Alain Rolland why

First topic message reminder :

Alain Rolland why is it all about him

Mike Selig wrote:
1) I'm sorry I was being mischevious. Anyway the fact remains the IRB do rank him in the top 2 (after Joubert).

2) obviously I did. Could someone link me to posts showing this.

3) If he doesn't feel french then bias doesn't come into it.

4) What inconsistency? Simply saying "he was inconsistent" doesn't make him so.

5) If you're blaming him for AR calls you're clutching at straws.

6) People are moaning about the ref. Yesterday people moaned about Clancy. After every knock-out game in the WC people moaned about the refs. It's becoming wearisome.

1) okay, still dont get you.
2) Rollands loyalties have been questioned since he has become and International ref. Not due to one red card to a Welsh player that you refer to. Unfortunately, when he makes a bad decision in a game favouring France, it will be questioned (rightly or wrongly it will be questioned)
3) I have dual nationality and i feel both Dutch and Irish so i have some sort of idea as to those feelings.
4) Its not just me saying that he has been inconsistent, top pundits also mention this.
5) I did not blame him for the AR call i just said that the AR made the call because Rolland was only going to play a knock on. So take that attitude somewher else.
6) Clancy was very pedantic yesterday but very consistent. You seem to think that everyone is blaming the refs, far from it. As a ref their performance will be judged and discussed just as much as the teams playing.

Cymroglan wrote:As far as I'm aware Nigel Owens has no Irish or French connections so it would not leave him open to accusations..

Mike I'm a adult I do not hold grudges I deal with them
I had not even mentioned Wales in this or to be honest even thought of the red card incident.
All I have said was that Rolland does leave himself open to accusations when he is selected to ref France.

What you read into that is your choice but I can assure you my opinion is not based on any grudge but you on the other hand seem to carry a grudge against me for some reason.

You're the one who said "refs should be rotated". I assumed this was a criticism of the too-regular selection of Alain Rolland to referee games involving french sides. I also assumed that as you'd naturally want to be consistent in your criticisms of such things, you must have criticised the too-regular selection of Owens to referee Irish sides a few years back.

In your original post you made no mention of Rolland's parentage, so I assumed Owens' didn't enter into it more than his did.

I kinda enjoy Rolland’s ref-ing of England games. Especially the look on his face after England win:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100118034121/muppet/images/8/87/TF1-MuppetsTV-PhotoGallery-24-Beaker.jpg

eirebilly wrote:
1) okay, still dont get you.
2) Rollands loyalties have been questioned since he has become and International ref. Not due to one red card to a Welsh player that you refer to. Unfortunately, when he makes a bad decision in a game favouring France, it will be questioned (rightly or wrongly it will be questioned)
3) I have dual nationality and i feel both Dutch and Irish so i have some sort of idea as to those feelings.
4) Its not just me saying that he has been inconsistent, top pundits also mention this.
5) I did not blame him for the AR call i just said that the AR made the call because Rolland was only going to play a knock on. So take that attitude somewher else.
6) Clancy was very pedantic yesterday but very consistent. You seem to think that everyone is blaming the refs, far from it. As a ref their performance will be judged and discussed just as much as the teams playing.

1) It means people more knowledgeable than myself or dare I say it yourself rate Rolland highly.
2) Link? Evidence? I really can't remember such vehement questioning before the RC incident.
3) Played any international sport recently? I have 3 nationalities and have played international sport for one of them. It does make a difference believe me...
4) "top pundits" claimed the Red Card in the WC semi-final was wrong wrong wrong. They're paid to sell newspapers/airtime, and sky have openly acknowledged they don't mind Stuart Barnes being plain wrong on points of law if it creates controversy. I don't pay that much attention to what "top pundits" (apart from Brian Moore at the scrum) have to say about refereeing. When did any of them have the guts to take up the whistle.
5) My mistake I thought you were using the YC as an example of inconsistency.
6) And IMO that's a very bad thing. The ref shouldn't be discussed as much as the game. And it used to be with rugby fans that they accepted ref's errors a lot easier.

Mike Selig wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:As far as I'm aware Nigel Owens has no Irish or French connections so it would not leave him open to accusations..
Are you aware that Nigel Owens is Welsh ?

Mike I'm a adult I do not hold grudges I deal with them
I had not even mentioned Wales in this or to be honest even thought of the red card incident.
All I have said was that Rolland does leave himself open to accusations when he is selected to ref France.

What you read into that is your choice but I can assure you my opinion is not based on any grudge but you on the other hand seem to carry a grudge against me for some reason.

You're the one who said "refs should be rotated". I assumed this was a criticism of the too-regular selection of Alain Rolland to referee games involving french sides. I also assumed that as you'd naturally want to be consistent in your criticisms of such things, you must have criticised the too-regular selection of Owens to referee Irish sides a few years back.

In your original post you made no mention of Rolland's parentage, so I assumed Owens' didn't enter into it more than his did.

Mike once again Owen is not Irish or French and as far as I'm aware he does not have any close connection to either that would leave him open to accusations of favouritism.
Rolland has close ties with France and that will leave him open to accusations unfounded or not.

Mike Selig wrote:
1) It means people more knowledgeable than myself or dare I say it yourself rate Rolland highly.
2) Link? Evidence? I really can't remember such vehement questioning before the RC incident.
3) Played any international sport recently? I have 3 nationalities and have played international sport for one of them. It does make a difference believe me...4) "top pundits" claimed the Red Card in the WC semi-final was wrong wrong wrong. They're paid to sell newspapers/airtime, and sky have openly acknowledged they don't mind Stuart Barnes being plain wrong on points of law if it creates controversy. I don't pay that much attention to what "top pundits" (apart from Brian Moore at the scrum) have to say about refereeing. When did any of them have the guts to take up the whistle.
5) My mistake I thought you were using the YC as an example of inconsistency.
6) And IMO that's a very bad thing. The ref shouldn't be discussed as much as the game. And it used to be with rugby fans that they accepted ref's errors a lot easier.

After reading that highlighted piece, i am in no way going to respond to you from now on.

As i said on the cricket board before leaving, You're right Mike. I have not got a clue what i am talking about

Cymroglan wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

Cymroglan wrote:As far as I'm aware Nigel Owens has no Irish or French connections so it would not leave him open to accusations..
Are you aware that Nigel Owens is Welsh ?

Mike I'm a adult I do not hold grudges I deal with them
I had not even mentioned Wales in this or to be honest even thought of the red card incident.
All I have said was that Rolland does leave himself open to accusations when he is selected to ref France.

What you read into that is your choice but I can assure you my opinion is not based on any grudge but you on the other hand seem to carry a grudge against me for some reason.

You're the one who said "refs should be rotated". I assumed this was a criticism of the too-regular selection of Alain Rolland to referee games involving french sides. I also assumed that as you'd naturally want to be consistent in your criticisms of such things, you must have criticised the too-regular selection of Owens to referee Irish sides a few years back.

In your original post you made no mention of Rolland's parentage, so I assumed Owens' didn't enter into it more than his did.

Mike once again Owen is not Irish or French and as far as I'm aware he does not have any close connection to either that would leave him open to accusations of favouritism.
Rolland has close ties with France and that will leave him open to accusations unfounded or not.

We weren't talking about perception of bias, but regularity of refereeing one country...

eirebilly wrote:
As i said on the cricket board before leaving, You're right Mike. I have not got a clue what i am talking about

I'm not saying you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm suggesting that playing sport for one's country gives one a different outlook on patriotism. I doubt Rolland feels in the slightest bit french. I have no idea why you take offence so easily at someone suggesting you are wrong.

But the rest of us were talking about leaving the door open to being accused of bias.
Surely the fact he has very close connection to France is going to leave him open to such accusations.
There is no reason why him and only him should have been the ref today.

Mike Selig wrote:

eirebilly wrote:
As i said on the cricket board before leaving, You're right Mike. I have not got a clue what i am talking about

I'm not saying you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm suggesting that playing sport for one's country gives one a different outlook on patriotism. I doubt Rolland feels in the slightest bit french. I have no idea why you take offence so easily at someone suggesting you are wrong.

No its more to do with your rather arrogant attitude and feeling of superiority over other posters which is why i will no longer engage you in a debate.

You do come across as a bit stuck up Mike.

I think it was pretty fair to say that if a ref could play for a country he should probably not ref that country.

Fighting for your country gives you a different outlook on patriotism.
He may not feel French for 80 min but that close connection is still there.

Cymroglan wrote:But the rest of us were talking about leaving the door open to being accused of bias.
Surely the fact he has very close connection to France is going to leave him open to such accusations.
There is no reason why him and only him should have been the ref today.

So he shouldn't referee France because some muppets think he may be biased? He obviously can't referee Ireland (I would have no issue with him reffing Ireland BTW if he felt comfortable doing so), so you're taking out two major countries he can't referee anymore. Seems a bit unfair on a ref who has done nothing but give his utmost to the sport...

yappysnap wrote:You do come across as a bit stuck up Mike.

I think it was pretty fair to say that if a ref could play for a country he should probably not ref that country.

I'm sorry (genuinely) if I come accross like that, I'll try to be a bit nicer. However he couldn't play for France, because he played for Ireland. Which was my point all along really, he made up his mind with re to his ties a long time ago.

Mike when you refer to members of this site as being Muppet's you have lost all credibility.
You are just looking for a argument when there is no need for it.

The sad thing is, all that is being said is that he is open for stronger criticism due to his ties. As i said, i myself have dual nationality. I am a proud Irishman but also a very proud Dutchman. I can kind of relate to having feelings about both countries. I am not saying that Rolland is biased, i am saying that he is far more open for criticism due to his ties. Whether that be fair or not has no bearing here. If that makes me a muppet then so be it i guess.

yappysnap wrote:
I think it was pretty fair to say that if a ref could play for a country he should probably not ref that country.

Not sure about that. Given that you can qualify for a country based on as little as a grandparent's birthplace, I'd say it would be a bit harsh to rule people out of refereeing a country just based on that. I'd consider myself to just be English, but technically I could represent Wales and Scotland as well.

Cymroglan wrote:As far as I'm aware Nigel Owens has no Irish or French connections so it would not leave him open to accusations...

I wasn't saying that Owens had any Irish or French connections. Hypothetically, I was saying that if Owenshad been selected to ref the game today, then he could be accused of bias in influencing the outcome in favour of his home country. Who would Wales have wanted to win today? The team they're playing next, and who had the best chance of overhauling them to win the 6N title? Or the team who they had already beaten, and who would only have an outside chance of catching them?

You can find fault or potential bias in any reffing situation, but at a certain point, you just have to trust in the person's professionalism and let them get on with the job. Rolland was born in Ireland, declares himself Irish, holds an Irish passport, played for Ireland. He doesn't call himself half-French or a dual national. His loyalties have always been publicly pledged to Ireland. He can't declare or possibly play for France - he declared for Ireland where he grew up and has played most of his rugby. He made that decision a long time ago. People just need to get over it and stop looking for excuses.

eirebilly wrote:The sad thing is, all that is being said is that he is open for stronger criticism due to his ties. As i said, i myself have dual nationality. I am a proud Irishman but also a very proud Dutchman. I can kind of relate to having feelings about both countries. I am not saying that Rolland is biased, i am saying that he is far more open for criticism due to his ties. Whether that be fair or not has no bearing here. If that makes me a muppet then so be it i guess.

I understand entirely the point. Where I disagree entirely with you is that the IRB should make decisions on appointments based on perceived bias by some fans. They should appoint the best official for the job. If they believe AR is the best official then he should be appointed. Fan's grievances shouldn't be taken into account.

Mike Selig wrote:

eirebilly wrote:The sad thing is, all that is being said is that he is open for stronger criticism due to his ties. As i said, i myself have dual nationality. I am a proud Irishman but also a very proud Dutchman. I can kind of relate to having feelings about both countries. I am not saying that Rolland is biased, i am saying that he is far more open for criticism due to his ties. Whether that be fair or not has no bearing here. If that makes me a muppet then so be it i guess.

I understand entirely the point. Where I disagree entirely with you is that the IRB should make decisions on appointments based on perceived bias by some fans. They should appoint the best official for the job. If they believe AR is the best official then he should be appointed. Fan's grievances shouldn't be taken into account.

+138.7

Rolland is consisitant and consistantly fair, to anyone one playing England that is, and we always know that we are not going to get the rub of the green or 50-50 calls from this man on a Rugby pitch. I don't know if its bias, anti - English feelings from his French and Irish background, but it is there, and anyone with half a brain, or with eyes to see, will agree!!


If a person is Biased, or prejudiced ( even they might not be aware of it) someone should at least monitor this, but they are all (officials) supposed to be gentlemen and Honourable, are they not? and are to be above petty Nationalism and fair, but as we know, this is the ideal, but many do not live up to what is expected of them.


I would say without any malice or wish to Wum that i feel that there is a Hierarchy among Refs, and that the AB's sit at the top, and cannot commit a transgression, While England are definitely at the bottom and cannot put a foot wrong. Not i may add a self pitying or finger pointing exercise, but something i have noticed in our game, which i have watched for over 40 years.

Pot Hale wrote:Who would Wales have wanted to win today? The team they're playing next, and who had the best chance of overhauling them to win the 6N title.

I'd have thought that Wales would have wanted England to win today. The chances of England winning the championship are almost non-existent, but if France had won then they'd have gone to Cardiff with a shot at it. As it is France don't have a huge amount to play for, and either way it's still very much in Wales' hands.

Edited because I accidentally quoted the wrong poster.

Why is it about Rolland?

Tell me, when he was playing what position did he play?

Really, scrum half?



That'll be it then.

[quote="Mike Selig"]

eirebilly wrote:
3) Played any international sport recently? I have 3 nationalities and have played international sport for one of them. It does make a difference believe me...

Mike,I have not come across your postings before but I must confess that you come across as a bit of a t&sser!
I appreciate that there may be some language nuances that you may have missed.

english warrior wrote:and that the AB's sit at the top, and cannot commit a transgression,

We've had our moments with refs. I think its more about being able to rise above it, negate the impact of the ref, good or bad that forms that impression.

From all the ref issues I've seen, they're ALL just poor in being able to apply a complex set of rules and those who lose, or don't win as well as they should, highlight it more than they normally would, if they had won.

The minute someone tells me the name of a good ref- a google on the name generally finds an instance where they were crucified. Name another sport where that happens so regularly.

So is it that the people we are picking, training, paying and trusting with these key jobs, or the rules?

Go figure...

thomh wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Who would Wales have wanted to win today? The team they're playing next, and who had the best chance of overhauling them to win the 6N title.

I'd have thought that Wales would have wanted England to win today. The chances of England winning the championship are almost non-existent, but if France had won then they'd have gone to Cardiff with a shot at it. As it is France don't have a huge amount to play for, and either way it's still very much in Wales' hands.

Edited because I accidentally quoted the wrong poster.

I wanted England to win for two reasons I have closer ties with England and a English win would be beneficial to Wales.
But after the match I was thinking that all the pressure is now off France..

thebluesmancometh wrote:As I said it's a case of where the ball gets slapped too.

Fofana hits the ball into the air giving him a chance to play it, Sharples slaps it straight to the floor!

I would have thought the key determinant is time to hit the ball. Sharples had no time to knock on deliberately. Ball comes - you try and grab it. Fofana had more time so you could argue, unless you're Rolland, that it was deliberate.

The fact that the touch judge called it, after Rolland had seen it and ignored it, suggests he was trying to "level things" out with Sharples.

England won the game...remember that. Remember too who gave it to them. Three lovely tries (themselves) and the awful French who didn't even know when to go for tries rather than kicking dead points at the end of a game. So you won, Rolland didn't mess it up for you.

Second point. Rolland may have a French bit, but his Irish bit doesn't necessarily always require a French victory. It's not a given that his bias (real or imaginary) would always wish for the French to come out on top over the English. Just something to keep in mind for future years and future questioning of his 'objectivity'.

Now that I think of it, you could also apply that final reasoning to any ref from these shores. They all have a bias inherant in their very nationality, and, in threory, are free to use such bias to effect the conclusions of games that might work to the benefit of their nations. If the accusation is going to be tossed at Rolland then the theory suits all European refs that officiate in 6N games..

My whole point in this was that i do feel that Rolland has been very inconsistent with his rulings at times. Not in just matches for France but over all. I often feel that he refs one team alot harder than the other, it happens to nearly all ref's.
My point being that when it happens in a French match with the French benefitting somewhat, his decisions will be focused on alot more than any other ref due to him being half French. It may have nothing to do with that at all but it will be questioned.

Billy problem is what you say there is applicable to any referee. Even Joubert was on the recieving end after the RWC final, and that after being touted the best rugby referee in the RWC.

I dont think so biltong, i honestly believe that Rolland will get a lot more questions asked about him than any other ref when it comes to matches involving the French. One mistake favouring the French will be magnified at the time because emotions of the fans will be high.

I would happily accept Rolland taking charge of every match between England and France.

Mike Selig wrote:

eirebilly wrote:The sad thing is, all that is being said is that he is open for stronger criticism due to his ties. As i said, i myself have dual nationality. I am a proud Irishman but also a very proud Dutchman. I can kind of relate to having feelings about both countries. I am not saying that Rolland is biased, i am saying that he is far more open for criticism due to his ties. Whether that be fair or not has no bearing here. If that makes me a muppet then so be it i guess.

I understand entirely the point. Where I disagree entirely with you is that the IRB should make decisions on appointments based on perceived bias by some fans. They should appoint the best official for the job. If they believe AR is the best official then he should be appointed. Fan's grievances shouldn't be taken into account.

Bit I've higlighted, how many times has Rolland been in charge of a game involving Wales or welsh sides since the WC red card?

Is there a proper way for a team to complain about a referee?

To be proper,
1. It would have to be from the winning team (no sour grapes)
2. It would have to be done in absolute confidence - initially secret from the ref himself.
3. In any public statements, the complaining team would have to be economical with the truth: "We felt some we were unlucky with some of the decisions, but that's rugby. We're focusing on next week".

Knackeredknees wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

eirebilly wrote:The sad thing is, all that is being said is that he is open for stronger criticism due to his ties. As i said, i myself have dual nationality. I am a proud Irishman but also a very proud Dutchman. I can kind of relate to having feelings about both countries. I am not saying that Rolland is biased, i am saying that he is far more open for criticism due to his ties. Whether that be fair or not has no bearing here. If that makes me a muppet then so be it i guess.

I understand entirely the point. Where I disagree entirely with you is that the IRB should make decisions on appointments based on perceived bias by some fans. They should appoint the best official for the job. If they believe AR is the best official then he should be appointed. Fan's grievances shouldn't be taken into account.

Bit I've higlighted, how many times has Rolland been in charge of a game involving Wales or welsh sides since the WC red card?

Obvoiusly the IRB have to take into consideration the irrational reaction of certain countries' supporters, to perfectly legitimate decisions.

I have to laugh at some individuals here who drone on about players turning rugby into football through their (percieved) actions and at the same time suggest that rugby referees are somehow biased - a well known complaint of many football supporters.

These are pathetic attempts to undermine referees when results don't go your way are what will really drag rugby down to the level of football. I fail to see what could referees possibly gain from being biased one way or the other. If anything, the opposite is the case. Why would an individual such as Rolland or Owens, who have obviously put so much into their careers, put themselves in the position of their integrity being questioned? It just doesn't stack up(unless there are other dark forces at work).

So, for those of you who wish to persist with this claptrap go ahead, but you will never make sense. Logic is not on your side.

Then again you can't beat a good conspiracy theory. Anyone want to talk about 9/11?

Oh dear Mankiaow, have you actually read what is being said or have you just jumped on your arrogant soapbox for the sake of it? The reference to 9/11 is an absolute joke as well but hey ho.

People, including myself, are not saying that a ref like Rolland is biased, we are saying that if he referee's a game and gives a decision that is odd in favour of the French then his loyalty will be questioned by fans due to his ties with France. No-one is saying that he is Biased, we are saying that it leaves him open when something like this happens.

mankiaow wrote:These are pathetic attempts to undermine referees when results don't go your way are what will really drag rugby down to the level of football. I fail to see what could referees possibly gain from being biased one way or the other. If anything, the opposite is the case. Why would an individual such as Rolland or Owens, who have obviously put so much into their careers, put themselves in the position of their integrity being questioned? It just doesn't stack up(unless there are other dark forces at work).

So, for those of you who wish to persist with this claptrap go ahead, but you will never make sense. Logic is not on your side.

mankiaow, I wouldn't call it pathetic attempts, it is ligitimate concerns that needs to be cleared up by the IRB, and is understandable that Allain Rolland is open to questioning about his roots.

The way I see it is the inconsistencies and the way rucks could be interpreted differently by two opposing teams as well as the referees cuase these concerns.

As far as logic, well, interpretation of rugby laws has very little to do with logic.

I was mystified by Rolland's decision to award the scrum to France at the end which led to the Forfana try. As I saw it England were in possession and Rolland correctly blew up because an injured player was at risk of greater injury because of where play was. I would have thought that scrum down, England put-in, would have been the right way to restart the game. Can anyone add to this?

blimey, some of you are blind.

Watch the replays of the knock-ons

Sharples is CLEARLY putting one hand out to the side of the ball and is trying to catch it! look at his posture, his timed run, he is trying to intercept.

It was slightly too far at the edge of his reach as his arm was straight and had no 'give' in which to absorb the energy and retain it in a scooping fashion (unless his acceleration was equal to that of the balls speed.. it wasn't).

Fofana's knock-on was an instinctive swipe with no effort made at interception and was a deliberate knock on.

biltongbek wrote:

mankiaow wrote:These are pathetic attempts to undermine referees when results don't go your way are what will really drag rugby down to the level of football. I fail to see what could referees possibly gain from being biased one way or the other. If anything, the opposite is the case. Why would an individual such as Rolland or Owens, who have obviously put so much into their careers, put themselves in the position of their integrity being questioned? It just doesn't stack up(unless there are other dark forces at work).

So, for those of you who wish to persist with this claptrap go ahead, but you will never make sense. Logic is not on your side.

mankiaow, I wouldn't call it pathetic attempts, it is ligitimate concerns that needs to be cleared up by the IRB, and is understandable that Allain Rolland is open to questioning about his roots.

The way I see it is the inconsistencies and the way rucks could be interpreted differently by two opposing teams as well as the referees cuase these concerns.

As far as logic, well, interpretation of rugby laws has very little to do with logic.

This is just insulting to the man. He is the best referee in the world. As has been said, none of this was an issue before the semi-final in which he was vindicated, in every sense, over his decision to send Wharburton off(even by the offender himself, which says a lot for him btw). All this is being dredged up just to give those who like to indulge themselves in this brainless speculation something to harp on about. I watched the yesterdays game again and both decisions seemed reasonable to me - but then again, I'm not English or Welsh.

Brian Moore, who I have a lot of time for, makes a fairly chippy comment and it's immediately latched on to and pored over here, as if there was some substance to it. There's no logic there!

Of course there are inconsistencies in the laws of the game. All the more reason to be flexible with referees and appreciate the amount of pressure they are under, instead of idly speculating about their motives.

damage_13 wrote:blimey, some of you are blind.

Watch the replays of the knock-ons

Sharples is CLEARLY putting one hand out to the side of the ball and is trying to catch it! look at his posture, his timed run, he is trying to intercept.

It was slightly too far at the edge of his reach as his arm was straight and had no 'give' in which to absorb the energy and retain it in a scooping fashion (unless his acceleration was equal to that of the balls speed.. it wasn't).

Fofana's knock-on was an instinctive swipe with no effort made at interception and was a deliberate knock on.

I'm pretty sure they were both deliberate Knock-ons in that each player was trying to get the interception but knew it was very unlikely and so the intention was also to deliberately break up an attacking move. Both should have been penalties. Sharples' was worse, slightly, I think you are kidding yourself if you think differently, but it didn't merit a yellow if Fofana's didn't

I think the key thing is how much time do you have.

For something to be deliberate you have to think about it. Sharples knock on was from a pass 2m away. No way could have thought about it. Just instinctive to try and get the ball.

Rolland was "forced" into the previous penalty by the touch judge. was he trying to make amends?

mystiroakey wrote:he gets to ref french matches because he can speak the language. however interenational sport should only really have one language,.

Agreed .. unfortunately you lazy ******** cant be bothered to learn Irish

The reality is Rolland does French games because only a few referees speak French - until that changes they will get referees from a smaller pool of possibilities.

Height of arrogance to assume English should be spoken by all.

Would be surprised if the majority of the French players don't have reasonable English tbh. Certainly enough to understand basic calls.

"Height of arrogance to assume English should be spoken by all. "

Arrogance by whom? - English being the international language has got precious little to do with the English. That's down to the Americans (who I believe speak it to a reasonably well).

Barney McGrew did it wrote:That's down to the Americans (who I believe speak it to a reasonably well).

We all do, my friend. We all do.

Sharples wasn't a yellow card offence it was a legitimate attempt to get the ball not a slap down.

Gretgael1 wrote:What if his name was Alan Bolland

change the 'o' to an e and the 'a' to an e.

but only the TV replays show it.

In real time I would've treated it the same as Fofana, but not sin binned him.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Would be surprised if the majority of the French players don't have reasonable English tbh. Certainly enough to understand basic calls.
.

have you ever heard Serge Betsen talking in English? and trust me he's fluent compared to most of the players and even PSA who just keep in making up english words during press conferences.

to achieve some sort of even playing field, IRB should forbid refs and players to talk to each other. in order to do so, they would have to simplify rules to start with.

so... picked up from another forum.

a list of Rolland's dubious decisions (and nothing to do with him being half French).

A few decisions made by Rolland, off the top of my head:

Switching decision from Foden's mark, so that he could give a kickable penalty to France, after Ashton's very minor intervention which amounted to nothing much, after Foden's tackle by Rougerie.

Complaining to Robshaw about Ashton winding up "the opposition" - since when has this been illegal? Was it merely that he said something anti-French, therefore offending against his French parentage?

No penalty for Fofana deliberate knock on until the assistant intervened, even though Fofana had time to think about it as it was high in the air, and highly unlikely to catch it, clearly deliberate...

Yet, giving yellow card to Sharples for an instinctive intervention, resulting in a similar, though arguably less deliberate, knock-on.

Asking the assistant ref "was that offside", against an England player, clearly wanting to give an offence against them. Bad luck for Rolland that the assistant said "no."

Giving a penalty against England for pulling the scrum round, when it was their own put in, near their own line. Credible?

When England had the ball on their own line, he blew the whistle for the injury to Dowson, then promptly gave the put-in to France, from which they scored a try. Would any other ref have done this?

An overall penalty count, from memory, of 4 against France, 11 against England. Credible? On both counts?

People have said Rolland is biased against England for a long time. It has to be said, he did nothing to disprove it, and a lot to confirm it.

Surely, this man can't be allowed to referee England again. Or any international match, come to that.