Rolland speaks about Warburton red card

World Cup semi referee Alain Rolland talks about the sending off of Sam Warburton in this article on the BBC website. He praises Saw Warburton for admitting he deserved the red, hoping it will help make the game safer. Two key quotes for me

"The important part for referees is to take the emotion out of it."

suggesting that you need to referee the game, not the occasion (ie world cup semi)

"We don't officiate on intention, we officiate on the action itself."

Bit of a nothing story really. Rolland isn't duty bound to come out and speak to the press or whatever about it, but I question why he is now. It isn't as if he's refereeing in Wales this weekend or anything either.

Edit, right I see that it seems to be a Western Fail story, so I don't see the point in them doing this interview really. I think Sam admitting that he deserved red suffices anyway and any knowledgeable rugby person accepts it was the correct call at the end of the day (especially now the immediate aftermath of the game has been in the past for a while).

Mr Rolland, not content at being public enemy no.1 in Wales, now decides he wants to gloat about it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15730109.stm

What a T1T

Why can't he let sleeping dogs lie? It was starting to get back to normal, so why give an interview to the "hacks" at the western mail? Does he really need to make himself unpopular again? and at the same time stir up the whole debate if he was right or wrong

You never know... he might be one of the WUM's on here that caused the whole thing to go on, and on, and on etc...

Praises humility in others, but shows none whatsoever himself. I wonder if Rubyguby can confirm if he has psychiatric problems, it seems to me he has some sort of complex. Perhaps you need one to be a ref.

Why did he do it? Because he was asked a question. Just like Warburton was asked last week.

Why did the paper ask him about it?

Grey

I am asked many things in my work life that can have far reaching consequences, if someone asks a question, no-one unless under oath are duty bound to answer it!

The Western Mail are always digging for shoite, so why does he feel he needs to justify himself - he should have been dignified and refused to comment on an incident that has come and gone.

Rant over

greybeard wrote:Why did he do it? Because he was asked a question. Just like Warburton was asked last week.

Why did the paper ask him about it?

Yes, but he could gave shown a little humility. He could have said he felt sorry for Warburton rather tgan talking about emotions running high. He'd hardly be human if he didn't. And instead of taking Warburtons comments as validation of his actions, he could have said that he was proud to be a ref in a sport where after the initial hoohah the player himself took it on the chin.

I'm sorry the impression that the guy in insecure and analy retentive is simply fed by his souless replies in this article.

Huwball wrote:Grey

I am asked many things in my work life that can have far reaching consequences, if someone asks a question, no-one unless under oath are duty bound to answer it!

The Western Mail are always digging for shoite, so why does he feel he needs to justify himself - he should have been dignified and refused to comment on an incident that has come and gone.

Rant over

So why didn't you start a thread when Warburton was asked and responded?

Huwball wrote:Mr Rolland, not content at being public enemy no.1 in Wales, now decides he wants to gloat about it!

I see no evidence of gloating in what Rolland has said. He's answered the questions plainly. That's all.

Glas a du wrote:

greybeard wrote:Why did he do it? Because he was asked a question. Just like Warburton was asked last week.

Why did the paper ask him about it?

Yes, but he could gave shown a little humility. He could have said he felt sorry for Warburton rather tgan talking about emotions running high. He'd hardly be human if he didn't. And instead of taking Warburtons comments as validation of his actions, he could have said that he was proud to be a ref in a sport where after the initial hoohah the player himself took it on the chin.

I'm sorry the impression that the guy in insecure and analy retentive is simply fed by his souless replies in this article.

Oh, humility. I see. He's obviously a horrible man.

He could have said lots of different things, but as long as he didn't say exactly what you wanted to hear you were going to have a pop at him.

Huwball wrote:Mr Rolland, not content at being public enemy no.1 in Wales, now decides he wants to gloat about it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15730109.stm

What a T1T

Why can't he let sleeping dogs lie? It was starting to get back to normal, so why give an interview to the "hacks" at the western mail? Does he really need to make himself unpopular again? and at the same time stir up the whole debate if he was right or wrong

You never know... he might be one of the WUM's on here that caused the whole thing to go on, and on, and on etc...

To be fair people like you make it pretty easy to laugh at the welsh and gloat. Just saying like.

All the guys done is answer a question witha professional repsonse. This is how referees are suppossed to pressnet themselves. They are not there to make friends, they are there to make the correct calls as instructed...which is exactly what he did. Obviously the fans job is to go on the internet and blow things out of all proportion then butch and whine about it and seek fault in everything creating public enemny number one.
Can you honestly say anything in that constitutes gloating? Seriously, get a grip.

Pretty sure had Rolland said nothing (declined to answer the question) the story would have been "Rolland refuses to discuss Warburton red card" and then you'd have been having a go at him for being arrogant, saying that refs should explain their decisions, etc.

Risca Rev wrote:Bit of a nothing story really.

Agree. What's the point of going over it again? It's not going to change anything.

I thought they DID referee the intention though ? I've heard loads of refs say 'High tackle - accidental - no intention'

It's all a load of @rse.

slartibartfast wrote:It's all a load of @rse.

munkian wrote:I thought they DID referee the intention though ? I've heard loads of refs say 'High tackle - accidental - no intention'

Yeah, I've seen many a high tackle not be punished as the ref's said "accidental" or "carrier on his way down". Now, even if the ball-carrier is falling, surely the incident is the same regardless of the intent of the tackler, so referees have certainly been guilty of refereeing the intent if they shouldnt be.

I did a little experiment and took all of Rollands comments and when fed into the computer and played backwards its the French National Anthem....with "I f.rt in your general direction" at the end.

Proof at last.

greybeard wrote:

Glas a du wrote:

greybeard wrote:Why did he do it? Because he was asked a question. Just like Warburton was asked last week. Why did the paper ask him about it?

Yes, but he could gave shown a little humility. He could have said he felt sorry for Warburton rather tgan talking about emotions running high. He'd hardly be human if he didn't. And instead of taking Warburtons comments as validation of his actions, he could have said that he was proud to be a ref in a sport where after the initial hoohah the player himself took it on the chin. I'm sorry the impression that the guy in insecure and analy retentive is simply fed by his souless replies in this article.

Oh, humility. I see. He's obviously a horrible man. He could have said lots of different things, but as long as he didn't say exactly what you wanted to hear you were going to have a pop at him.

That's a bit presumptuous isn't it? I wouldn't say he was horrible per se, prissy, self important, narcissistic, analy retentive, yes. Horrible is probably stretching it a little.

I'll still keep your secret.

DOD wrote:I did a little experiment and took all of Rollands comments and when fed into the computer and played backwards its the French National Anthem....with "I f.rt in your general direction" at the end.

Proof at last.

Genius, with a Monty Python reference and all!

Rolland is still a little Poopie and it's touching how his fellow Hibernians all stick up for him as if he was a sickly younger brother. Risca is right though, it's a nothing story and I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself for getting involved.

Taking the emotion out of the game?

I think this is Rolland's first attempt to take the emotion out of the situation. By that I mean trying to re-establish himself with Welsh rugby. There are two elements in his remarks - one confirming that he was right to send Warburton off, but the other praising Warburton very highly.

Whether or not Welsh feelings eventually die down enough to let him referee Wales again, only time will tell. They may - after all, Wayne Barnes has reffed New Zealand since their 2007 world cup defeat by France.

But Barnes is young, with plenty of time. Rolland is older, with much less time left to referee top games. Also, if you read NZ rugby forums, many fans over there still don't rate Barnes 4 years after he missed that forward pass.

optimist
New Zealanders dont rate Barnes not because of the way he reffed that half of play in Cardiff 4 years ago, but because he has very little empathy with the game, and because he controls rather than manages games.
Thing is he is every bit as good as Rolland,and I'm not judging Rolland on one incident either.

to all the" letter of the law" guys out there...

... I really hope this never happens to your cheerished team.

Wonder if Rolland would even have opened his yapper if Sam hadn't been big enough to come out and say that it was justified. I suspect not.

aucklandlaurie wrote: optimist
New Zealanders dont rate Barnes not because of the way he reffed that half of play in Cardiff 4 years ago, but because he has very little empathy with the game, and because he controls rather than manages games.
Thing is he is every bit as good as Rolland,and I'm not judging Rolland on one incident either.

Thanks for that take on why New Zealanders don't rate Wayne Barnes, which I can see is completely true.

But it's also fair to say that Barnes's performances have come under critical scrutiny in NZ more closely than some other referees, because of the 2007 world cup, just as Rolland's performances will now come under critical scrutiny by Welsh fans more than some other refs. And, as I said, Rolland doesn't have age on his side.

As a Wales supporter since the mid-1950s, I know this is a bit unfair because I've seen worse, entirely incorrect, decisions given against teams - not just Wales - over the years, but given the importance of that semi-final match to Wales I'm afraid Rolland will have a tough job trying to re-build bridges with the Welsh rugby public.

Optimist that just sums up how pathetic the attitude of certain peopel is about this.
Rolland made a great call, now youre saying he will be scrutinised in great detail for it? Warburton himself has said it was a correct decision. Why on earth would the welsh fans think Riolland was a bad refreree as a result?
Its very different to the Barnes situation, where he did make a couple of crucial howlers.
In this case the upset was largely caused by commentaters and pundits making emotional statements at the time based on a complete lack of knowledge of the way the game is suppossed to be officated ( the rights and wrongs of that is another argument). Stupid and plain wrong statements made on TV coverage is what whipped this up into such a controversy.Sure tehre still would have been some upset at the decuision and those who could never bring themeselves to accept it was correct even but a bit more balance and knowledge from the media would have saved a lot of the gnashing and wailing that apaprently is still going on.

Perhaps its Warburtons behaviour that should come under close scrutiny, hes the one that put in the illegal and dangerous tackle and effectivly blew what should have been a walk in the park for Wales.

slartibartfast wrote:to all the" letter of the law" guys out there...

... I really hope this never happens to your cheerished team.

What like a ref not using the TMO to check if a quick line out was legal for example?

Just listened to an interview on BBC radio with Sam Warburton, he honestly and frankly admitted he thought he might get a yellow but did not know the rule regarding spear tackles exactly. He openly acknowledges it was the correct decision by the ref to show the red.

I was really impressed by his modesty, honesty and eloquence. If his play continues to hit the heights it has recently I would be happy to see him lead the Lions.

Seabiscuit.

Well, you use the word "pathetic" and I said "a bit unfair" and included myself.

I have no problem at all with your take on Rolland's decision. I haven't disputed the red card.

But I think it is a fact that Rolland's performances will come under closer critical scrutiny in Wales and will be a tough job for him to re-build bridges.

Saying it shouldn't happen won't make any difference.

rapidsnowman wrote:Just listened to an interview on BBC radio with Sam Warburton, he honestly and frankly admitted he thought he might get a yellow but did not know the rule regarding spear tackles exactly. He openly acknowledges it was the correct decision by the ref to show the red.

It makes you wonder though why he didn't know it. Warburton's fellow backrower, David Wallace (who would have been going to the world cup except he got injured), is the only pundit on tv I know of who called it as a Red Card (and argued the toss with the other pundits on the panel with them over it). Apparently the Irish squad always gets top refs like Rolland in to give them the low down on the laws. Is Gatland doing this, or is himself and Edwards making the laws up as they go along and they are hoping for the best?

As for how we would feel if a decision went against us like that (well, as mentioned, an incorrect decision did go against Ireland which would have meant Ireland winning the Triple Crown last 6ns) and and there were no death threats sent to the TJs. I'm sure winning that game would have meant a lot to the IRFU financially as well in prize money.

optimist wrote:Seabiscuit.

Well, you use the word "pathetic" and I said "a bit unfair" and included myself.

I have no problem at all with your take on Rolland's decision. I haven't disputed the red card.

But I think it is a fact that Rolland's performances will come under closer critical scrutiny in Wales and will be a tough job for him to re-build bridges.

Saying it shouldn't happen won't make any difference.

Descriptive words aside, its a bit odd that a ref will come under great scrutiny for making a correct call. Surely the fans after finding out that the call was right should be showing him greater respect and getting off his back.
For sure yes, pointing out the ludicorusness of the situation wont change it, there are some people who simply want to hate him and wont to play the victim. Thats a problem with the mentaility of some fans, some of whome post here.

Sin é wrote:

rapidsnowman wrote:Just listened to an interview on BBC radio with Sam Warburton, he honestly and frankly admitted he thought he might get a yellow but did not know the rule regarding spear tackles exactly. He openly acknowledges it was the correct decision by the ref to show the red.

It makes you wonder though why he didn't know it. Warburton's fellow backrower, David Wallace (who would have been going to the world cup except he got injured), is the only pundit on tv I know of who called it as a Red Card (and argued the toss with the other pundits on the panel with them over it). Apparently the Irish squad always gets top refs like Rolland in to give them the low down on the laws. Is Gatland doing this, or is himself and Edwards making the laws up as they go along and they are hoping for the best?

Yeah I do find it odd he didnt know the rule too, given that it was sent out to all the teams and prior to the world cup as a reminder and had been in place for some time prior to that ( ask Florian Fritz). Perhaps the coaches didnt deem it worth passing on to the players. Maybe it wasnt dual language so the Welsh squad wouldnt accept it. Who knows.

Seabiscuit

It isn't really odd that a ref comes under close scrutiny after making a correct call. It happens all the time, all over the world, and the bigger the game the greater the scrutiny. And that's not counting people who don't think it was a correct call in the first place (not me).

It's something that nearly 60 years of playing and following rugby has taught me about fans - as I said, fans from all over the world, not just Wales even if we do have another language besides English.

By the way, if this is in any danger of descending to having a discussion about "whingeing Welsh" or suchlike, count me out.

Correct call? Is it really as simple as that? Stephen Jones got a yellow for a tip tackle in the recent Scarlets-Ospreys derby. No further action was taken by the citing commissioner. Looks to me like the issue is far from settled.

samuraidragon wrote:Correct call? Is it really as simple as that? Stephen Jones got a yellow for a tip tackle in the recent Scarlets-Ospreys derby. No further action was taken by the citing commissioner. Looks to me like the issue is far from settled.

Stephen Jones's tackle wasn't a tip tackle. A tip tackles occurs when the legs of the tackled are above the elbow of the tackler. See this image. One is a tip tackle, the other isn't. Note the position of the elbows of the tackler. (Explained by David Wallace).

https://i.servimg.com/u/f43/16/53/77/41/tackle16.jpg

it wasn't a tip tackle simply because it was Bowe's momentum that took him over, not because of Wellies elbows, which did go high.

The fact about Rolland is though, that he was disliked in Wales before the semi-final, the perception is that he constantly rules 50:50 decisions against Welsh teams, so for a lot of Welsh fans it was just confirmation of his bias, this is mainly why a lot of fans go on about him.

munkian wrote:I thought they DID referee the intention though ? I've heard loads of refs say 'High tackle - accidental - no intention'

The guidance for tip-tackles specifically says they shouldn't rule on intent. If it happens it's red.

Turkster wrote:the perception is that he constantly rules 50:50 decisions against Welsh teams

I've yet to hear fans, of any team, describe any ref as usually coming down in their favour. It's a common perception, saying more about fans than refs.