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?

____________________________________________________________

Well, that made some pretty funny reading. Ruby seems to have lost the plot. I'm reminded of Brenden Venter's interview.

Mbobo, very good player, Mobobo lets talk more about him - That was hilarious

Hammer - I like to think my view is valid, I'm not going over old ground its done - Move on

RubyGuby wrote:Sorry Leinster No One in Wales is disappointed with Warburton - Nice try though. I think they call it projection in the trade

I can see why Warburton isn't taking the heat for the loss. He was incredible all tournament and Wales might not have been in the semis without him.

However, it should be recognised that he cost you the semi final rather than directing all the blame at Rolland.

Havent been on the site all weekend and started reading through some of the posts on the sending off. My first reaction was that it was harsh and then when RTE mentioned the directive at half time I began to change my mind.

Having read through the posts here on the directive it is clear it was the correct decision. Roland sent off FLorian Fritz in a toulouse v wasps HC game at the beginning of the year so cant see that bias is an issue. As with gouging and raking this will mean that players will not attempt these tackles = less injuries = good for the game.

At the moment all else appears to be conjecture.

leinsterbaby wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Sorry Leinster No One in Wales is disappointed with Warburton - Nice try though. I think they call it projection in the trade

I can see why Warburton isn't taking the heat for the loss. He was incredible all tournament and Wales might not have been in the semis without him.

However, it should be recognised that he cost you the semi final rather than directing all the blame at Rolland.

The red card did massively change the game, but we still had our chances to win it, our kickers just bottled it, especially Jones towards the end, appeared as if he had no confidence to take on the responsibility.

Yeah Jones was awful. Really showed no guts.

Jones showed plenty of guts he was just crap and lacked composure when it mattered.

leinsterbaby wrote:Yeah Jones was awful. Really showed no guts.

Phillips I think needs to carry the can too. He showed no composure and competely butchered those drop goal opportunities. Hook had a shocker from start to finish.

It's an area Wales need to look at because they made a hash of the drop goal againt SA too.

If Wales lost by a considerable margin or conceded a load of points when down to 14 men then you could blame that for the loss.

However France really didn't capitalise on the advantage and Wales manufactured enough scoring opportunites to win the game. Some players really stepped up to the plate like Roberts, Lydiate and Faletau but too many key players lacked composure, both before and after the red card, and thats why Wales lost.

for what it's worth found the following on a french rugby website/blog (yes it is in english although not very academic). please dont get upset as the tone of their articles is always a bit let's say sarcastic and sometimes not serious... but still think they have a fair point of view.

link here

Whocares, that's a great article.

whocares wrote:for what it's worth found the following on a french rugby website/blog (yes it is in english although not very academic). please dont get upset as the tone of their articles is always a bit let's say sarcastic and sometimes not serious... but still think they have a fair point of view.

link here

Can't really argue with too much there.

Great article...

Very very good!

Great article.

I'm looking forward to the article they post if New Zealand win courtesy of a late try from a forward pass.

We all know what happened to SW.

Many people on the radio are talking tonight about AR in the Wales v Eng match in this year's 6N and this tackle on Dan Lydiate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrJY8zgvW-M

Questions (especially for the refs on this site):

1. What's the difference?
2. Why wasn't a red issued?
3. Why wasn't a yellow issued?
4. Why wasn't a pen awarded?
5. Didn't the directive also apply to the 6N?

Not quite the same osprey..been done to death but as with your other post..here is a better example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALt9gDaf-10

There's probably hundreds of similar examples - just begs the question as to why AR chose the WC semi final to produce a straight red.

Different tackle..was palmer cited? No then ar got it right, like the Fritz tackle and Warburton.

"Not quite the same osprey.." -- -- Do you mean?

a) Because Lydiate is 4 or 5 stone heavier than Clerc?

b) That Lydiate breaks his fall by sticking his hand out?

By the letter of the directive used against SW, it's a red card. If not, please give your reasons why (bearing in mind the very directive followed by AR).

Its been done to death....move on..other than that I refer you to the other thread with about 15 pages of arguements. Have a look any questions come back...

"I refer you to the other thread" -- I've posted to that thread several times. Just pointing out ref inconsistencies, including AR's.

Ospreydragon wrote:By the letter of the directive used against SW, it's a red card.

No it's not. If it was a red card offence there would have been a citing, there wasn't.

Plenty of Wales supporters on here have been claiming the French player didn't fall from "height", which was about 3 foot onto his upper back and milked the injury until Warburton was red carded. Lydiate was not dropped onto his upper back or neck or "from height". Time to move on. Warburton deserved his red card and subsequent ban.

"No it's not. If it was a red card offence there would have been a citing, there wasn't." That is not relevant. Only the tackle and the directive/relevant law are.

And by the latter, that is clearly "dangerous play", regardless of whether a citing happened. Just because it was missed doesn't mean, according to teh directive, that it was not dangerous play.

If you want to argue the point, refer to the wording of the directive and explain to me why it was not deemed dangerous play by the outstanding AR.

Its not a tip tackle.

Does getting banned for 3 weeks not count as a citing? I'm pretty sure Warbs got banned for 3 weeks. Originally 6 but redcuced due to previous record.

Ospreydragon wrote:"No it's not. If it was a red card offence there would have been a citing, there wasn't." That is not relevant. Only the tackle and the directive/relevant law are.

And by the latter, that is clearly "dangerous play", regardless of whether a citing happened. Just because it was missed doesn't mean, according to teh directive, that it was not dangerous play.

If you want to argue the point, refer to the wording of the directive and explain to me why it was not deemed dangerous play by the outstanding AR.

Time to move on. Warburton got banned for his dangerous tackle. Get over it.

Dod,
"
The lifting of players in the tackle and then either forcing or dropping them to the ground so that their upper body or head hits the ground while their feet are still off of the ground is dangerous and must be dealt with severely is dangerous and must be dealt with severely. This also applies even if the head or upper body does not contact the ground first. 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.
- 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.
"

Look at 10 sec -- 15 sec:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrJY8zgvW-M

History shows it wasn't a red card. History shows Warburton got a deserved red card and subsequent ban.

why bring a case when its eng v wales. i thought the welshes whole problem was that other incidents have been treated differently before, we all know this- or is it just to start a battle between english and welsh

Its not a tip tackle.

DOD wrote:Its not a tip tackle.

England rugby fan wrote:

DOD wrote:Its not a tip tackle.

Well it quite clearly is a tip tackle as the definition of a tip tackle has two elements; firstly that the tackled player is lifted from the floor so that both feet lose contact with said floor - check, secondly that the tackled players hips must at some stage travel through the horizontal axis to the point that they are above the tackled players head - check, therefore it is a tip-tackle as plain as day.

According to Paddy O'Brien, referees must start at red and works backwards:

1 If the tackled player is driven into the ground so that his head and/or shoulders should contact the ground first (notwithstanding the tackled player extending an arm), then a red card should be shown for this offence.

There's no need for any further qualification procedure, as far as POB is concerned, Palmer's offed.

Fortunately, as I was vehemently against Warburton being sent off, I don't have to defend Palmer on this occassion, Palmer did not deserve a red card and neither did Warburton, for all those who told me how sooooo wrong I was, welcome to your "letter of the law" and try your nuts off to explain the difference between the two tackles.

Palmer = not a tip tackle
Warburton = Tip Tackle.

DOD wrote:Palmer = not a tip tackle
Warburton = Tip Tackle.

DOD = someone who can't see.

The definition is quite clear, your eyes are quite clearly full of shoite, either that or you're wrong on one of the above, personally I'm not fussed by either, but you can't have it both ways.

DOD wrote:Palmer = not a tip tackle
Warburton = Tip Tackle.

I concur. Palmer didn't get cited, so not a red card offence. Warburton got a 3 week ban for a deserved red card.

PJHolybloke wrote:
DOD = someone who can't see.

The definition is quite clear, your eyes are quite clearly full of shoite, either that or you're wrong on one of the above, personally I'm not fussed by either, but you can't have it both ways.

Change DOD for PJHolybloke and you have it right

DOD wrote:Palmer = not a tip tackle
Warburton = Tip Tackle.

sums it up about right, now can we PLEASE move on? Engage in a bit of random English/Welsh bashing? Discuss how Mad Marc nearly turned out to be a genius after all? They're wayyyyyyyyyyy more interesting subjects out there...

England rugby fan wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:
DOD = someone who can't see.

The definition is quite clear, your eyes are quite clearly full of shoite, either that or you're wrong on one of the above, personally I'm not fussed by either, but you can't have it both ways.

Change DOD for PJHolybloke and you have it right

What devastating repartee, I'm truly wounded.

On the other hand, why not come back with a structured argument to prove your point based on the directive issued by POB? It's quite clear what constitutes a tip tackle and under what circumstances a red card should be given.

Maybe you can't? Have a go anyway, what have you got to lose?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

DOD wrote:Palmer = not a tip tackle
Warburton = Tip Tackle.

sums it up about right, now can we PLEASE move on? Engage in a bit of random English/Welsh bashing? Discuss how Mad Marc nearly turned out to be a genius after all? They're wayyyyyyyyyyy more interesting subjects out there...

Specsavers have a two-for-one on, if you're not interested in debating what happened to Warburton why are you looking here? Isn't there a "Terry is a racist" thread going on somewhere?

Just asking.

Fritz = tip tackle
Warburton = tip tackle
Palmer not= tip tackle

Clear as day. AR gets all three 100% correct
Nothing to debate

https://i.servimg.com/u/f43/16/53/77/41/tackle13.jpg

PJ, David Wallace's simple explanation as to what a tip tackle is - when the legs of the tackled are above the elbow of the tackler. (see image which will show you exactly the difference between them).

In Wally's punditry, he called it as a Red Card (unlike the rest of the panel he was on).

DOD wrote:Fritz = tip tackle
Warburton = tip tackle
Palmer not= tip tackle

Clear as day. AR gets all three 100% correct
Nothing to debate

I think you're wasting your keyboard's springs. I suspect that for the next six months at least every tackle where the player's lifted will result in a new thread created questioning why the players hasn't been sent off. Oddly I don't remember a similar outcry when Fritz was sent off in the HC

defined under Law 10 as: 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 first is dangerous play.

That's what it says, now under which "letter of the law" is it not a tip tackle then fellas?

His feet are off the ground, and he's driven to the ground with his head and/or upper body making contact first. The players arm being put down first does not count as per the original instructions defining a dangerous tackle under Law 10.4.

In my opinion I would rank the three tackles mentioned as Fritz, red card, Warburton yellow card, Palmer penalty and a chat.

Unfortunately, POB doesn't think this approach is working and thats why he has told refs to be so severe on the tip, the minimum AR could have awarded for the Palmer tackle is a penalty (according to the Law), POB says it should start at a red and work backwards.

Mad for Chelsea, you're quite right, after producing a red card in such a crucial match - because he's been told to - Rolland has brought the offence under the spotlight and every other game will produce something to talk about. It's not Rolland's fault though, it's POB'S.

Just to throw a nice spanner in the works here. On Saturday I refereed, and as my luck would have it encountered a tip tackle. For the sheer fun I won't elaborate on my though process - I'll leave that up to you. However I thought about incident and being the good ref I am went for a card. I went yellow and not red. Fully happy in my decision in doing so. Just thought I'd share that

red_stag wrote:Just to throw a nice spanner in the works here. On Saturday I refereed, and as my luck would have it encountered a tip tackle. For the sheer fun I won't elaborate on my though process - I'll leave that up to you. However I thought about incident and being the good ref I am went for a card. I went yellow and not red. Fully happy in my decision in doing so. Just thought I'd share that

The question here Stag, what is your directive from up top?

The same as all refs use.