ITV : irresponsible broadcasting

Whatever the merits of (to my mind trigger-happy) Rolland's decision, the nature of Steve Ryder's summary of the match both at half and full time was inflammatory and inherently biased.

Had the RC gone the other way, would it have been so biased I wonder?

Sorry. But it was stupid especially when there were pubs and clubs serving alcohol up and down the country. It would be interesting to hear how the French and Irish broadcasters dealt with it.

100% agree. The ITV team behaved disgracefully

Yeah, with you on this one 100% Portnoy. They just didn't seem to be aware of the rules.

We kept being told how everyone (bar the French) would be getting behind Wales. I know I wasn't. France are always my second team.

Shamefully biased. Bring back Vickery!

Pienaar was quite comically incensed though

100% agree the coverage is a disgrace. I hope Rolland sues them for defamation.

ITV need to make sure that their pundits know the rules before spouting off such rubbish.

Agreed.

Peinaar for once was over-excited, and Steve Ryder has turned in to a sensationalist imbecile.

Not much discussion of 8(?) missed points from kicks for Wales, or the fact that Wales took 192 phases to lose the ball at the end, and could have gone for a drop earlier.

Good effort from Wales, bad luck.

I think the most interesting thing about all of this is, most of the pundits, being ex professional rugby players agree universally that the red card was harsh

Because it ruined a spectacle. That was the main reason and I do not agree that should come into regardless of the game.

Was Rolland not supposed to apply the laws of the game purely because it was a SF and it ruined the spectacle?

It may have been irresponsible to tell the truth? Ref was wrong in the law application - see other posts.....he could have gone yellow.....but i am sure he was not biased. Just poor call...he is often over-confident/arrogant and should have called in the guys on the touch-line.

Martyn Williams was wrong in saying that the ref should have looked at the game (being 20 minutes into a semi-final) and not issue the red (as the laws instruct).

Regardless of the importance of the game or when the offence occurs the refs need to be consistent. Isn't that what we always ask for?

SafeAsMilk wrote:Martyn Williams was wrong in saying that the ref should have looked at the game (being 20 minutes into a semi-final) and not issue the red (as the laws instruct).

Regardless of the importance of the game or when the offence occurs the refs need to be consistent. Isn't that what we always ask for?

Referees often overlook yellow cards at the beginning of matches to avoid disrupting the flow of the game, to go straight to a red without even a 2nd thought just seems really harsh

Good article. I thought exactly the same watching the coverage.
And as people above have posted, ITV made very little of Wales' missed kicks. 2 missed pens by Hook, the - 1/2 penny missed pen, the Stephen Jones missed conversion. That's 11 points missed, and that's without taking into consideration missed drop goals as well as Wales' failure to set themselves up for one in the final 10 minutes. And with a match won by a single point those misses were key.

IronMike wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Martyn Williams was wrong in saying that the ref should have looked at the game (being 20 minutes into a semi-final) and not issue the red (as the laws instruct).

Regardless of the importance of the game or when the offence occurs the refs need to be consistent. Isn't that what we always ask for?

Referees often overlook yellow cards at the beginning of matches to avoid disrupting the flow of the game, to go straight to a red without even a 2nd thought just seems really harsh

There's a difference between not giving a yellow for repeat infringments early in the game (for slowing down the play, hands in the ruck etc) and issuing a straight red for dangerous play. The repeat infringments yellow is more subjective and will involve warnings and not always involve the same players. Warburton's red was pretty easy to judge. It could have resulted in a bad injury.

Already this post is drifting off-topic. As I intimated, I have an opinion about Rolland's quick decision (even the cameras couldn't follow it properly), this is about the broadcasting. And the lack of responsibility of how particularly Steve Ryder - an experienced anchor man - dealt with it.

Bayfield asking Yachvili 'was it a hollow victory?' took the biscuit for me. Do one you Holly Wilaboobie!

I recall Ulster fans being incensed last year when a BBCNI reporters asked Pienaar if he thought he had justified his massive wage after the scarlets game. The BBC got plenty of complaints. I hope ITV get the same

Couldn't agree more. There does seem to be a false sense of pro Wales etc from TV pundits and ex Internationals no doubt scared of the arrogant label if they drop the sycophancy for a second.

Will Ryder and co be cited?

yeah make a fool of the ref is not their job.

They are teaching kids to argue against the laws of the game. Not a good example.

Agree entirely with the original post, and glad others do too. It was "brave Wales undone by unjust RC" thoughout the whole broadcast. Only one mention of the missed kicks (and I regret to say that 48 meters out straight in front of the posts you should get), little praise for the disciplined french defence in the last phase. Very poor.

One thing i will say for the beeb is that in a game like that (6N for instance) they always have a french perspective. Ibanez and Betsen being 2 examples. Now usually these guys just go along with the party line but at least there is the appearance of balance.

I thought it was quite refreshing to have some honesty from the ex players about their feelings towards it.

In the end though you have to say sport is produced as entertainment and the ref today pretty much ruined that match for me.

p.s. Here's my 'Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells' letter:

"
to
itv.comsupport@itv.com

I am writing to register my great displeasure regarding the comments today (particularly by Steve Ryder) during and after the RWC semi-final today between Wales and France.

The live match commentary way generally biased for me as a neutral supporter. And the pundits seemed to show little knowledge of the tackle laws - but they were only expressing an opinion.

But Steve Ryder's comments about the referee were both inflammatory to viewers and disrespectful towards the referee. Technically the sending off was for a penalty offence which the IRB (International Rugby Board) have reminded referees to punish severely.

But he left the viewing public in no doubt as to his personal opinion - that the referee was at fault and caused a travesty of a result.

Clearly the man knows nearly nothing about the game.

And I might remind him that his comments were made at a time when the games were being televised into pubs, clubs (not to mention Stadia) throughout the UK - where they are selling alcohol.

Please advise me as to how I can raise a formal complaint within ITV.

[name & address deleted]

"

yappysnap wrote:I thought it was quite refreshing to have some honesty from the ex players about their feelings towards it.

In the end though you have to say sport is produced as entertainment and the ref today pretty much ruined that match for me.

So is your entertainment more important than players safety? We all want to see a good game but we don't want to see injuries. You have to draw the line somewhere and this is where the IRB draw it.

And I might remind him that his comments were made at a time when the games were being televised into pubs, clubs (not to mention Stadia) throughout the UK - where they are selling alcohol.

Please advise me as to how I can raise a formal complaint within ITV
-------------------------------------------------------------------

What has alcohol got to do with all this ?

Spot on mate, some of the comments from teh panel were a disgrace. Not one pointed out that although they think the law is wrong he was actually cotrrect in his application of it.
LOL did look distinctly embaressed at half time and made a valient effort to offer and analysis of the game but was just ignored by Ryder who looked confussed and went back to ranting.

Its no wonder these refs end up with death threats, homphobic abuse , and having to watch scotland games with this sort of media coverage. The NZ press was just as bad after the samoa game, and set a precdeant the rest of thw world has followed with its treatment of Barnes.

The crazy thing is that what happened here was a ref having the bottle to apply a law correctly. Hes taken all the heat for a law many players dont agree with. Its the same as the charging incident which injured Jones on the Lions tour, the players at the time thought there was no issue but there had been an edict from the IRB to clapmp down on it so Botha got banned. Not the refs fault, the laws fault. Sometimes teh players disagree with them, fine, but dont balme teh refs fot them.
Blame the medical advice and survey of where rugby injuries come from which led to the law modificatiosn and directives. Turns out these kind of tackles and charging end peoples carerrs and leave them crippled. Maybe the players should consider that when they are sat around getting payed thousands to talk rubbish and ruin other peopels reputations.
Its their freinds and ex colleuges out their risking injury, maybe pienaar is happy to see them crippled...im not so sure i would be.

The IRB says its a red card. Its a red card.

IRB Memo:

In 2007, the IRB Council approved a Laws Designated Members Ruling which essentially made it clear that tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and were then either forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and constitute dangerous play.


At a subsequent IRB High Performance Referee Seminar at Lensbury referees were advised that for these types of tackles they were to start at red card as a sanction and work backwards.


Unfortunately these types of tackles are still being made and the purpose of this memorandum is to emphasize that they must be dealt with severely by referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process.


Attached is a recent decision of the Judicial Officer Jannie Lubbe SC, in which the differences between the application of the red card test by referees and judicial personnel is highlighted.


In our view, this decision correctly highlights that the lifting of players in the tackle and then either forcing or dropping them to the ground is dangerous and must be dealt with severely.


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.

Cymroglan wrote:And I might remind him that his comments were made at a time when the games were being televised into pubs, clubs (not to mention Stadia) throughout the UK - where they are selling alcohol.

Please advise me as to how I can raise a formal complaint within ITV
-------------------------------------------------------------------

What has alcohol got to do with all this ?

As we speak Liverpool are playing Man Utd.

Anywhere that passions can run high and alcohol is being consumed, do you not think it is in some way incumbent on broadcasters to not inflame things?

The worst was ITV showing cartoons for half an hour after the program was supposed to have started.

Are you sending a letter to ITV suggesting that rugby fans are likely to start a riot due to being under the influence of drink and being inflamed by comments made by the studio panel.
Write it again and this time say that you are angry over what they said the way you have worded it gives genuine rugby fans a bad name.

Knowsit17 wrote:The worst was ITV showing cartoons for half an hour after the program was supposed to have started.

That wasnt Daffy Duck, it was a the highlights of France England

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:The worst was ITV showing cartoons for half an hour after the program was supposed to have started.

That wasnt Daffy Duck, it was a the highlights of France England

Seriously though, instead of having adverts on between the anthems and kick off they'd do better just putting them on earlier instead of sacrificing the beginning of the time slot with toilet cartoons I've never heard of called Almost Naked Animals or something along those lines.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:The worst was ITV showing cartoons for half an hour after the program was supposed to have started.

That wasnt Daffy Duck, it was a the highlights of France England

Seriously though, instead of having adverts on between the anthems and kick off they'd do better just putting them on earlier instead of sacrificing the beginning of the time slot with toilet cartoons I've never heard of called Almost Naked Animals or something along those lines.

Oh thats the rest of the Tindall and Haskell footage

Portnoy wrote:It would be interesting to hear how the French and Irish broadcasters dealt with it.

On RTE the panel was split with George Hook of all people knowing the Laws and supporting Rolland for having the guts to apply them. Pope and Frankie Sheehan were a bit ridiculous suggesting all sorts of challenges should now receive reds for "consistency" and also that the degree of injury should also be a factor in the colour of the card. How can making up the rules as you go along lead to anything but more inconsistency and therefore unfairness?

If every similar tackle in the tournament had resulted in a red card there could be no ground for feeling hard-done-by.The clips of A Fijian and a Tongan player making worse tackles didnt get reds.Where is the consistency?

Here is a quote from last quote from the other thread on the red card...sums it up about right...

Re: Sam Warburton Red Card
by Mike Selig Today at 10:19 pm

.Can't believe this is still running TBH.

By the law and directives it is a RC.

All arguments are therefore based around things like "since refs have gotten it wrong in previous matches Rolland should have given the wrong decision today", "it ruined the match", etc...

Whatever. If you don't think that that tackle deserved a RC (and I would strongly disagree with you, it could have done serious damage to Clerc) then write to your union and ask them to lobby the IRB for a law change.

Don't take out your anger on AR who deserves nothing but praise for disregarding the situation and applying the law correctly. Gutsy but right call..
Mike Selig


Posts: 205
Join date: 2011-05-30

To whip out a red in the semi-final seems a tad late for refs to start getting it right.There is right and there is "right"If the players had been warned before the game that whilst the refs had been tolerant beforehand but now we are going by the letter of the law,then fair enough.To shift the goalposts without telling folk does not seem fair to me.

Thats a completely irrelevent arguement...

also you will find the goal posts werent shifted this has been in place since December.

Lastly Warburton put himself in that situation.

As to the original post, I agree 100%. I too have formally complained to ITV and to OFCOM for the irresponsible and biaised broadcasting.


(PS although it is irrelevant - let me say that Wales were far and away the better team on the day)

LondonTiger wrote:As to the original post, I agree 100%. I too have formally complained to ITV and to OFCOM for the irresponsible and biaised broadcasting.


(PS although it is irrelevant - let me say that Wales were far and away the better team on the day)

Thanks LT. I never thought of going directly to OFCOM.

Hopefully there will be a glimmer of contrition tomorrow morning.

DOD wrote:Thats a completely irrelevent arguement...

also you will find the goal posts werent shifted this has been in place since December.

Lastly Warburton put himself in that situation.

Sorry if I didnt make it clear enough for you.In the pool matches which were operating under the December directive,a Fijian and a Tongan player each performed a similar but more dangerous tackle,neither were red-carded.To suddenly start applying this edict in the WC semi-final with no warning does not seem fair.If you think it is fair I would like to hear your reasoning.

You did make it clear..but as was pointed out I believe these players were cited and got further punishment showing they were not given the correct sanction at the time which was a red card.

Taffineastbourne wrote:If every similar tackle in the tournament had resulted in a red card there could be no ground for feeling hard-done-by.The clips of A Fijian and a Tongan player making worse tackles didnt get reds.Where is the consistency?

I think you'll find the Fijian and the Tongan that you talk about were both cited after the match and got bans consistent with it being a red card.

In those instances the referee got it wrong and the punishment was applied later.

If Warburton had been only yellow carded, the punishment would have been applied retrospectively and then you could say Wales had an advantage of having a player on the pitch who didn't deserve to be there

DOD wrote:You did make it clear..but as was pointed out I believe these players were cited and got further punishment showing they were not given the correct sanction at the time which was a red card.

If you had played the game,you would realise that players want/expect consistency from referees.When incosistecy becomes apparent the lunatic fringe are moved to perceive bias or other nefarious goings-on.
I believe that there was a directive about crooked feeds to the scrum.Whatever happened to that one?Refs are selective in their application of the laws which causes the anst that occured today.
Just had an afrethought;imagine if Richie Mcaw does a similar tackle tomorrow and the ref just gives him a yellow card.That would make things spicy!

Taff

You are correct that referees (plural) are inconsistent in their decisions. Another referee may have given a yellow, but he would have been wrong. Rolland is however very consistent, and these tackles are always a red from him, and the argument that the players need to have consistency is not valid here, as they should all know how Rolland referees by now.

The thing is Taff you are only making up some inconsistency. The law is clear in this case. The law was not applied correctly by the refs on the two occassions previously but was applied retrospectively. Roland made a correct decision and should be applauded. With eye contact, dangerous tackles and foul play the laws are clear.

That you compare this with crooked feeds in the scrum and the issue of possibly breaking someones neck shows that you along with some of your compatriots (a small minority mind) are clutching at straws.

Taffineastbourne wrote:Refs are selective in their application of the laws which causes the anst that occured today.

Yes they are. This is in equal part because:

it is impossible to see everything on the pitch from one position (unlike TV with 78 camera angles)
the laws + directives are too complicated
refs are human and make mistakes.


It is however wrong to slate a ref who applied the law correctly.

Would all the people who sent letters to ITV please post ITV's template responses back here?

I'm expecting it to be on the lines of "we are sorry to inconvenience you, we strive to make our content impartial and unbiased for all viewers" etc.

roddersm wrote:100% agree the coverage is a disgrace. I hope Rolland sues them for defamation.

ITV need to make sure that their pundits know the rules before spouting off such rubbish.

I am in Canada and got kiwi commentary...can someone tell me what was siad on itv?

Ryder basically was slating Rolland despite it being clear that he did not know the laws, and Pienaar let his emotions get the better of him rather than providing an unbiased analysis of the game.

DOD wrote:The thing is Taff you are only making up some inconsistency. The law is clear in this case. The law was not applied correctly by the refs on the two occassions previously but was applied retrospectively. Roland made a correct decision and should be applauded. With eye contact, dangerous tackles and foul play the laws are clear.

That you compare this with crooked feeds in the scrum and the issue of possibly breaking someones neck shows that you along with some of your compatriots (a small minority mind) are clutching at straws.

I am sure itis just an act by a wummer as you are not a daft as you are pretending.Can you not see that a directive is a directive and referees MUST not pick and choose else we have anarchy.No straw clutching from me,mate.Our missed kicks cost us this game.We should have been good enough to win with 14.

So if a referee gets a decision wrong then every other referee thereafter also has to purposely get it wrong to be consistent? Strange way to uphold the Laws of the game!