Alain 'Colm Pierre' Rolland - Was he neutral?

First topic message reminder :

Was it right that a half Irish half Frenchman was put in charge of a RWC semi final between Wales and France seeing as Wales dumped Ireland out of the RWC?

Was he neutral? or was there some jiggery pokery going on.

Yes he did Mickado...clearly he was trying to show how unbiased he was as a dastardly plot so that come the world cup he would get France and win a game for them for Papa....

Mickado wrote:Didn’t he send off Florian Fritz for a similar tackle in a HC game between Toulouse and Wasps?

Yes, but he was quite emotional about it

Actually there were a number of threads before the game discussing whether he should have been awarded the match. I started one so I know. As soon as I saw his name I had a bad feeling. I don't often agree with HERSH but on this occasion I definitely think the IRB made a mistake (or was it that POB saw Wales as NZ biggest chance of losing?) in appointing AR. Still it's been done, can't change it and it will always be one of those things.

Also for those people who think it is just cut and dried red card and it's obvious, if it was these discussions wouldn't still be happening and for the most part it's actually not Welsh people perpetuating them.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Red Stag
Has the IRB ever been sued for contributing to the personal injury of any player? Its only a question.

I don't know about the IRB. But remember in Australia Jarrod McCracken (ex-NZ RL player) successfully sued the Melbourne Storm, Stephen Kearney and Marcus Bai for loss of earnings after a spear tackle ended his career in the NRL.

Rougerie sued Greening many years ago. One thing that didn't make the news in the UK was after an Amlin match involving Wasps in France the French authorities withheld Wasps' take because the Greening still owed the money awarded to Rougerie in damages.

Slightly off topic, but interesting all the same.

mckay1402 wrote:Also for those people who think it is just cut and dried red card and it's obvious, if it was these discussions wouldn't still be happening and for the most part it's actually not Welsh people perpetuating them.

Even with the most blatant red card in the world you will still have people complaining it was the wrong decision. But you're right, it's not the Welsh.

It's people with no understanding of the laws.

Not necessarily. I think that specific law is open to discussion because of the nature of it. the 'from a height' aspect is what gets me. It's too unspecific. What is from a height? How high is too high? For me it needs cleaning up.

Most neutrals that I have spoken to do not think he should not have been sent-off. Fine Roland followed the letter of the law but that just highlights that the law is wrong. Reffing a rugby game has always been and will always be about interpretation of the laws. Roland made his decision and destroyed a game and a nations dreams where as he should have just sent him to the bin for 10 as that punishment fitted the crime. Whether Roland was effected by his roots who knows but given it's just about the harshest red card seen in a major WC game that question is bound to be raised.

Mckay its like in Father ted when they are sitting in the plane and Dougal looks out the window and says "those people look just like ants"....to which Father Ted replies "they are ants Dougal we havent taken off yet"...

simples.

This thread just goes round and round in circles. I agree that the wording on the law is ambiguous and, as a piece of English, is poorly written. Any law should not be open to interpretation and, to be fair, this one is. However, the fact that the IRB had several directives on this and publically, through their previous citations, stated that the law was being wrongly implemented suggests to me that they made it clear what interpretation they wanted. I'm not Warren Gatland or any other international coach so I don't know how clearly the IRB and Paddy O'Brien made their position, but if I was and I looked at those citations and punishments, I'd certainly tell my players not to engage in these tackles.

As several posters mentioned previously, Warburton was lucky to get away with one of those tackles against Ireland. He, or one of the Welsh coaches, should really have made a clear point about that tackle after that match. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but it's clear he didn't learn a lesson after it anyway.

Rolland as refereed France and French teams dozens of times before and there has been no mention of bias as far as I'm aware. So why should the IRB, after years of seeing Rolland as an elite referee, have suddenly expected him to favour France (something he didn't do anyway)? I think it's a rather ridiculous suggestion that the IRB should have appointed someone else to be honest. He's shown he does not favour France throughout the years and he showed it again last Saturday in my view.

As I said, the law is open to many interpretations, so it probably does need to be re-written. However, despite this fact, I feel the IRB made what interpretation they wanted very clear.

mckay1402 wrote:I definitely think the IRB made a mistake (or was it that POB saw Wales as NZ biggest chance of losing?) in appointing AR.

Do you have any other totally groundless conspiracy theories you'd like to share, or are you going to stop at two?

deadfred wrote:Most neutrals that I have spoken to do not think he should not have been sent-off.

That is because most neutrals do not know the laws.

Rolland certainly didn't ruin a nations dreams. That is a cowardly answer. Wales should have won that game. They missed kicks, they had plenty of chances. They should have still won it regardless.

Also what do people mean by the spirit of the law? To me this is a zero tolerance law aimed at player safety. Whenever a yellow has been given for these type of tackles - the player has been banned for several weeks indicating a red card was needed.

deadfred wrote:Fine Roland followed the letter of the law but that just highlights that the law is wrong.

Which, if true, isn't Rollands fault or problem. Bad ref, following the laws! Bad ref!

Roland made his decision and destroyed a game

Sam Warburton made an illegal tackle that destroyed the game.

and a nations dreams

Not only irrelevant, but if he left Warburton on he might have destroyed Frances dreams. And they would have had a more valid complaint because he would have been guilty of ignoring the laws, not following them in the case of the current stream of complaints against him.

where as he should have just sent him to the bin for 10 as that punishment fitted the crime.

A yellow would have resulted in a citing and a ban because it should have been a red. Just as the two yellows in the France v Tonga game and Guga's yellow for Georgia resulted in bans because they should have been reds

deadfred wrote:and destroyed a game and a nations dreams

I have picked you up dangerously off your feet;
Fall softly (on your upper body/neck/head) because you land on my dreams

(apologies to Yeats)

red_stag wrote:Rolland certainly didn't ruin a nations dreams. That is a cowardly answer. Wales should have won that game. They missed kicks, they had plenty of chances. They should have still won it regardless.

Also what do people mean by the spirit of the law? To me this is a zero tolerance law aimed at player safety. Whenever a yellow has been given for these type of tackles - the player has been banned for several weeks indicating a red card was needed.

Stag... You are enforcing most people's view that it should have been a yellow during this tournament because it is how all these "elite refs" have been deciding how to interpret the law for weeks. Let the citing comissioner deal with it post match, and after the tournament change the rules

Oh this is getting pointless.

Its been pointless since about 1pm last Saturday....

But the lack of cognitive ability has been quite staggering and highly amusing.

Huwball wrote:

red_stag wrote:Rolland certainly didn't ruin a nations dreams. That is a cowardly answer. Wales should have won that game. They missed kicks, they had plenty of chances. They should have still won it regardless.

Also what do people mean by the spirit of the law? To me this is a zero tolerance law aimed at player safety. Whenever a yellow has been given for these type of tackles - the player has been banned for several weeks indicating a red card was needed.

Stag... You are enforcing most people's view that it should have been a yellow during this tournament because it is how all these "elite refs" have been deciding how to interpret the law for weeks. Let the citing comissioner deal with it post match, and after the tournament change the rules

Consistency in refereeing doesn't mean consistently poor.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:I definitely think the IRB made a mistake (or was it that POB saw Wales as NZ biggest chance of losing?) in appointing AR.

Do you have any other totally groundless conspiracy theories you'd like to share, or are you going to stop at two?

there was only one in there.

I've purposely stayed out of this argument, as I've been involved with it on the Ospreys website. Let me start by saying I'm Welsh and proud of it.
Sam Warburton lifted Vincent Clerc and IMO dropped him unintentionally, was it a Red Card offence, YES as far as the IRB Directive is concerned, as other posters have said in other instances in this Competition where Referees have issued Yellow Cards when going before Disciplinary Panels, they have been reprimanded and sentences increased.

The reason Wales lost this game was because of the inept kicking performances of Hook and Jones, and Rolland in the Halfpenny kick gave Wales a penalty when it should have been given to France for Charteris's persistent handling of the ball.

I believe he was inept in a few of his decisions, but on the crucial Red Card he was entirely CORRECT.

wayne wrote:I've purposely stayed out of this argument, as I've been involved with it on the Ospreys website. Let me start by saying I'm Welsh and proud of it.
Sam Warburton lifted Vincent Clerc and IMO dropped him unintentionally, was it a Red Card offence, YES as far as the IRB Directive is concerned, as other posters have said in other instances in this Competition where Referees have issued Yellow Cards when going before Disciplinary Panels, they have been reprimanded and sentences increased.

The reason Wales lost this game was because of the inept kicking performances of Hook and Jones, and Rolland in the Halfpenny kick gave Wales a penalty when it should have been given to France for Charteris's persistent handling of the ball.

I believe he was inept in a few of his decisions, but on the crucial Red Card he was entirely CORRECT.

!

Nope.He was promoting himself.He grabbed the headlines and then favoured Wales coz he knew that he had been a bit of an idiot .Not what you want from a ref to be honest!

greybeard wrote:

Huwball wrote:

red_stag wrote:Rolland certainly didn't ruin a nations dreams. That is a cowardly answer. Wales should have won that game. They missed kicks, they had plenty of chances. They should have still won it regardless.

Also what do people mean by the spirit of the law? To me this is a zero tolerance law aimed at player safety. Whenever a yellow has been given for these type of tackles - the player has been banned for several weeks indicating a red card was needed.

Stag... You are enforcing most people's view that it should have been a yellow during this tournament because it is how all these "elite refs" have been deciding how to interpret the law for weeks. Let the citing comissioner deal with it post match, and after the tournament change the rules

Consistency in refereeing doesn't mean consistently poor.

Of course it MUST be for the sake of fair play.The bar is set and for better or for worse that is where you are.You cannot change it midstream.

Riskysports wrote:

deadfred wrote:Most neutrals that I have spoken to do not think he should not have been sent-off.

That is because most neutrals do not know the laws.

Zinzan Brooke - who knows a thing or two about rugby and tackles believes the red card was wrong and ruined the game. As did Pienar and and a whole load of other pundits and top ex-players - but I guess as they are neutrals they also do not know the rules of the game.

It's simple really - it was an outrageously hard decision, even if allowed in the laws, and goes down as the worst call in the history of big WC games - yes even beating Mr Barnes missing a forward pass. Let's just hope that Wayne has not heard the Sam our Captain song as if he has Wales may be in for some more dodgy justice on Friday.

Also, given the harshness of the card and the fact that Roland is half french he just should not have been in charge of that game. The problem is that when something like this happens you can't help, even if unfair, to wonder wether he is biased, cheating, scumbag of a ref

The only thing that has changed mid-stream is people's education re. a 2009 directive. The citings are proof that they were all red cards, that is consistency, albeit retrospectively.

It is ridiculous to suggest just because there have been poor decisions in other matches Rolland should have purposely been poor.

Brooke and Pienaar played in an era when those tackles were not illegal. The game has changed and they haven't kept up.

Plus Rolland has red carded a player (French no less) for a similar tackle this year.

The lack of cognitive ability to grasp certain facts is quite staggering .

Well doctor whats your diagnosis .

Its the worst case of blameeverybodyelseitis i have ever seen.

greybeard wrote:Brooke and Pienaar played in an era when those tackles were not illegal. The game has changed and they haven't kept up.

That must be it then. They don't watch or pay attention to Rugby like you do Mr Grey.

Well Deadfred you along with some are certainly not paying attention

Kiwireddevil
No, Jarrod McCracken did not successfully sue Stephen Kearney/Melbourne Storm for the spear tackle that ended his playing career,and subsequent loss of earnings.

Jarrod's case failed,not because it wasn't a spear tackle,but because when he stopped playing he had more time to devote to his property development business,by the time the case got to court Crackers was estimated to be worth over $20 million.

The judge was not convinced that he had suffered loss of earnings..

deadfred wrote:

greybeard wrote:Brooke and Pienaar played in an era when those tackles were not illegal. The game has changed and they haven't kept up.

That must be it then. They don't watch or pay attention to Rugby like you do Mr Grey.

Evidently not.

greybeard wrote:Brooke and Pienaar played in an era when those tackles were not illegal. The game has changed and they haven't kept up.

Who are Brooke and Pienaar anyway?

greybeard wrote:

deadfred wrote:

greybeard wrote:Brooke and Pienaar played in an era when those tackles were not illegal. The game has changed and they haven't kept up.

That must be it then. They don't watch or pay attention to Rugby like you do Mr Grey.

Evidently not.

Here is what Mr Guscot thinks - somebody else who obviously does not pay attention

After watching Wales pretty much outplay the French on Saturday, I can't help thinking Sam Warburton's dismissal was a huge boost for the French. Do you think it was a red card?
Ian, England

The difference between Wales winning and losing was referee Alain Rolland's decision to send off Warburton for the tip tackle on Vincent Clerc. I said it was the wrong decision at the time and I still stand by that view. I understand that the IRB, the game's governing body, had circulated a memo to referees about the laws, asking them that, in the event of a tip tackle, to start at red and work backwards. In my opinion, Rolland could have worked back to a yellow for Warburton.

Guscot? Now you are just grasping at straws.

Is this nonsense really still going? I thought this thread would have died a death by now.

Ah, people are still reading the bible, that's two thousands years old. There is still plenty of life in this

Apparently the amount of ex players agree with your point of view bears some significance to the laws

Does the fact that he was given a ban not confirm it was a red card?

The fact he admitted he was guilty has apparently gone by the wayside too though Thomond.

I think that proves the conspiracy runs deep

The IRB in the meeting with Sam, which lasted three hours??!! got their lawyers to make him agree to state that he showed 'Remorse' for what he had done. Warburtons comments after the game show that he actually felt it is was not a red card offence - how can you have remorse for something that you feel was wrongly punished. The IRB got him to do this by agreeing the length of the ban so that he could start the Blues Heniekan Cup campaign. They had him over a barrel after well and truly stuffing his team by appointing an awful and potentially corrupt ref to oversee the game. The result of which has also led to the IRB making a stack more cash by having a massive TV show in France - funny that.

Now the IRB want to have a go at Gatland for implying that people bend the rules and cheat in rugby.

I really wish we still had the facepalm smiley!!!

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/worldcup/highlights.html?3084675,3084675,flash,257

Interesting
Clive Norling take a bow

If that was a French back rower tackling Shane Williams like that no one including Rolland would have battered an eye lid,
because Shane is fair game for hard tackles,high tackles and taking out in the air,
the refs have a preconceived idea that Shane is small so that will only happen naturally.

As for Clerc's rolling around football style over reaction disgraceful and the French players over reacting wading in with punches have not even been called into the light,
just sums it up really.

viewtothegym wrote:If that was a French back rower tackling Shane Williams like that no one including Rolland would have battered an eye lid,
because Shane is fair game for hard tackles,high tackles and taking out in the air,
the refs have a preconceived idea that Shane is small so that will only happen naturally.

As for Clerc's rolling around football style over reaction disgraceful and the French players over reacting wading in with punches have not even been called into the light,
just sums it up really.

Not sure there were any punches and as i said before you Dusatoir in 2nd or 3rd getting his men away. Fantastic captaincy from him imo. Whilst i agree with you regarding Clerc, he was just dumped on his neck and you are asking people to judge the physical pain of someone else. I think you raise a good point View but i certainly dont know how the IRB can make that call

aucklandlaurie wrote: Kiwireddevil
No, Jarrod McCracken did not successfully sue Stephen Kearney/Melbourne Storm for the spear tackle that ended his playing career,and subsequent loss of earnings.

Jarrod's case failed,not because it wasn't a spear tackle,but because when he stopped playing he had more time to devote to his property development business,by the time the case got to court Crackers was estimated to be worth over $20 million.

The judge was not convinced that he had suffered loss of earnings..

Fair enough, and that's why Wikipedia should never be entirely trusted as a reference. He did (see here) get awarded $Au90k plus interest in damages.

viewtothegym wrote:If that was a French back rower tackling Shane Williams like that no one including Rolland would have battered an eye lid,
because Shane is fair game for hard tackles,high tackles and taking out in the air,
the refs have a preconceived idea that Shane is small so that will only happen naturally.

As for Clerc's rolling around football style over reaction disgraceful and the French players over reacting wading in with punches have not even been called into the light,
just sums it up really.

Pretty much wrong on all points

viewtothegym wrote:If that was a French back rower tackling Shane Williams like that no one including Rolland would have battered an eye lid,
because Shane is fair game for hard tackles,high tackles and taking out in the air,
the refs have a preconceived idea that Shane is small so that will only happen naturally.

As for Clerc's rolling around football style over reaction disgraceful and the French players over reacting wading in with punches have not even been called into the light,
just sums it up really.

I had a battered eyelid once, from a fish & chip shop in Glasgow.

I wonder will someone be able to come up with another angle on this. The hobbit has been brought into a whatif situation as well as the Ospreys against Munster ffs.
There are more conspiracy theories than you could shake a stick at...its brilliant

KIWI
Thanks for that link, I was going off memory (which in itself is dodgy) I think i got most of it right, But I just couldnt recall the $90k bit.