RWC Semi Final: France - Wales (15-08-2011, 21:00)

[Charles]

Hard luck Wales. I'll take the win though, as I guess most of you would. To all the french bashers: shove it, if it was the other way round (a french player being red carded) nobody would be saying a word.

 

[Saintjay]

This is part of the memo from the IRB to ref's regarding dangerous tackles. It clears up the intent bit and should end the arguement. The players intent has nothing to do in the decision making process on what is a dangerous tackle.

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.

 

[mustardcharlie]

On a serious note, I do agree about the dangerous tackle needing some ruling against it. Your words why do you think they should have this ruling.

All tackles are dangerous and life threatening. If I'm steaming in to make a tackle (OK 30 years ago but you know what I mean) the last thing I am thinking about is whether I might do a guy serious injury. You tackle with the shoulder. Christ, my uncle has put in more serious tackles than that. He referees RL matches, has played professionally and is a member of BARLA.

Christ, it's a sad day for rugby when you can't put in a decent hit without the ref sending you off. +

 

[Aout]

See the link above and stop complaining please. Read the rules.

 

[AKA]

Because it is about reducing risk of harm and injury, when there is no need for it within the rules of the game. One of the reasons they let players start wearing padding, to stop people breaking there collar bones.

As another poster said. Warburton could have made that tackle like the other 140 safe legal tackles during the game. The reason people don't hit like that and it against the rules is simply because it is dangerous and can cause serious injury when there is no need for it. Hence why they looked at the scrum laws etc.

Think of it like this, why are you not allowed to high tackle people around the neck. It is dangerous and there is no need for it within the laws of the game.

So everyone who does a high takle should get sent off do they?

There is no need for dangerous tackle in the game. If Warburton showed any malice to intentionly hurt Clerc than He should be sent off and no one would have argued with the ref decision. The ref should have used his common sense and taken into consideration that the collison happened so quickly and Warburton made such a good hit that his momentum took him foward and lost control of him. It happened in a second.

Was it a penalty? yes. Was it a yellow card? Maybe. Was it a red card? Not in a million years! If you serioulsy think this was a red card then we should all stop playing rugby and take up Ballerina instead. He killed the game and at the end Rugby lost out.

 

[Aout]

Not everyone, only people that are doing what is mentionned here :

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

In order to be sure that you've seen the link, here it is :
http://www.deepsouthrugbyunion.com/images/IRB_Memorandum_re_Dangerous_Tackles.pdf
http://www.deepsouthrugbyunion.com/images/IRB_Memorandum_re_Dangerous_Tackles.pdf
http://www.deepsouthrugbyunion.com/images/IRB_Memorandum_re_Dangerous_Tackles.pdf

 

[Bossco]

Yep all tackles are dangerous, which is why we need to make those that are delibrately and unnecessarily so, illegal.

There has been a clear signal sent by the refs during this tournament, whom themselves under strict instruction, that such tackles will be punished severly.

Warburton and Warburton alone cost Wales the game.

Although I don't think there has been a team this poor as the French are, in the finals of this tournament and it certainly makes tommorow the final.

 

[mustardcharlie]

See the link above and stop complaining please. Read the rules.

To whom? What rules and where, and if we have broken those rules please let people know where so they can amend their behaviour.

 

[Saintjay]

So everyone who does a high takle should get sent off do they?

There is no need for dangerous tackle in the game. If Warburton showed any malice to intentionly hurt Clerc than He should be sent off and no one would have argued with the ref decision. The ref should have used his common sense and taken into consideration that the collison happened so quickly and Warburton made such a good hit that his momentum took him foward and lost control of him. It happened in a second.

Was it a penalty? yes. Was it a yellow card? Maybe. Was it a red card? Not in a million years! If you serioulsy think this was a red card then we should all stop playing rugby and take up Ballerina instead. He killed the game and at the end Rugby lost out.

Intent has nothing to do with it, or the decision making process of the referee.

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.

Tell me how do you prove a persons intent?.

Was it a penalty yes, was it dangerous yes, could he have made that tackle in a safe manner yes. By the laws of the game was it a straight red yes.

The ref applied the law in the correct manner as most people have said.

 

[User1245]

NOTE: T9.... ouch, right behind the sternum. I bet you couldn't laugh for a long time after that!!

Yip that and the fact that I couldn't get a hard-on for 2 weeks! The spinal cord doesn't have much room there. Close call!

 

[mustardcharlie]

Yep all tackles are dangerous, which is why we need to make those that are delibrately and unnecessarily so, illegal.

There has been a clear signal sent by the refs during this tournament, whom themselves under strict instruction, that such tackles will be punished severly.

Warburton and Warburton alone cost Wales the game.

Although I don't think there has been a team this poor as the French are, in the finals of this tournament and it certainly makes tommorow the final.

I'm too old man. I come from the old school. Dainty wingers who float around near the big boys need to take care. You want a game for wussies and children. go for it. My daughter takes harder shots than that at netball/hockey.

 

[tbhp]

Although I don't think there has been a team this poor as the French are, in the finals of this tournament

Well, you can't make such a statement as the final hasn't been played yet. For all we know, the French could have the best performance ever in a world cup final next week, and in this case it will be inappropriate to continue to call them poor.

 

[dangandan]

Meh i don't get what some people are getting at with consistency. Refs are not robots and due to make some incorrect calls. They do however try to be as consistent as possible. Rolland's call for the red card was correct no matter what other inconsistencies people say he had. Some are talking about the other dangerous tackle regarding the France-Tonga game but Rolland wasn't refereeing that game. If you're going to criticise Rolland then criticise the things he got wrong, not the things he got right.

 

[mustardcharlie]

Because it is about reducing risk of harm and injury, when there is no need for it within the rules of the game. One of the reasons they let players start wearing padding, to stop people breaking there collar bones.

So why don't we send the players out in full body armour like Americans? Helmets and Kevlar vests?

 

[shtove]

That's what baffles me. We have the luxury of technology and replays, why not use them. When a referee misses something and a touchy picks it up and talks to the ref, why can he not take the touchy's opinion AND look at the replay??.. Then make the decision? Foolproof really.

But the ref didn't miss anything - he saw it for what it was.

It's as clear as ... your pic of Tana in your sig!

 

[Me 1]

No, nein, non, whatever the Spanish and Italian are for no.

They are no and no

 

[Saintjay]

All tackles are dangerous and life threatening. If I'm steaming in to make a tackle (OK 30 years ago but you know what I mean) the last thing I am thinking about is whether I might do a guy serious injury. You tackle with the shoulder. Christ, my uncle has put in more serious tackles than that. He referees RL matches, has played professionally and is a member of BARLA.

Christ, it's a sad day for rugby when you can't put in a decent hit without the ref sending you off. +

What is a dangerous tackle?, and why do they have the dangerous tackle law?

So why don't we send the players out in full body armour like Americans? Helmets and Kevlar vests?

Because it is not within the laws or the spirit of the game. The same as dangerous play.

 

[shtove]

Shane Williams is a Gentleman.

Yes, that was a classy interview after the game.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Gatland is making an idiot of himself with some post match comments..

Grow up. He's allowed to have a moan at somepoint. Rightly or wrongly.

I'm pretty sickened by the abuse Rolland is being given both online and from pundits/commentators. It wasn't Rolland who spear tackled Parra. Warburton has only himself to blame for this. It's obvious that refs have been told to crack down on those sort of tackles and that's what Rolland did.

I have seen a few recently in games and they have not been clamped upon.

Nigel took the flak a few weeks back and Rolland now.

 

[mustardcharlie]

Well, you can't make such a statement as the final hasn't been played yet. For all we know, the French could have the best performance ever in a world cup final next week, and in this case it will be inappropriate to continue to call them poor.

There is nothing wrong with Bossco's statement. France have been abysmal. Yes, they may do something in a weeks time (very unlikely). Truth is though that they're going to get a serious spanking. I shall be very disappointed if NZ/Oz do not give one of the worst French teams I have ever seen a damn good thrashing.