Sam Warburton Red Card

First topic message reminder :

Good call from the ref a definite spear tackle. Has there been a more stupid piece of play this world cup?

BlueNote wrote:It's difficult to see what else he could have done once he realised Clerc was off his feet. What he did resulted in the least harm to the player.

Once he had lifted him he should have known to stop and not tip him. Once he had tipped him he should have tried to lower him gently or fallen sideways so the impact wasnt in danger of being taken by the head neck or spine.

He had the opportunity to avoid the dangerous tackle (penaty, possible yellow), and he had the oppotunity to avoid the red card offense. He gave the ref no choice. Dropping the player is not an option, as noted in the IRB memo now posted twice on this thread.

Good explanation here from sky sports:

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,12610_7243025,00.html

Yes it deserved a yellow and I would have thought that if it had happened to a Welsh player.
I think the red was issued in haste he should have consulted the other officials or at least hummed and hawed till he had a sly look at the stadium screen .
I will be interested to hear what the disciplinary panel has to say about it.

What's the potential saction for this type of offence? I assume he'll miss the 3rd/4th play-off but how many more games?

roddersm wrote:Good explanation here from sky sports:

http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,12610_7243025,00.html

You linked to a rant by Barnes, not the much saner expalnation which is linked to on that page.

It comes to something when we have to go to Sky for sensible coverage. Interesting to note that the players were warned at the start of the tournament.

SafeAsMilk wrote:What's the potential saction for this type of offence? I assume he'll miss the 3rd/4th play-off but how many more games?

Think the ones earlier in the tournamnet got 4 weeks?

May be less as he received a red at the time, caused no injury , has no previous.

So really he'll only miss the 3/4 game and the flight home in all probability. Chances are he wouldve been rested by his region when he got back anyway.

Sorry ignore Barnes!

roddersm, That video merely points out that it is "dangerous play". There's no doubt about that.

The key q is -- is it a definite red?

The ref judged that it was. Fair enough -- but it must be applied to everyone.

However, it raises a lot of issues. All players are taught different types of tackle, and particularly to drive back a player in the tackle situation. A tip tackle can happen very easily -- through sheer momentum, and particularly when it's a big player up against a much smaller, lighter player. The laws need to be tightened up -- I have seen SW's type of tackle many times -- and very rarely are reds given. Thet tend to be given when it is extremely reckless/malicious (and in the case of "malicious", intent or "no regard" is obvious).

Perhaps any tackle where picking up the player by both legs has to be banned. Otherwise, refs will have to decide between red or yellow, and inconsistencies will happen.

"The last coach to hold aloft the Webb Ellis Cup, 2007 Springbok boss Jake White, was equally bewildered by Rolland’s zero tolerance.

“If you make that a red card decision, there would be a red card in every Super Rugby match each weekend,” observed 2007 World Cup winning Springbok coach Jake White."

Source:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/france-into-final-as-welsh-see-red-in-rugby-world-cup-semi-final/story-e6frg7o6-1226167508941

What that report didnt state was the ' A red card should be issued for this type of tackle'

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

The directive is to issue a red and Rolland did. I thought yellow at first but having read the laws the tackle fits the definition of a red.

Ospreydragon wrote:"The last coach to hold aloft the Webb Ellis Cup, 2007 Springbok boss Jake White, was equally bewildered by Rolland’s zero tolerance.

“If you make that a red card decision, there would be a red card in every Super Rugby match each weekend,” observed 2007 World Cup winning Springbok coach Jake White."

Source:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/france-into-final-as-welsh-see-red-in-rugby-world-cup-semi-final/story-e6frg7o6-1226167508941

Perhaps there should be until players stop doing it.

The directive is to use common sense and I don't think it was used in this instance by the player or ref.

Ospreydragon wrote: roddersm, That video merely points out that it is "dangerous play". There's no doubt about that.

The key q is -- is it a definite red?

The ref judged that it was. Fair enough -- but it must be applied to everyone.

However, it raises a lot of issues. All players are taught different types of tackle, and particularly to drive back a player in the tackle situation. A tip tackle can happen very easily -- through sheer momentum, and particularly when it's a big player up against a much smaller, lighter player. The laws need to be tightened up -- I have seen SW's type of tackle many times -- and very rarely are reds given. Thet tend to be given when it is extremely reckless/malicious (and in the case of "malicious", intent or "no regard" is obvious).

Perhaps any tackle where picking up the player by both legs has to be banned. Otherwise, refs will have to decide between red or yellow, and inconsistencies will happen.

I think thats why the ex players are so baffled by it. It used to be perfectly normal and go unpunished, but in line with tehir crackdowns on all injury causing actions ( as a result of extensive research ) the IRB is being heavy on this. The message is ...dont put yourself in a position where you might lift the playter, and if you start to tip them stop lifting. All players should know this.
As pointed out in the Sky news item linked above the players were infact warned that th e referees had been instructed to be harsher and apply this law correctly. Rolland did that. Just because others failed to do it previously ( those players still got fairly long bans ) doesnt mena he was wrong to do the job he is payed for, nor does it mean that Warburton should have done what he did. He knew it was a red card offence, or should have done..if he didnt you have to wonder who the hell is training these guys.
As with the charging issue the players may not be happy with this law, but that doesnt mean they can ignore it. Maybe hes unlucky he came up against a ref who didnt bottle it, but he still performed a dangerouds tackle and went through with it beyond the point where it was already a penalty. He had the chance to avoid a red card, he didnt take it.

Blame the player first, then the laws, then get annoyed you had a ref that applied them as instructed.

I cant see the IRB modifying this stance now, once its been highlighted as a saftey issue its very hard to go back. As with rucking fallen players, we have seen the end of lifting spear tackles (rather than driveing ones)...players need to learn this

The directive states ' A red card should be issued for this type of tackle'! Thats fairly clear

Cymroglan wrote:The directive is to use common sense and I don't think it was used in this instance by the player or ref.

No its not, you are just nmaking things up now. Anyway common sennse would be to say " what is my job, to apply the law. What does the law say, red card" then issue it. Any referee with common sense would do their job rather than taking it upon themselves to decide how the game should be played and under what code of rules. Bryce Lawrence does not have common sense.

Guys if I were you I'd contact the IRB and let them know your feelings regarding the sending off, also why was Rolland in charge when he is half French?

Here's the Email address - irb@irb.com

he isnt half french. He is Irish!

That directive in full:

"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."

I am dreadfully sorry for both Warbuton and Wales, but are people really suggesting that the referee had the discretion not to show the red card?

Standulstermen, re your comment; "A red card should be issued for this type of tackle'! Thats fairly clear " -- According to the directive I quoted, red cards are not automatic for a tip or lifting tackle. If it were that simple, all tip tackles would result in red cards!

"- 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.
- The players is lifted with their head below horizontal and tackled to the ground. At a minimum a yellow carded should be issued for this type of tackle, with an ejection a possible result depending on the circumstances of the tackle.
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, a yellow card should likely occur depending upon the circumstances of the tackle."

The red card can be regarded as correct, because there appeared to be no attempt to catch the player and help him to ground safely. But waht about items 3 and 4 above? Why were they ruled out by the ref? Is it bcause the second case was assumed? I'd like the ref panel to clarify which statement applied.

Cymroglan wrote: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.


And it should be a yellow there was no intent to Injure the tackled player, Warburton is not that kind of player.

Common sense needed you know what a truly dangerous tackle is and you also know when a player has no intent on hurting the opposition.
If I thought that was a deliberate spear tackle then there is no way would I defend the red card but in this instance I believe a yellow would have been sufficient.

Ospreydragon wrote:Standulstermen, re your comment; "A red card should be issued for this type of tackle'! Thats fairly clear " -- According to the directive I quoted, red cards are not automatic for a tip or lifting tackle. If it were that simple, all tip tackles would result in red cards!

"- 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.
- The players is lifted with their head below horizontal and tackled to the ground. At a minimum a yellow carded should be issued for this type of tackle, with an ejection a possible result depending on the circumstances of the tackle.
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, a yellow card should likely occur depending upon the circumstances of the tackle."

The red card can be regarded as correct, because there appeared to be no attempt to catch the player and help him to ground safely. But waht about items 3 and 4 above? Why were they ruled out by the ref? Is it bcause the second case was assumed? I'd like the ref panel to clarify which statement applied.

Because item 2 hits the nail on the head. Are you seriously saying Warburton showed regard for his safety by dropping him on his neck/shoulders having taken him beyond the horizontal??

intent is not part of the directive, in fact referees are told NOT to judge intent, so the fact that SW didn't inted to hurt him should have no influence on the ref's decision. The relevant part is that he dropped him, so that's a red card offence...

Ospreydragon wrote: roddersm, That video merely points out that it is "dangerous play". There's no doubt about that.

The key q is -- is it a definite red?

The ref judged that it was.

No the directives state clearly that is a red card. The referee has judged that Warburton has lifted Clerc and then dropped him with no regard for his safety. Having watched it several times I am baffled as to how anyone can come to a different conclusion.

"Are you seriously saying Warburton showed regard for his safety by dropping him on his neck/shoulders having taken him beyond the horizontal??"

That's a key question. You imply, but do not state, that SW had no regard for the player's safety. "With no regard for the player's safety" has to be proven -- beyond doubt. If you listen to Warburton's explanation of that tackle and his body language after it, that suggests to me has regard for all player's safety, including in that situation. Sometimes, you can judge "no regard" by a plyer's obvious intent -- malice, retaliation etc. That obviously wasn't the case.

Was it accidental, as a result of a combination of momentum and a slippery surface? or should those be ruled out by the ref (the possibility of a yellow indicates otherwise).

It all hinges on "no regard". If no regard is assumed because the player is not caught after being tackled, then all such tackle situations should be automatic red cards and the law can be changed accordingly.

And if the latter is the case, it should be applied to all tackle/collision situations -- such as taking out the fullback in mid air, when he's catching the ball.


There is a huge difference between Warburton's clumsy tackle (and, yes, dangerous because the player falls) an what happened to BOD.

The lawmakers need to clear up the use of yellow and red cards, and try to state all situations, so there is less room for error/interpretation by refs, or confusion from players or coaches.

Rodders, you are right that if that is what the ref considered it to be (so long as you add in the words 'from a height'), the guidance says red. I disagree that is what it was (on the basis of what I saw, interpreted the same way as Dallaglio at the time and then as explained by SW after the game), but I can see that Rolland might have thought it was; i.e. it wasn't a call he wasn't entitled to make, I just think he got it wrong.

Clerc did not help matters by lifting his legs up well played that man.

Cymroglan wrote:Clerc did not help matters by lifting his legs up well played that man.

...and the way he assaulted the turf with his neck and shoulders was a disgrace

Intent doesnt matter. Bekng reckless is enough. This is a very easy call for a ref to make. Can anyone give a valid reason why red shouldnt have been given? The way refs are.trained.to deal with this is start at red and work backwards. I am seeing a lot of peopls who are just trying to make square pegs fit in round holes.

BlueNote, Perhaps the concept of "no regard" should be remopved too -- it's open to interpretation. Better to rewrite the directive/law and simply restate it so that if you do not catch a player and bring him to ground safely, it is a red card (i.e. "no regard" in the tackle situation resulting in the red is assumed because you didn't catch him and bring him to ground properly).

I suggest tweet Nigel Owens and ask him to judge. If he refuses to back up Rolland we'll know the law needs changing.

Davie don't be ridiculous you know full well there was no intent there.
You are only disgusted with the tackle because it gives you a excuse to have a go at the Welsh.
You have made no secret that you have issues with Welsh posters.

Red Nigel will back him because he is a fellow ref just as you are backing him because he is a fellow Irishman.

Cymro thats uncaed for. Once again intent doesnt matter a fig by the way. Warburton took no action to counter his tip tackle. It was accidental but reckldss.

I only have an issue with one-eyed Welsh posters. I have been delighted to see many, if not most, of the true Welsh fans accept the decision with dignity.

As for your first line, it is NOT ridiculous. I stated right at the top of this thread that I believed there was intent there; not to deliberately injure (I'm sure he had no thoughts of causing bodily harm) - but the video replays clearly show a downward movement with his arms, despite the fact he either sliped out of his grip before the "spear" could be completed, or he "pulled out" of the manouevre (too late)

Jeez louise still this?

If that wasnt from a height what is? Exactly how could he have lifted him any higher and still been able to tip him? that he drove him downwards the first few inches before dropping him doesnt excuse it.

Once you have lifted a player you are entirely responsible for seeing that they land safely. That is the law, the refs and the players know it.

The referess are not allowed to judge intent in these tackles nor are they in a position to do so.

Im backing him cos I am a referee and have received coaching on how to handle spear tackles. Nigel has too. Clearly respect is lost on you youve now just accused me and davie of being biased and it is pointless for me to continue it further.

"I suggest tweet Nigel Owens and ask him to judge" - RS, I was wondeirng what Nigel Owens would have to say on the topic. Like you, I am sure he'd comment as a ref first and a Welshman second, it would be interesting to hear how he sees it.

Guys you would not think it was a red if it had been awarded against your side an those of you that know me would know that I would have backed you up on it.,
You know full well that it was a yellow at the most.

Nope it was a red, showed lack of safety for the opposition player by dropping him and Cler is lucky he didn't suffer a serious injury.

Davie wrote:I only have an issue with one-eyed Welsh posters. I have been delighted to see many, if not most, of the true Welsh fans accept the decision with dignity.

As for your first line, it is NOT ridiculous. I stated right at the top of this thread that I believed there was intent there; not to deliberately injure (I'm sure he had no thoughts of causing bodily harm) - but the video replays clearly show a downward movement with his arms, despite the fact he either sliped out of his grip before the "spear" could be completed, or he "pulled out" of the manouevre (too late)

Davie, not sure I can see that tbh - VC's weight alone would result in the downward movement of his body, nothing to do withWarburton - he did slip out of his grip as he fell and twisted tho

Cymroglan,

This is how greyghost started out. There's still time to save yourself.

red_stag wrote:Intent doesnt matter. Bekng reckless is enough. This is a very easy call for a ref to make. Can anyone give a valid reason why red shouldnt have been given? The way refs are.trained.to deal with this is start at red and work backwards. I am seeing a lot of peopls who are just trying to make square pegs fit in round holes.

Staggy, I believe that I can. The following phrase is obviously the key: "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." I've emphasised what I think are the two key phases, the first in italics and the second in bold. Both phrases offer the ref some latitude as regards interpretation imo As you know, I'm neutral as to the outcome of this particular match, but still feel the red was harsh

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Davie wrote:I only have an issue with one-eyed Welsh posters. I have been delighted to see many, if not most, of the true Welsh fans accept the decision with dignity.

As for your first line, it is NOT ridiculous. I stated right at the top of this thread that I believed there was intent there; not to deliberately injure (I'm sure he had no thoughts of causing bodily harm) - but the video replays clearly show a downward movement with his arms, despite the fact he either sliped out of his grip before the "spear" could be completed, or he "pulled out" of the manouevre (too late)

Davie, not sure I can see that tbh - VC's weight alone would result in the downward movement of his body, nothing to do withWarburton - he did slip out of his grip as he fell and twisted tho

I wouldnt suggest that he intended to dump the player when he lifted him (we have no way of knowing), but he did. Once he had lifted him the instruction is quite explicit, the tackler is totaly responsible for ensuring that doesnt happen. It may well have been gravity that caused it but Warburton had the opportunity to stop it and he put the player in that position.
He knew that when he went in for the tackle, he knew that when he lifted the player, he knew that when he kept lifting the player above horizointal.
The players were warned that the refs had been told to be harsh and actualy apply the law.

I really cant see it makes a jot of differnce what he intended to do, he is punished on what he did.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

red_stag wrote:Intent doesnt matter. Bekng reckless is enough. This is a very easy call for a ref to make. Can anyone give a valid reason why red shouldnt have been given? The way refs are.trained.to deal with this is start at red and work backwards. I am seeing a lot of peopls who are just trying to make square pegs fit in round holes.

Staggy, I believe that I can. The following phrase is obviously the key: "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." I've emphasised what I think are the two key phases, the first in italics and the second in bold. Both phrases offer the ref some latitude as regards interpretation imo As you know, I'm neutral as to the outcome of this particular match, but still feel the red was harsh

How much higher could he have lifted him???

I think the problem is consistency from all the refs, not just from Alain Rolland. If the IRB had issued a clampdown on these tackles, then why has it taken till the semi final to issue one worthy of a red card? There have been very similar tackles in this world cup alone that have ended with yellows, and going by whats been said, referees have been backed when it comes to issuing red cards in these circumstances.
If, by the letter of the law, sams tackle was deemed a sending off, then thats fair enough, but there needs to be something done about the consistency of refereeing across the board, to make sure that these issues are dealt with early on, and so the semi finals, and finals aren't ruined by controversial moments.

Red stag thinks he is reffing a game..i have made my decision young man and there ends the discussion.

The directive is clear, he lifted him in the tackle, turned him and then dropped him and regardless of what happened next he was lucky he did not get seriously injured. If Clerc had broken his neck or shoulder would a red card be justified.

These tackles are being targeted its unfortunate it being a sf but thems the rules

Biscuit, I think we'll agree to differ

By the way, why have you changed your location? Have you moved recently?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Biscuit, I think we'll agree to differ

By the way, why have you changed your location? Have you moved recently?

I have a Welsh grandparent I conviently remebered about halfway through England France, quickly shifted my loyalties.

Now a proud Welshman ( Ill wait and see how the 6 nations is shaping up before commiting my long term future)

Well, for the last time I'm going to throw my hat in the ring here.

If we can all agree that Warburton did not "force" Clerc into the ground, we must also all agree that the directive under which Rolland red-carded Warburton was the second of the red card mandates namely:

"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."

This is where the disagreement starts, and it's quite clear why - it's not an automatic red card to drop a player, so anyone who thinks Warburton was carded just because he "dropped" Clerc needs to look a little closer at the directive.

If it was a red card offence to drop a player, it would say so, it's a pretty clear fact of physics that if you drop a player there has to be an element of height involved as it's impossible to drop a player who is on the ground, in that case height would not need to be mentioned.

It says that it is a red card offence to "drop a player from a height with no regard to his personal safety".

It's quite plain, when you look at it as a piece of English grammar, that there's no punctuation in the sentence and therefore the two elements of height and personal safety are mutually inclusive.

In other words Rolland has decided that Warburton dropped Clerc from a dangerous height and did so with no thought for Clerc's safety.

Clerc was dropped by Warburton when he was about hip high, given Warburton's height of 6'2" is the same as mine, Clerc would have had about 39 inches of free fall, not enough height to cause any damage unless it was head first, Warburton did not drop Clerc head first. Furthermore, given that Warburton was going to ground at the point at which Clerc's hips went above his head, had Warburton kept hold of him, he would not have been able to put him down safely and would, if anything have had more potential to cause Clerc injury by holding on to him.

So, not only was the height negligible in terms of danger but also Warburton did the only thing he could do to minimise the risk of injury to Clerc and thereby ensure (to the best of his ability) Clerc's personal safety, he dropped him.

Personally, I reckon Rolland got it wrong and red carded Warburton because he thought Warburton had dumped Clerc with force.

If the IRB wanted tacklers to get a red just for "dropping" a player, they would have stated that in the memo.

Of course the IRB will have to ban him now wont they......?