's impossible to dictate. If it was any other player than Warburton it'd be impossible to tell if he was just trying to make it look accidental. So does track record come into it? Absolutely not. It's classed as a dangerous tackle for a reason; it could be accidental, it could be deliberate, but the end result is the same. It's dangerous. Greater care must be taken by the tackler to ensure his technique is good, because if it isn't, we could end up with another Max Evans scene....

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

One thing that I enjoyed about the incident was the reaction of the players

Warburton accepted the decision, as did his team-mates and they got on with the game

If it was soccer you'd have five minutes of fellas roaring in the referees face, even if it was a blatant red card

Shammy

It was only ever a yellow

Fishooks12 wrote: »

But intention doesn't come into it when it's a dangerous tackle and that's clearly stated in the rules

If he didn't mean it and Clerc ended up seriously injured would that have made it better than him meaning it and Clerc not getting injured?

Like I said if he had waited a few minutes he would have seen the lad up on his feet and perfectly fine .

wonton

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Fishooks12 wrote: »

The importance of the match shouldn't have come into it. We've seen lengthy bans and citing for similar tackles recently and as COS and Joe Schmidt said last night they were all informed of it by referees before the start of last year

I feel sorry for Warburton but at the same time he has no-one to blamu but himself

thats what I meant, IF he only shown a yellow, players would think that refs would go easy on them if the match has high importance.




anyone else notice how on the rte post match comentary, frankie didnt seem to understand the "look at the tackle objectivly" thing?

He was like "oh ye, look at the tackle objectivly...........and then take into account everything, like if the player was injured"

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

Like I said if he had waited a few minutes he would have seen the lad up on his feet and perfectly fine .

But that shouldn't make a difference, the tackle was still dangerous and could have caused serious injury

Warburton was being punished for the fangerous play that could have led to the injury as an incentive to stop players doing it in fduture to avoid such injuries, why wait for a player to be seriously injured to take action?

.ak

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

Like I said if he had waited a few minutes he would have seen the lad up on his feet and perfectly fine .

Okay, I see your point, but that argument surely means that if he was put into a wheel chair he'd only then deserve a red?

The red was for a DANGEROUS tackle. Not for the result there after.

I know a lot of people say all parts of rugby are dangerous, and you can suffer injuries in rucks, normal tackles, scrums, line outs etc., etc... but the reason a DANGEROUS tackle is called that is because there is a GREATER RISK of injury to the player. A higher percentage and probability that the player could suffer a SERIOUS INJURY.

That's why intent, injury and occasion does not come into Rolland's judgements, and thus why even if Clerc got up and did 15 jumping jacks it'd still be red.

CatFromHue

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

If you follow the letter of the law then yes he was correct to send him off. But this is where common sense should prevail , imo there was no intention to hurt the other player , some players are a lot lighter than others . I think Mr Rolland should have waited a few minutes before making his decision . The play acting by the french didnt help either.

Either way whats done is done .

Rolland has the best view of the lot of us as he was only a couple of meters away from it so I'm not sure what could be achieved by him taking a few moments to consider. As he gave the card straight what ever condition Clerc was in became irrelevant.

Whats your opinion on what happened to BOD on the 2005 Lions tour to NZ? Picking guys and dropping them on their heads looks may look great in an action movie but in real life it's awful. I had a toned down but somewhat similar experience happen to me playing and when you're put that high in the air by a player you are completely helpless and frankly at their mercy. You have no control and are waiting to see if you're gonna get a bad injury when you land.

Intention to hurt is irrelevant. The likelyhood of getting hurt is huge though.

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

Like I said if he had waited a few minutes he would have seen the lad up on his feet and perfectly fine .

Which shouldn't matter whatsoever in any decision. It would be awful to make decisions on the basis of injury suffered. It's because of the potential harm that it's a red card offence. There are people around the world in wheelchairs because of these sort of tackles and it needs to be eradicated from the game. If you tip a player and drop/drive him so he lands on his upper body, it should be an automatic red card. You can make destructive hits and lift a player without having to tip him. Luke Fitz repeatedly who makes big hits on players but his technique is spot on every time. Kids should be made watch videos of his tackling technique especially in light of the fact that his technique was quite dodgy when he first came on the scene.

Shammy

It was only ever a yellow

CatFromHue wrote: »

Whats your opinion on what happened to BOD on the 2005 Lions tour to NZ? Picking guys and dropping them on their heads looks may look great in an action movie but in real life it's awful. I had a toned down but somewhat similar experience happen to me playing and when you're put that high in the air by a player you are completely helpless and frankly at their mercy. You have no control and are waiting to see if you're gonna get a bad injury when you land.

To me a totally different incident , BOD was picked up by 2 players and dumped down .

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

To me a totally different incident , BOD was picked up by 2 players and dumped down .

So it's only a red if you have help?

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

To me a totally different incident , BOD was picked up by 2 players and dumped down .

And Clerc was picked up by one and dumped down, no?

CatFromHue

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

To me a totally different incident , BOD was picked up by 2 players and dumped down .

Clerc landed on his back and BOD landed on his front is the only difference to me.

Both were picked up to a height and both were turned way past horizontal.

andrewdcs

It was only ever a yellow

I think it'd have been a better outcome for the individual game if AR had 'made a mistake' and given a yellow, but red was a better outcome for the game generally that it gets explained in clubs around the country that lifting / dropping (tip and spear tackles) are red cards and bans.

Shammy

It was only ever a yellow

CatFromHue wrote: »

Clerc landed on his back and BOD landed on his front is the only difference to me.

Both were picked up to a height and both were turned way past horizontal.

BoD was speared , The french lad wasnt speared he was dropped . The intention was there in the BoD incident , not so in this case .

The letter of the law is being spouted alot , and like i said if you followed the letter of the law then yes it WAS a red card . Heres the thing it 's a human sport , there is always going to be human error , no game has ever been played to the full letter of the law . This is where common sense takes place . Dangerous tackle could have been injured ......reality if it was a dangerous tackle he would have been injured .

swordofislam

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

It is good for the game in the long term to have dangerous tacking stamped out. This will have an impact all the way down to Under 14s.

Chucky the tree

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

So a dangerous tackle only occurs when someone gets injured?

:pac:

CatFromHue

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

BoD was speared , The french lad wasnt speared he was dropped . The intention was there in the BoD incident , not so in this case .

The letter of the law is being spouted alot , and like i said if you followed the letter of the law then yes it WAS a red card . Heres the thing it 's a human sport , there is always going to be human error , no game has ever been played to the full letter of the law . This is where common sense takes place . Dangerous tackle could have been injured ......reality if it was a dangerous tackle he would have been injured .

"France's scrum-half-come-fly-half Morgan Parra is an injury doubt ahead of Sunday's World Cup final with hosts New Zealand after injuring his neck against Wales."

http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/152451.html

You say it was a red card but they you say "but" which disregards your earlier statement. It's like the criticism of the Louth supporters who ran on the pitch to get the ref last year. What they done was against the nature of the game but the ref made a bad decision so it's ok. It's not and they should have never have done it.

It may have been a mistake by Warburton I don't know but lifting a guy that high and dropping him is no mistake to me. He knew what he was doing. Was it David Wallace who explained that to tip a guy you have to add in an extra action with your arms. He knew what he was doing and so can have no problems.

BoarHunter

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

The fact the Clerc wasn't hurt has nothing to do with the decision. This is a complete red card foul and it was called correctly. Florian Fritz was sent off against wasp in the last Hcup for a similar tackle and everybody praised Rolland for his decision making.

Don't understand all the fuss about this red card. It's a straight forward decision. The importance of the match shouldn't be taken in consideration nor the intention of the player. This was dangerous and illegal and MUST be banned from rugby. If this is not given a red card you will see it done more and more on the pitch. What Wartburton tried to do IMO is to release the player in order to be able to contest the ball as quick as possible. I understand that but it leads to a dangerous situation and from a pro in a WC semi final not the best decision.

Nerves got the better of this team at the end of the day.

.ak

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

BoD was speared , The french lad wasnt speared he was dropped . The intention was there in the BoD incident , not so in this case .

The letter of the law is being spouted alot , and like i said if you followed the letter of the law then yes it WAS a red card . Heres the thing it 's a human sport , there is always going to be human error , no game has ever been played to the full letter of the law . This is where common sense takes place . Dangerous tackle could have been injured ......reality if it was a dangerous tackle he would have been injured .

I totally see where you're coming from, and I mentioned that in my last paragraph of my post. But under that logic, if we're taking into consideration of players dealing with "What If's" then they have to deal with the possibility a red card might be issued in the game.

The idea is to make people more aware of themselves and their tackling technique.

Look at this way. There's a lot of people that think Ghiraldini's eye gouge on Healy was not intentional, and accidental. The disciplinary board also thought that it was 'not deliberate'. Yet they still handed a hefty ban. Why? Because even though it was not deliberate, it is Ghiraldini's responsibility to not let it happen. It was probably a mistake, he's human, but he must be more careful with how he controls himself. Warburton lost control, quite literally, of his tackle and thus must be punished accordingly to the letter of the law to send out a clear message: Intentional or not, you must not lift a player and spear/drop them, and thus you must control your tackle technique.

Warburton said he felt the laws of physics taking place as Clerc fell backwards out of his hands, and thus out of his control. This may well be the case, but he would not have been in that situation if he just drove the player back rather than attempting to lift the player. He gambled, and it didn't pay off.

Shammy

It was only ever a yellow

.ak wrote: »

Look at this way. There's a lot of people that think Ghiraldini's eye gouge on Healy was not intentionally, and accidental. The disciplinary board also thought that it was 'not deliberate'. Yet they still handed a hefty ban. Why? Because even though it was not deliberate, it is Ghiraldini's responsibility to not let it happen. It was probably a mistake, he's human, but he must be more careful with how he controls himself. Warburton lost control, quite literally, of his tackle and thus must be punished accordingly to the letter of the law to send out a clear message: Intentional or not, you must not lift a player and spear/drop them, and thus you must control your tackle technique.

.

Cant argue with that

GerM

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

The letter of the law is being spouted alot

That's tantamount to saying "Facts are being spouted a lot".

Dangerous tackle could have been injured ......reality if it was a dangerous tackle he would have been injured .

This is the mindset that absolutely needs to be stamped out. Not having a go at you, Shammy, but if this type of thought process prevails, there will be more people put in wheelchairs in the coming years if people think it's possible for these tackles to take place and not carry a danger. There's always a risk and danger with this type of tackle.

shuffol

Red card was a fair call, key thing in my eyes is that as opposed to just turning Clerc and dropping him Warburton threw him towards the ground, nobody can say whether Warburton intended to injure Clerc except for Warburton himself but it was clearly very reckless.

All credit to Rolland, it was a very courageous decision, he must've known that he was going to get a lot of flak for "ruining" a word cup semi final. Protecting the spectacle whilst important must cede priority to protecting the welfare of the players. I wonder what the reaction woud've been had Clerc been seriously injured and Warburton ony received a yellow.

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

The poll results seem to be fairly overwhelming

Wonder what the Welsh forums make of it

Brian

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Objective: Clerc was lifted dangerously
Subjective: Warburton didn't mean to put him in danger

I don't wish to insult Warburton's character because I don't know anything of him at all, but it should be fairly clear that the objective statement above is not possible to argue against and was rightly called by the referee, whereas the subjective statement is the kind of thing that requires a lengthy discussion, transparency (difficult in a high-stakes competition like a WC SF) and too many subtleties to get involved with during a live match.

molloyjh

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

Like I said if he had waited a few minutes he would have seen the lad up on his feet and perfectly fine .

I know the others have gone through it but no one has yet pointed out that it was pure luck that he was perfectly fine. Nothing more. Nobody had control over his landing and that created such a huge risk. If a player is going to make those tackles they MUST complete them successfully. The IRB have been clear on this for years.

Personally I think Rolland showed his worth again by making such a big call in such a big game, and he did so without flinching. He knew the laws and he did his job. Fair play to him.

I also think Warburton has done himself justice. It seemed to me like he just lost Clerc mid-way through the tackle. It was a genuine mistake. He didn't argue with the red card and he has since held his hands up and admitted his mistake. It was a shame for it to happen as he was having a great tournament (and France most certainly do not deserve to be in the final!) but that's just the way it goes.

And finally I think the best analysis for the whole thing, funnily enough, came from RTE this time. I've been avoiding watching them for most of the RWC as I don't really rate them as a whole but they were the only ones that I saw actually present the laws and the memorandum issued in 2009 and explain what happened and why. Schmidt and O'Shea in the highlights later were also very clear on it. Compared to some of the others that were frothing at the mouth over it I thought that was good to see.

Jawgap

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

As I see it.....

Warburton picked up Clerc and dropped him - the instructions from the IRB are pretty unequivocal on what happens next.

I don't think Warburton meant Clerc any harm (as in he was not looking to deliberately injure him) - he "just" dropped him so he could go for the ball.

The potential consequences quite nauseating to think about, but in the context of the instruction from the IRB are largely irrelevant.

Rolland showed tremendous guts pulling the red, I think most refs would have bottled it and gone for the yellow - or gone for a chinwag with the touch judge before pulling the card. Fair play to him for not shirking his responsibilities to the players and the game.

I think the punishment dished out to Warburton, and the fact Rolland has been assigned as a touch judge to the final express how the "establishment" feel about the incident - it was not vicious, but it warranted the card. If they felt Rolland had cocked up he'd be half way home by now.

Finally, as a ref, I'm glad Rolland did what he did - if he didn't I reckon you'd have everyone trying those type of tackles - and less accomplished players than Warburton trying it would lead to serious injuries.

andrewdcs

It was only ever a yellow

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So a dangerous tackle only occurs when someone gets injured?

:pac:

bit like F1 where safety only comes in after someones killed! Think it was Indy car (another tragedy yesterday) where the top driver (this is about 5 years ago) had a major rant about the sport becoming namby pamby and refusing to wear head restraints and being all gung ho, died due to being hit from behind, head restraints would have saved his life.

andrewdcs

It was only ever a yellow

Baza210 wrote: »

Objective: Clerc was lifted dangerously
Subjective: Warburton didn't mean to put him in danger

I KNEW an Msc. in philosophy would stand to me!

death1234567

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Nice to see so many people voting (correctly IMO) that the ref made the right decision. A few reds and soon those type of dangerous tackles will be gone from the game.

How is this "Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow " even an option. What difference does it make that was a world Cup semi-final? The rules are the same for every game.

Podge_irl

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

I'm genuinely shocked and more then a little dismayed by the number of pundits, including plenty of ex-players, who feel that Rolland should have given a yellow card "for the sake of the semi-final".

What kind of message is that? If France come out onto the pitch and deliberately injure McCaw in the first 5 minutes should they only get a yellow cause it's there is 75 minutes of the final yet to play. It's an utterly baffling line of thought.

bamboozle

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'm genuinely shocked and more then a little dismayed by the number of pundits, including plenty of ex-players, who feel that Rolland should have given a yellow card "for the sake of the semi-final".

What kind of message is that? If France come out onto the pitch and deliberately injure McCaw in the first 5 minutes should they only get a yellow cause it's there is 75 minutes of the final yet to play. It's an utterly baffling line of thought.

+1 very true, UTV's coverage on this was dreadful, RTE's was very good.

It was a red card, the occasion should not have been a factor in the referee's mind and rightly it wasnt.

2 incidents that should have been reds in which the referee (and citing comissioner in first incident) wimped out of making the tough & correct call which still p1ss me off were the spear tackle on BOD and Burger gouging Luke Fitz in the 2nd lions test in '09.

Snickers Man

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Shammy wrote: »

some players are a lot lighter than others

Which is precisely why, in my opinion, you need laws like this which are intended to enhance player safety.

Rugby allows a physical contest between players of greatly differing sizes. Big men can crash through little ones; little men can dodge or sprint past big ones. It's an essential part of the game's appeal.

But there needs to be a duty of care by the administrators to all players and that must include establishing clear guidelines regarding the limits of what a big player can do to a little one.

The law says nothing about intent. Malice isn't the issue here; it's negligence. You just can't do that, Sam. Even though you didn't mean to harm the guy. It was dangerous.

Oh and I voted that Rolland was 100% correct.

the immortals

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

the ref had no choice but to give a red card as he is there to apply the rules of the game, there really is no debate

Ciaran-Irl

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

A lot of commentators are arguing that the reason the card shouldn't have been red is because there was another tackle during the world cup that was as bad, but not punished with a red card.

I don't really understand how this argument can lead to anything other than the referee in the Fiji / South Africa match made a mistake or that they didn't see it clearly enough. It doesn't follow that just because the tackle below should have been red but didn't get one, Warburton didn't deserve a red card

vetinari

Only a foul

It's called consistency, there's no pint having a rule in the rule book if you wait till the semi final of your showpice tournament to impose it. I find it unusual that people are saying that Rolland is "vindicated" by being made touch judge for the final. I thought he wanted to be the ref for the final no?

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

A lot of commentators are arguing that the reason the card shouldn't have been red is because there was another tackle during the world cup that was as bad, but not punished with a red card.

I don't really understand how this argument can lead to anything other than the referee in the Fiji / South Africa match made a mistake or that they didn't see it clearly enough. It doesn't follow that just because the tackle below should have been red but didn't get one, Warburton didn't deserve a red card


]

The crucial difference here is that the player was released in the air while lateral, Warburton drove Clerc into the ground

.ak

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

I also believe that any of the other tackles that were similar in the WC should've been red cards. They weren't because A) the ref made a mistake, the bottled out of the red, or C) weren't in the right position to make that call.

In any case the players were correctly cited afterwards.

Fishooks12

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

.ak wrote: »

I also believe that any of the other tackles that were similar in the WC should've been red cards. They weren't because A) the ref made a mistake, the bottled out of the red, or C) weren't in the right position to make that call.

In any case the players were correctly cited afterwards.

I watched most of the games and can only recall one similar incident (in the tonga france game) which was properly cited and the player involved handed out a hefty ban

Ciaran-Irl

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

vetinari wrote: »

It's called consistency, there's no pint having a rule in the rule book if you wait till the semi final of your showpice tournament to impose it. I find it unusual that people are saying that Rolland is "vindicated" by being made touch judge for the final. I thought he wanted to be the ref for the final no?

Ok, so for example Ghilardini didn't get any punishment for making contact with Cian Healy's eyes in the Italy game. Does that give every player for the rest of the tournament free reign to gouge as much as they like?

irishbucsfan

Correct decision but as it was a WC SF maybe a yellow

vetinari wrote: »

It's called consistency, there's no pint having a rule in the rule book if you wait till the semi final of your showpice tournament to impose it. I find it unusual that people are saying that Rolland is "vindicated" by being made touch judge for the final. I thought he wanted to be the ref for the final no?

Rolland's had a bad year, I don't think he was ever going to get the final, as good as he has been in the past. He has become extremely lax at scrum/breakdown and I generally dislike watching games he referees (blasphemy I know!).

As for consistency, the above Fijian player was banned for that tackle by the citing commissioner after being sin binned in the match. That is effectively an admission by the authorities that it should have been a red card. Is it a shame that the referee of that match made the mistake? Yes it is, but at least he dealt with it in some way, and thankfully Rolland got the decision right when he was presented with the same kind of situation.