Alain Rolland - Warburton decision

[BJ.]

This also means that Mr Poite the best ref out there will not be able to do the final!!

Therefore it must be time for ... WAYNE'S WORLD!

I'm sure the ABs would love him to ref them against the French.

[thebearisstilldeano]

Nice to see some sense here from people who follow the game all the time. Red was the right decision - shame for Wales who have played some good rugby, but "you do the crime - you do the time".

Non rugby following friends of Facebook are all up in arms over the decision - all led by the pundits who I thought were very "one eyed" today.

Still..... just think what a field day they would have had if it had been Manu (or any other England player)who put in that tackle - the Red would have been not only well deserved, and symptomatic of England's pay to date, but they would probably have then gone into a chorus of "Off with his head" "Excomunicate" "Send him to the colonies!".

[GT1]

BJ :- The patten says it should be a NH ref so could be WB but don't forget GC he did opening game but there could be a Welsh man in the final!! Any French speaking NH refs out there?(except Roland)

[Tiglon]

Correct decision, there's no place for that kind of tackle in the game.

Somehow, Wales still deserved to win and would have if their kicking was just slightly more accurate.

France - could they be the worst team ever to reach a World Cup final?

[BJ.]

I think Wayne has a smattering of French as I'm sure I've heard him speak some in Heineken Cup (or was it 6N?) matches.

[chris4xy]

I couldn't believe that the pundits argument was based on the fact that it was a semi-final of the World Cup. It doesn't matter what level you're playing at or what competition you are in, a dangerous tackle is a dangerous tackle. Or were the ITV pundits insrtructed by their bosses that they must support Wales regardless.
No doubt if it had been Manu they would have been calling for a life long ban!

[fentiger]

In no way am I defending the tackle, the rules are there for all to see. However the replays show that Warburton actually lost his footing during the tackle and consequently slipped forward therefore making it impossible in any case to put the man down safely. We have no idea if that was his intention and, obviously the ref does not have replays to view!

[Bristol Tiger]

Can't agree with the majority view on here - that tackle was dangerous, yes, was a penalty, yes, and a yellow card. Red card - no.

The law is as clear as mud (as has been pointed out) that the referee may deem it a "red" - but all down to a referee's interpretation. There have been worse at this world cup (and in the Premiership) that have not been punished with a red.

I think Alain should have discussed with the touch judges - big decision and he was not fully sighted on the offence (he was close but there was a player between him and the tackle). Big decisions deserve due consideration - I don't think he gave it.

Right or wrong - it had a big impact on the game. The French seem to have reached the final by playing only 40 minutes of half decent rugby. Surely the worse performance to ever get into a World Cup final ...

[daktari]

Sense being talked on 5, it was a red card, harsh but the ref had no choice. The laws probably need amending to give some discretion.

I've had the same discussion with non-rugby friends - "you know better than Dayglo, do you?'....erm yes.... ITV pundits were terrible, I've really no idea why they were claiming it was a wrong decision apart to make controversy for the sake of it.

[AidanMcDowell]

Let's be clear what the IRB laws actually state. Section 10.4 on dangerous play is as follows:

(j) 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

Section 10.5 covers the issue of punishment for infringement of the laws:

(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.

So, this was not an automatic red card. Alain Roland had to decide on the degree of intent and I think it would have been prudent to consult the linesman before making such a decision. The red card may still have been warranted but what appeared to be a hasty decision and a disproportionate response has sent the ITV muppets into a self-rightous frenzy.

Posters in this forum regularly call for consistency in refereeing decisions and I don't think this decision was consistent with has has occurred already in this World Cup.

IMHO, of course....

[PM76]

Stevetelecom, the Lawrence referred to is Bryce, not Dayglo.

Unhappily, a correct decision to send Warburton off.

Would the pundits have held the same view if the tackle had been on a Welshman, and the Frenchman stayed on? I can almost hear them asking "Why is he still on the pitch?" every single time he was near the ball. Poor commentary, poor direction, poor punditry, poor ITV.

I cannot agree more, they kept on showing the slowmo replay too, it looked horrific in real time. My first instinct was a yellow but you cannot dispute the red card IMO. Clearly there will never be world-wide consistency and Rolland had to make a judgement call.

[old one eye]

Correct decision, in my opinion,Rolland got it right, the inconsistent decisions were made by other refs.

[Chunter]

From http://www.aru.org.uk/referees/download ... kles09.pdf:

To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the ground:
∞ The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
∞ 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.
∞ For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.
Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) of the circumstances of the tackle.

[Big Dai]

Thank god for the sense taliked on here......I was beginning to think I'd gone to another planet.

Just to get my head round events I was sad enough to to a little surfing and look up the letter of the law on the matter. Sad I know but when you actually live here you better have a cast iron defence. Conclusion? Much the same as those who have posted. it's a card just a matter of what colour. Did he endanger the player, yes, colour is red!

For that defence I get called..............at this point the post was halted due to the a absence of forum friendly language.

[Steve56]

I've just been watching a delayed recording of the match, and sat there seething at the biased, myopic views of the ITV panel. So I have just come onto the forum to see if I'm the only person who thought it was a sending off offence. Thank God I'm not the only one. Delaglio saying that, in mitigation, Warburton let him go (pointing downwards) in mid-air after he realised he had made a dangerous tack just won't wash. It was his responsibility to bring him back to ground safely. Thank you, I've had my rant!