Rugby World Cup 2011

[Milltown Row2]

They have been trying to get rid of this tackle for a few years now, the players talking afterwards have been really straight about it. They have just lost and they have said that's it, the referee give it and are dealing with it a lot better than some here. Great to see the respect for the referee whether they believe it was right or not.

[AZOffaly]

I don't think that's a common tackle in rugby, and if it is it deserves a red. I've been to a lot of rugby matches in the past 10 years and there are a lot of tackles where the players is lifted up by the tackler, but in the vast, vast majority of cases the tackler controls the person he is tackling as they go to ground.

The same way the vast majority of hurlers excercise a duty of care towards opponents in a game (carrying a potentially lethal weapon), most rugby players exercise a duty of care towards a defenceless opponent in those circumstances. Wharburton did not.

[thewobbler]

Deiseach, I think there is dangerous play in every rugby match, and a large part of it is spur of the moment stuff rather than premeditated. If dangerous play = always a red card, then rugby will lose its soul.



I'd argue that a full back has no choice but to attack a hanging ball, thereby leaving himself open to dangerous play. The minute he declines this opportunity, will be the last time he plays full back. It's not really a 'choice' to leave the ground.

[INDIANA]

Deiseach, I think there is dangerous play in every rugby match, and a large part of it is spur of the moment stuff rather than premeditated. If dangerous play = always a red card, then rugby will lose its soul.



I'd argue that a full back has no choice but to attack a hanging ball, thereby leaving himself open to dangerous play. The minute he declines this opportunity, will be the last time he plays full back. It's not really a 'choice' to leave the ground.

Wobbler read the relevent rule because Rolland was right. You're digging a hole for yourself here. the letter of the law does not allow intent. So Rolland was  correct. Stop listening to ITV.

[AZOffaly]

Deiseach, I think there is dangerous play in every rugby match, and a large part of it is spur of the moment stuff rather than premeditated. If dangerous play = always a red card, then rugby will lose its soul.



I'd argue that a full back has no choice but to attack a hanging ball, thereby leaving himself open to dangerous play. The minute he declines this opportunity, will be the last time he plays full back. It's not really a 'choice' to leave the ground.

Dangerous play is not always a red card. However, in this particular circumstance, because the tackler is completely in control, they have deemed a red card/.

[thewobbler]

Well RTE pulled up the laws for us, and the tackle is no doubt dangerous play.

There isn't though a directive that this constitutes a red card, only that it's dangerous play.

For example, If Warburton had have picked him up and dropped him from 6 feet, it'd be a red card, with no complaints. If he executed such a tackle with one foot of a drop, it wouldn't probably even be called as a foul, but would have made a 'best bits' reel.

Which is why a ref has to be the final judge, not the laws. And in my considered opinion, Rolland fucked this one up completely.

[Hoof Hearted]

Wales missed a conversion which would have won the game
Halfpenny missed a difficult kick which would have won the game
Hook missed 2 kickable ones in the 1st half which would have won the game
Jones bottled out of a drop kick which would have won the game

They can blame the ref all they want.

[screenexile]

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2040903.html

Council Amends Spear Tackle Law


The IRB Council has reinforced its zero-tolerance stance towards all dangerous tackles by approving an amendment to the Law relating to the spear tackle.

An amendment to Law 10.4(j) has been approved to recognise the defensive actions of the tackled player when the arms are outstretched to break a fall and to further ensure the consistency of application of the appropriate sanction for offending players.

The amended Law 10.4(j) will now read: 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.

The amended Law will operate globally from December 1, 2010.

Warburton's tackle is exactly what has been highlighted to constitute a 'spear tackle' the spear tackle warrants an automatic red. There is no gray area in this case.

The incident is unfortunate and was the reason Wales got beat. I actually believe they would have won comfortably had Warburton been on the pitch. However the ref cannot be blamed for making the correct call and the blame in this case lies solely at Warburtons door!

Hard luck Wales it was a valiant effort but it wasn't meant to be.

[INDIANA]

Well RTE pulled up the laws for us, and the tackle is no doubt dangerous play.

There isn't though a directive that this constitutes a red card, only that it's dangerous play.

For example, If Warburton had have picked him up and dropped him from 6 feet, it'd be a red card, with no complaints. If he executed such a tackle with one foot of a drop, it wouldn't probably even be called as a foul, but would have made a 'best bits' reel.

Which is why a ref has to be the final judge, not the laws. And in my considered opinion, Rolland fucked this one up completely.

You're totally incorrect wobbler. His head clearly hits the ground. Read the rule. The rule was amended in december. I'm not saying it was right to amend the rule but Rolland applied the rules correctly.

If you dont have laws in physical contact games you have anarchy

[trileacman]

Brent and Wobblers point about full backs and lineout jumpers is completely different. In that the player or his team-mates puts him in the air with the obvious intention of returning safely to the ground.
If you lift a player in the air you have responsibility to see him safely to the ground. Its as simple as this. If you lift a player and then turn him its a red card. Just don't turn the f**king player and you won't be red-carded. Its perfectly legal to lift a player and drive him backwards, or lift him with the intention of turning him to your defence.

A FB that attacks a hanging ball is challenged by a player watching a ball, the defender is usually given the benefit of the doubt and if he up ends him its not deemed malicious but warrants a penalty. In a spear tackle, you lift the guy and turn him, you can't do that by mistake or accident.

[screenexile]

Just found this also:

http://www.deepsouthrugbyunion.com/images/IRB_Memorandum_re_Dangerous_Tackles.pdf

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 for this type of tackle.

It is definitely a red card!

[AZOffaly]

Well RTE pulled up the laws for us, and the tackle is no doubt dangerous play.

There isn't though a directive that this constitutes a red card, only that it's dangerous play.

For example, If Warburton had have picked him up and dropped him from 6 feet, it'd be a red card, with no complaints. If he executed such a tackle with one foot of a drop, it wouldn't probably even be called as a foul, but would have made a 'best bits' reel.

Which is why a ref has to be the final judge, not the laws. And in my considered opinion, Rolland fucked this one up completely.

Not exactly wobbler. Tom then read out the directive from early this year where 'such a tackle will be a red card'.

[bennydorano]

If he wasn't an Irish ref (or if Ireland were there instead of Wales) this discussion wouldn't be happening, he made an absolute bollix of it - or maybe he's achieved what he craved as his decision will be the only thing remembered from the game (Paudie Hughes eat your heart out) .  It was very interesting to hear the different attitudes on ITV & RTE, hardly suprising to hear Hook take a contrary position.  As soon as it happened my immediate reaction was that he might get a yellow.

Hard luck to Wales, a mamouth effort that deserved more than they received, another performance like that and France will be cannon fodder for the winners of tomorrow's game.

[deiseach]

If he wasn't an Irish ref (or if Ireland were there instead of Wales) this discussion wouldn't be happening, he made an absolute bollix of it - or maybe he's achieved what he craved as his decision will be the only thing remembered from the game (Paudie Hughes eat your heart out) .  It was very interesting to hear the different attitudes on ITV & RTE, hardly suprising to hear Hook take a contrary position.  As soon as it happened my immediate reaction was that he might get a yellow.

We're all defensive of an Irish referee? Unlikely that people would feel tribal over a referee. I didn't see the English getting defensive when Howard Webb allowed the Dutch to boot anything in a Spanish shirt for 100+ minutes in the 2010 soccer World Cup final. As for people wouldn't feel the same way had it been Ireland who lost their captain that way, you're right, but that just tells us that you can't rely on sports fans to be objective. Ironically the one group of people you can rely on to be embarrassed when their team benefits from a brutal refereeing decision (not that I think this was but we're talking here) would be the French. The general mood in France after the Thierry Henry incident was one of mortification that that was the manner in which they qualified. The treatment of Marc Lievremont by the French press will be like they'd lost

[Craigyhill Terror]

If he wasn't an Irish ref (or if Ireland were there instead of Wales) this discussion wouldn't be happening, he made an absolute bollix of it - or maybe he's achieved what he craved as his decision will be the only thing remembered from the game (Paudie Hughes eat your heart out) .  It was very interesting to hear the different attitudes on ITV & RTE, hardly suprising to hear Hook take a contrary position.  As soon as it happened my immediate reaction was that he might get a yellow.

Hard luck to Wales, a mamouth effort that deserved more than they received, another performance like that and France will be cannon fodder for the winners of tomorrow's game.

This is from the BBC website:

1102: Ed Morrison, head of elite referee development at the Rugby Football Union, confirmed on Radio 5 live that referee Alain Rolland was "100% right" to send off Warburton, adding that dropping a player from shoulder level is automatic red card.

It's been clearly outlined here - with plenty of references to the relevant law - why the referee made the correct decision. He applied the rules, simple as that. This isn't a philosophical debate about what people think should have happened or the bullshit on ITV about "ruining the game" or "fairness" - it's a simple matter of fact.
Pienaar, Dallaglio, Ryder and anyone who thinks it wasn't a red card don't know the rules.