RWC 2011 SF1 - Wales v France

[Braveheart81]

I.e. red card being the most severe sanction for a dangerous lifting tackle back to yellow for a less serious lifting tackle to a penalty for a lifting tackle that wasn't dangerous.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I.e. red card being the most severe sanction for a dangerous lifting tackle back to yellow for a less serious lifting tackle to a penalty for a lifting tackle that wasn't dangerous.

Are the refs encouraged to have a predetermined starting point for a sanction?

 

[Braveheart81]

I would say yes. For example, punching is meant to be an automatic yellow card. That would be a sanction where you start at yellow and work upwards to a red card for a king hit etc.

I guess it is in the interests of consistency across referees.

 

[Cardiffblue]

Are the refs encouraged to have a predetermined starting point for a sanction?

That's the issue that everyone's pissed off with. How was this judged dangerous? what was Dusatoir doing screaming at the ref? what do you make of winger's theatrics on the floor in the light of what he did 2nd half. And if ref did not make an error, why did he give ridiculous penalties to wales in 2nd half? finally, what effect did this ref's decsion have on this match and on RWC?


At the end of the day however, it is over, done and dusted. Bois are hopefully looking forward to a meeting with a real rugby outfit next friday

 

[Inside Shoulder]

That's the issue that everyone's pissed off with. How was this judged dangerous? what was Dusatoir doing screaming at the ref? what do you make of winger's theatrics on the floor in the light of what he did 2nd half. And if ref did not make an error, why did he give ridiculous penalties to wales in 2nd half? At the end of the day however, it is over, done and dusted. Bois are hopefully looking forward to a meeting with a real rugby outfit next friday

It was potentially dangerous: but what in union isn't....kicking for goal? Hold on Dan Carter got injured doing that......
Dusatoir i agree - looked like a soccer match - next they'll be chasing the ref and handling him
Agree the winger milked it but he may have a soccer background

 

[FANATIC]

I think this is a good point. this is the showcase for the game we love. It has been ruined by this decision and there is no way (in my view) this warranted a red card. Someone has to get it throught their thick skulls that the game of rugby is about entertainment and as a result of this decision, that game was dire.

an impartial person who did not care who won was watching with us, he said when Captain was Redcarded. "You have got to be kidding. What has this game come to. I thought this was a contact sport. This is not the sort of game I want to watch. How can you get sent off for tackling a man." I found it quite difficult to attempt to explain the difference in the rules about careless tackles and dangerous tackles to this person in the context of what we had just seen. He just kept saying, "but that was NOT dangerous, he let him go!"....

Then in my Welsh jersy, I got every single red light all the way home... it felt like someone upstairs was trying to rub it in.

But as a Wallabie fan, I know we can beat the French, but I still would have like to have been tested against the welsh, such brave young tallented men.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

I think this is a good point. this is the showcase for the game we love. It has been ruined by this decision and there is no way (in my view) this warranted a red card. Someone has to get it throught their thick skulls that the game of rugby is about entertainment and as a result of this decision, that game was dire.

CB, I understand you are bitter, and I would be in your place, but you are getting pretty close to saying that it's fine to put someone in a wheelchair for the rest of their life, so long as the game looks good, and we are entertained. If the cost of your advance to the RWC final was an opposition player's life destroyed, tell me honestly how you would feel?

Last week all and sundry were commenting on BL's ineptness at not enforcing the rules at breakdown. We are now in the situation of tearing strips off Rolland for a decision that follows the law, which is crystal clear on tip tackles. Doesn't matter that he didn't mean to lift him - bottom line is that he did, and was penalised according to the rules of the game.

FFS, if he had landed slightly differently and broken his neck, Warburton would be reviled as the greatest #$%@ in the world and people would be screaming for him to be banned for life.

It was a mighty fightback from Wales, I wish they had won it, and they could have if they had kicked bettter. It would have been a win for the ages if you had.

 

[Ryphon]

http://p.twimg.com/AbyShhqCQAI1G62.jpg:large

IRB Memorandum regarding dangerous tackling (in case this hasn't been posted yet).

 

[FANATIC]

I.e. red card being the most severe sanction for a dangerous lifting tackle back to yellow for a less serious lifting tackle to a penalty for a lifting tackle that wasn't dangerous.

Clearly stated in one sentence.

I have also not been too keen on this 2011 IRB pressure on the ref to award penalty at the scrum rather than a reset. I think we have been seeing refs giving penalties when they are not 100% of what has gone on in the scrum, rather than go for a reset.

 

[Cardiffblue]

CB, I understand you are bitter, and I would be in your place, but you are getting pretty close to saying that it's fine to put someone in a wheelchair for the rest of their life, so long as the game looks good, and we are entertained. If the cost of your advance to the RWC final was an opposition player's life destroyed, tell me honestly how you would feel?

Last week all and sundry were commenting on BL's ineptness at not enforcing the rules at breakdown. We are now in the situation of tearing strips off Rolland for a decision that follows the law, which is crystal clear on tip tackles. Doesn't matter that he didn't mean to lift him - bottom line is that he did, and was penalised according to the rules of the game.

FFS, if he had landed slightly differently and broken his neck, Warburton would be reviled as the greatest #$%@ in the world and people would be screaming for him to be banned for life.

It was a mighty fightback from Wales, I wish they had won it, and they could have if they had kicked bettter. It would have been a win for the ages if you had.

Absolute bollocks. that's not what I said or what happened.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

CB, I understand you are bitter, and I would be in your place, but you are getting pretty close to saying that it's fine to put someone in a wheelchair for the rest of their life, so long as the game looks good, and we are entertained. If the cost of your advance to the RWC final was an opposition player's life destroyed, tell me honestly how you would feel?

Last week all and sundry were commenting on BL's ineptness at not enforcing the rules at breakdown. We are now in the situation of tearing strips off Rolland for a decision that follows the law, which is crystal clear on tip tackles. Doesn't matter that he didn't mean to lift him - bottom line is that he did, and was penalised according to the rules of the game.

FFS, if he had landed slightly differently and broken his neck, Warburton would be reviled as the greatest #$%@ in the world and people would be screaming for him to be banned for life.

It was a mighty fightback from Wales, I wish they had won it, and they could have if they had kicked bettter. It would have been a win for the ages if you had.

Part of me agrees, Sandpit, and part of me says that a broken neck can happen in the game with no infringement of the rules: it follows that the risk that serious injury may result from an aspect of the game is not the determinant of whether something is legal or illegal. if it were there would not be any scrums, for instance. Presumably, the theory behind rendering lifting tackles illegal is that they carry a greater, readily identifiable risk of injury than is generally present in legal aspects of the game.
That means that it is accepted by the IRB that lifting tackles have a heightened risk: but not all lifting tackles have such a risk and the level of risk varies from lifting tackle to lifting tackle. That requires a response to a lifting tackle that reflects, as best it can in the heat of the moment, the objective risk of the tackle under consideration.
I think there is a difference of opinion as to the objective risk of serious injury arising from the particular tackle in question.
I tend to the view that the risk was small and so yellow was enough. Others are of a different view.
Would be great if Paddy or even Roland cold explain the reasoning process actually engaged in on the field: the trouble is that if they did that and they admitted to a mistake all hell would break loose.
Not sure anyone will or should feel better for reading this.

 

[Cardiffblue]

an impartial person who did not care who won was watching with us, he said when Captain was Redcarded. "You have got to be kidding. What has this game come to. I thought this was a contact sport. This is not the sort of game I want to watch. How can you get sent off for tackling a man." I found it quite difficult to attempt to explain the difference in the rules about careless tackles and dangerous tackles to this person in the context of what we had just seen. He just kept saying, "but that was NOT dangerous, he let him go!"....

Then in my Welsh jersy, I got every single red light all the way home... it felt like someone upstairs was trying to rub it in.

But as a Wallabie fan, I know we can beat the French, but I still would have like to have been tested against the welsh, such brave young tallented men.

Hang on fanatic. We may be seeing a lot of each other over the next two months

 

[Cardiffblue]

Part of me agrees, Sandpit, and part of me says that a broken neck can happen in the game with no infringement of the rules: it follows that the risk that serious injury may result from an aspect of the game is not the determinant of whether something is legal or illegal. if it were there would not be any scrums, for instance. Presumably, the theory behind rendering lifting tackles illegal is that they carry a greater, readily identifiable risk of injury than is generally present in legal aspects of the game.
That means that it is accepted by the IRB that lifting tackles have a heightened risk: but not all lifting tackles have such a risk and the level of risk varies from lifting tackle to lifting tackle. That requires a response to a lifting tackle that reflects, as best it can in the heat of the moment, the objective risk of the tackle under consideration.
I think there is a difference of opinion as to the objective risk of serious injury arising from the particular tackle in question.
I tend to the view that the risk was small and so yellow was enough. Others are of a different view.
Would be great if Paddy or even Roland cold explain the reasoning process actually engaged in on the field: the trouble is that if they did that and they admitted to a mistake all hell would break loose.
Not sure anyone will or should feel better for reading this.

that's right. the decision right or wrong was made and it pretty much determined the course of RWC. It also ruined what might have been a great spectacle. My point is that there is a world of difference between Sam warburton's tackle and some psychopath in a 4th grade team out to maim someone. But there we go. It's over. And as I said last night. I'm not going to criticise the decision -other than to think that it was the wrong one. refs are paid to take this sort to decision and must live with the consequences, which in his case will be to be forever consigned to history along with Roger Quittenton or Max Boyce's blind Irish referee. we move on

 

[Inside Shoulder]

that's right. the decision right or wrong was made and it pretty much determined the course of RWC. It also ruined what might have been a great spectacle. My point is that there is a world of difference between Sam warburton's tackle and some psychopath in a 4th grade team out to maim someone. But there we go. It's over

Not quite:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby-world-cup-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=522&objectid=10759443

 

[barbarian]

that's right. the decision right or wrong was made and it pretty much determined the course of RWC. It also ruined what might have been a great spectacle.

See I have been thinking about this today. I don't think it was a red card either, but I think to say the game was lost at that point is a bit much. I think the Welsh team might have thought that though. But looking back Wales had about 5 clear-cut opportunities to win that game without Warburton, but still didn't take them. For all the self-pity and moaning, they still should have won that game, and won it quite easily. For that they can really only blame themselves.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Absolute bollocks. that's not what I said or what happened.

CB, I didn't say that you said it, ok? What I said was that it's getting close. And agree, it didn't happen, but given a few inches either way, could easily have, which I think a lot of people are losing sight of.


To move slightly away from the subject...No doubt Bryce Lawrance will be stoked that Rolland has taken him off the front pages. The tournament will be remembered for this incident rather than his performance.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

See I have been thinking about this today. I don't think it was a red card either, but I think to say the game was lost at that point is a bit much. I think the Welsh team might have thought that though. But looking back Wales had about 5 clear-cut opportunities to win that game without Warburton, but still didn't take them. For all the self-pity and moaning, they still should have won that game, and won it quite easily. For that they can really only blame themselves.

There is something in this.
History being what it is though no one can say that those opportunities would have been squandered had Warburton stayed on

 

[pete88]

I think CB's point is that Wales shut up shop as they didn't have their fetcher to play a wide game. I think there's something in that, and actually France didn't know how to respond to such a big call and played worse rugby because of it. However, that is the fault of the teams as much as the ref (if you're of the opinion it wasn't a red).

 

[pete88]

There is something in this.
History being what it is though no one can say that those opportunities would have been squandered had Warburton stayed on

I think people will argue France would never have led the game if Warburton had stayed on. Probably rightly.

 

[Cardiffblue]

See I have been thinking about this today. I don't think it was a red card either, but I think to say the game was lost at that point is a bit much. I think the Welsh team might have thought that though. But looking back Wales had about 5 clear-cut opportunities to win that game without Warburton, but still didn't take them. For all the self-pity and moaning, they still should have won that game, and won it quite easily. For that they can really only blame themselves.

Don't think you will get any disagreement 'cept on the influence of warburton on this team and the game. The lineout fell to bits cos of the removal of back option made it easy to defend, and whilst Jaw covered well, we missed him in centre in attack as a result. I agree they didn't adjust well and certainly didn't realise how crap the french were until too late. they kicked to Ickle's wing when he was covering elsewhere and played for position instead if keeping ball in hand. I'm not even blaming the ref, just the decision, which I think was the wrong one and has ruined the RWC allowing a piece of shit to reach the final