Sam Warburton's Tip Tackle in RWC Semi Final

[nickdnz]

True, wrang example maybe. I don't think punishment should be determined by the severity of the result. Perhaps a ticket for speeding is a more suitable comparison. You don't get a smaller fine if your speeding doesn't result in an accident.

Ai, still not a good analogy. I give up. This matter is going to be difficult to conclude

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

Haha, I like it. But it still makes my point. If you speed and kill someone you get a red card (jail time). If you speed and don't have an accident you give away free kick (small fine) at most.

I do see what you are saying, and I'd usually agree. I just think that I, on a stage like a RWC QF, would have desided that the occasion was more important than the recommended action.

 

[SelimNiai]

Why do we have another topic on this? It's happened, all this is going to turn out in more arguing.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Yes, and that is where it bugs me. I want to be strict and give a red card for the tip tackle but at the same time I don't want to influence the match by sending someone off for something that wasn't serious foul play (intentionally hitting someone for instance) or didn't result in serious injury. I am torn between 2 options and both are viable, but still... I don't know what decision to make. If this was a simple Test Match, I would have given the red card without hesitation.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Why do we have another topic on this? It's happened, all this is going to turn out in more arguing.

Now that the emotions have left the building, so to speak, we can discuss this objectively. I think it's great to see the point of view of some people on this. I ignore the people who simply say Yes or No without explanation

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

The thing is, there are only so many possible responses.

They've all been exhausted already, so really adding a comment is just rephrasing what someone else had said.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Yes, but from a referee's PoV, it is interesting, which is the reason SC started this.


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[Saintjay]

Intent is not part of the decision making process on sending players off for dangerous tackles, I think the memo sent around October confirms that ref's should not take intent into account. Should they?, I don't know maybe that is a different arguement.

Criminal trials spend ages arguing about the intent of the accused. I don't think it is fare that a ref has to make that decision in a few minutes.

I was thinking if the tackle had been on a Welsh player, and the French player stayed on the pitch with the same result. Would we have a hundred and one welsh fans saying it should have been a red and they lost because it was not. We would then be screaming for Rolland's head.

 

[smartcooky]

Why do we have another topic on this? It's happened, all this is going to turn out in more arguing.

I would rather people NOT argue here. Simply say what you think and leave it at that

My purpose here was to compare poll responses between this forum, which is for the most part a "rugby supporters forum" with an identical poll on a "rugby referees forum".

So far, RugbyRefs poll is running

RED CARD............ 53 votes (80.3%)
YELLOW CARD.......12 votes (18.2%)
PENALTY ONLY.......1 vote.(1.5%)
PLAY ON...............0 votes

It is remarkably similar to the vote here given the differing nature of the memberships of the two forums

 

[ranger]

I dont know.. if i personally got tipped and landed on my back, i wouldn't expect the tackler to get a red card.

 

[lucky number 7]

I dont know.. if i personally got tipped and landed on my back, i wouldn't expect the tackler to get a red card.

Nor would I but I dont consider the base of the neck or shoulders to be the back ...The way clerc went down was dangerous IMO

 

[petehooker]

I have to disagree strongly with a view, that says the circumstances of being in the RWC semi final must be taken into account.

The statement "He should be treated more leniently because it was a RWC semi-final" is logically no different from "Reckless or dangerous play is more acceptable in a RWC semi-final".

Part of being a top class player is playing on the edge, so if players sense that in an important game they are less likely to be sent off, they will push it further.

So, the circumstances of the match shouldn't affect the decision, but if they do, the ref should err on the harsh side in an important game rather than on the lenient side pour encourager les autres.

 

[dullonien]

My opinion is very similar to Ezequiel's, in that the rule book states that a red-card should be given for this type of tackle, therefore Rolland was within his rights to give a red-card.

However, my personal oppinion is that this was a yellow-card offense, and that's because it was abvious to everyone (or it should be), that there was no malice intended in the tackle. I feel that this matters in rugby, because it's a way of seperating blatant acts of malicious foul play (such as deliberately stamping on someone, gouging, full on spear tackles when the players head is drilled into the ground, and other such thuggery which is simply appalling), and accidental things like this and most high tackles which are something that happens in the heat of the moment. The length of the bans may differ, but that doesn't change the fact that it's cost the rest of the squad and the fans the game itself, and in this case a place at the rugby world cup final. Ideally, maybe a further card should be brought in, an orange which results in maybe 20-30min in the sin-bin for things like this and accidental high tackles etc. But intill something like that happens, then imo accidental challanges like this should be deemed yellow-cards, and if the citing board afterwards decide that more should have been given then they can hand out bans.

For the record, I'm not saying this just because he was a Welsh player and it probably cost us a place in the final. I personally feel that Rollands sending off of Fritz was a much worse decision.

So in the end, I voted that it should have been a yellow-card, despite agreeing that Rolland was well within his means of giving the red.

 

[Isurus]

Francois Pienaar was 100% sure that the tackle did NOT deserve a red card when he spoke about it at halftime and at the end of the match on the ITV coverage. Given a day or two to think about it and hear dissenting views he changed his position to this: rather than the referee being wrong (his initial view), he now accepts that the referee was correct by the letter of the law. However, if rugby was always policed to the letter of the law then every ruck and maul would result in a penalty so he still thinks a yellow card was more appropriate.

I think he is wrong on this. He is right, in my opinion, that refereeing to the letter of the law in all cases would ruin rugby. However, I also think that when it comes to dangerous play and protecting player safety then the letter of the law must be applied consistently. If there is room for referee discretion then that just creates a grey area where player safety is compromised.

Apply the letter of the law where dangerous play is concerned and in time the players will respond and dangerous play will all but disappear.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Had Clerc broken his neck or not played on, I'd have ruled differently. And if it was deemed a red card, the citing comissioner could rule on it after the match which would still effectively leaves Wales without their star captain in the RWC final.

I certainly think the three week ban was too harsh. He essentially cost his team a Rugby World Cup final, that's pretty much punishment enough.

The Bold part i have highlighted in your post can only be applicable to the citing commisioner... The Referee has to make an immediate call on the field without replays, and to that extent he did make the correct call. Clerc landed on his spine, which runs from your head to your tailbone, if you fall wrong, you might get paralysed and from the Referee's Point of View when it immediately happened, there was according to him, enough intent to warrant the severe penalty given...

To put it in criminal terms as you and Eze have already touched on... on the Field the Referee is the officer, judge and executioner with just one view and that happens in split seconds... the citing commisioner gets more time, replays etc. to make his recommendations and then the suspension is implemented... If you are speeding and driving wrecklessly, the only thing an officer can do is arrest you immediately and keep you in jail for maximum 48hours without looking at the merits of the offence... afterwards, you are sent to court, given time to prepare and have a legal representative to assist you in your case, and independent judge rules on that, and there might be mitigating circumstances like you were speeding because you are late for the birth of yout first child...

If you were Rolland you wouldn't have had the time to sit and wait to see whether Clerc is O.K. or paralysed, you have to make your decision immediately on the offender, and with that your attention is not at the affected player...

 

[Teh Mite]

 

[Rhyer]

Everyone is blaming the ref because he is an easy scape goat. Didn't Warburton make the tackle? The Welsh CAPTAIN?

 

[nickdnz]

Everyone is blaming the ref because he is an easy scape goat. Didn't Warburton make the tackle? The Welsh CAPTAIN?

Most people aren't blaming the referee, infact I think pretty much everyone agrees that the law rules it's a red card. People also know that Warburton was silly for doing it. It's just questioning whether or not the red card offence is what action we would have taken in this game. As Paddy O'Brien has stated, it was the right call and to the letter of the law and there is no doubt about it. I still would have issued a yellow.

I think all acts where cards are given out pretty much needs to go to the TMO, just so the right call is always made. In this instance, you'd probably say it was the right call, but maybe there would be some kink of leniency.

 

[Larksea]

if that's a RED card then why did all the other "tip tackles" in the tournament only get Yellow cards? Most were as bad and in one or two cases worse than this one.

The reality is it ruined the game, it was not a fair contest from then on and without a doubt it changed the result of the game. This is a professional sport with a public that pay big money to see the game and they had that taken away from them.

If this is a red card then the rules should be changed for red cards so the player is punished but the spectacle isn't ruined. An idea would be to allow a bench player to come on and replace the Red carded player after 10min. The Carded player can't enter the game and the team then only have 21 players to work with but at least the contest isn't ruined and each team can continue with 15 players on the field after 10min being a man down. Then the player would be stood down for a period of time.

A system like that would be fair without ruining the contest.

 

[Seaton]

All the others that were given yellows were officiated wrongly, subsequent announcements and citings by the IRB have been mentioned dozens of times already.

They all should hav been reds.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

if that's a RED card then why did all the other "tip tackles" in the tournament only get Yellow cards? Most were as bad and in one or two cases worse than this one.

The reality is it ruined the game, it was not a fair contest from then on and without a doubt it changed the result of the game. This is a professional sport with a public that pay big money to see the game and they had that taken away from them.

If this is a red card then the rules should be changed for red cards so the player is punished but the spectacle isn't ruined. An idea would be to allow a bench player to come on and replace the Red carded player after 10min. The Carded player can't enter the game and the team then only have 21 players to work with but at least the contest isn't ruined and each team can continue with 15 players on the field after 10min being a man down. Then the player would be stood down for a period of time.

A system like that would be fair without ruining the contest.

so if that were the case, quade cooper could have tip tackled mccaw into a fence, stomped on his head and killed him once and for all last sunday, cooper would have been red carded and then replaced after 10 minutes by barnes? *sounds fair to me*