Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
"THAT" Sending Off - The Answer?
38 Answers
Well, it seems the referee was correct.
Sometimes, in sport, there are grey areas that are hard to referee. Apologies for using the example of Lacrosse again, but it has good examples of "grey areas" for the referee (or "umpire" in LaX).
eg. It is dangerous play to fire a ball intentionally at an opponent (a LaX ball is very hard, and moves VERY fast!). But, if the opponent is between you and the goal, that is your obvious line of fire. It is up to the defender to make a check, or to move. If the defender fails to move (foul) and you play the shot (dangerous) ... who is penalised? Grey area for the umpire.
It is also dangerous to swing your stick aggressively at an opponent's head. But what if your opponent lifts the ball up to her face? She is committing a foul. You cannot check her without challenging the ball in front of her face. Who is penalised? Grey area.
BUT !! ... it said in my paper ...
Law 10.4(j) (rugby now). "Lifting a player from the ground and dropping ... that player ... whilst the player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head or upper body(!) come into contact with the ground is dangerous play."
Until December 2010, the referee had discretion to give a yellow or a red card, depending if he thought the "dangerous play" had been deliberate.
In December 2010, that discretion was removed altogether. As of December 2010, the referee MUST give a red card. No discretion.
So, contrary to what all the commentators said after the match, the referee got it right. He knew the law, and he was not afraid to make the correct decision on a big occasion. And that is why he is described as one of the best referees in the world.
Do the rugby crowd on here agree?
Sometimes, in sport, there are grey areas that are hard to referee. Apologies for using the example of Lacrosse again, but it has good examples of "grey areas" for the referee (or "umpire" in LaX).
eg. It is dangerous play to fire a ball intentionally at an opponent (a LaX ball is very hard, and moves VERY fast!). But, if the opponent is between you and the goal, that is your obvious line of fire. It is up to the defender to make a check, or to move. If the defender fails to move (foul) and you play the shot (dangerous) ... who is penalised? Grey area for the umpire.
It is also dangerous to swing your stick aggressively at an opponent's head. But what if your opponent lifts the ball up to her face? She is committing a foul. You cannot check her without challenging the ball in front of her face. Who is penalised? Grey area.
BUT !! ... it said in my paper ...
Law 10.4(j) (rugby now). "Lifting a player from the ground and dropping ... that player ... whilst the player's feet are still off the ground such that the player's head or upper body(!) come into contact with the ground is dangerous play."
Until December 2010, the referee had discretion to give a yellow or a red card, depending if he thought the "dangerous play" had been deliberate.
In December 2010, that discretion was removed altogether. As of December 2010, the referee MUST give a red card. No discretion.
So, contrary to what all the commentators said after the match, the referee got it right. He knew the law, and he was not afraid to make the correct decision on a big occasion. And that is why he is described as one of the best referees in the world.
Do the rugby crowd on here agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joggerjayne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Well, I have to confess that I wasn't actually watching the game when it happened, so I didn't see it.
But it's been so much talked about since. Daddy was quite incensed about the idiot referee spoiling the game, and the general consensus seems to be that "it was a yellow card at the most". I think I might have said myself that the ref should've just had a quiet word about calming down a bit.
But, we were all wrong. It was a red card offence.
But it's been so much talked about since. Daddy was quite incensed about the idiot referee spoiling the game, and the general consensus seems to be that "it was a yellow card at the most". I think I might have said myself that the ref should've just had a quiet word about calming down a bit.
But, we were all wrong. It was a red card offence.
as someone who plays, I would hate to be, or see a team mate, on the end of a tackle like that. It was dangerous. Whatever the intent he could have broken Clerc's (it was him wasn't it!?) neck.
As everyone has had a chance to review it in slow mo, they've deduced that Warburton 'realised what he was doing and let go' as if to absolve him of any wrong doing. I don't think it does.
I feel sorry for Warburton, I don't think it was malicious, but it was very, very dangerous.
It is a shame because Wales deserved a place in the final.
As everyone has had a chance to review it in slow mo, they've deduced that Warburton 'realised what he was doing and let go' as if to absolve him of any wrong doing. I don't think it does.
I feel sorry for Warburton, I don't think it was malicious, but it was very, very dangerous.
It is a shame because Wales deserved a place in the final.
It's not quite as you suggested JJ.
The referees' directive for this World Cup said -
'Foul play- high tackles, grabbing & twisting of the head and tip spearing tackles to be emphasies, with referees to start at red and work backwards'
Now what 'working backwards' means I don't know.
My immediate reaction when watching the game was that Warburton was in trouble and probably would receive a yellow card.
The reviewing board could have cited his offence AFTER the game and decided if it was too lenient.
The referees' directive for this World Cup said -
'Foul play- high tackles, grabbing & twisting of the head and tip spearing tackles to be emphasies, with referees to start at red and work backwards'
Now what 'working backwards' means I don't know.
My immediate reaction when watching the game was that Warburton was in trouble and probably would receive a yellow card.
The reviewing board could have cited his offence AFTER the game and decided if it was too lenient.
Sadly, pa_ul ... that's right, isn't it.
I did subscribe to the school of thought which said that the Welsh guy let go of the French guy when he realised he was going to land awkwardly, and so he shouldn't be sent off.
But the rule is that it's a red card, not just for smacking the player into the ground, but also for "dropping" the player. Which is what happened.
But it would have been great to see Wales in the final.
I did subscribe to the school of thought which said that the Welsh guy let go of the French guy when he realised he was going to land awkwardly, and so he shouldn't be sent off.
But the rule is that it's a red card, not just for smacking the player into the ground, but also for "dropping" the player. Which is what happened.
But it would have been great to see Wales in the final.
My point JJ is that there is no doubt it was a dangerous tackle and needed to be penalised.
If the Ref had shown the yellow card I think Warburton would have been cited after the game and punished for 3 - 6 matches.
He would have not been eligible for the final but Wales would have been in it and not playing for 3rd place.
If the Ref had shown the yellow card I think Warburton would have been cited after the game and punished for 3 - 6 matches.
He would have not been eligible for the final but Wales would have been in it and not playing for 3rd place.
This is what the IRB said yesterday,
"AUCKLAND, 16 Oct. - The International Rugby Board has issued a statement of clarification regarding the Tip or Spear tackle.
Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient
Regular directives to Unions, Match Officials and Judicial Officers have been issued to reinforce the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance regarding dangerous tackles and the promotion of player welfare.
The policy was again reiterated to team officials at a Team Managers seminar in Auckland two weeks before the start of Rugby World Cup and during the Tournament and there have been a number of other Tip Tackle cases at Rugby World Cup 2011. "
"AUCKLAND, 16 Oct. - The International Rugby Board has issued a statement of clarification regarding the Tip or Spear tackle.
Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.
A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:
- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)
- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)
- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient
Regular directives to Unions, Match Officials and Judicial Officers have been issued to reinforce the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance regarding dangerous tackles and the promotion of player welfare.
The policy was again reiterated to team officials at a Team Managers seminar in Auckland two weeks before the start of Rugby World Cup and during the Tournament and there have been a number of other Tip Tackle cases at Rugby World Cup 2011. "
I was taught that it was the tackling players responsibility to ensure the tackled player returns to the ground safely.
kayakamina - I think that, in hindsight, would have been the best and most reasonable outcome. I don't think, though, that you can blame the referee for making the decision then and there to send him off. They're there to make decisions, if they shirk the big ones then they shouldn't be refereeing at that level.
kayakamina - I think that, in hindsight, would have been the best and most reasonable outcome. I don't think, though, that you can blame the referee for making the decision then and there to send him off. They're there to make decisions, if they shirk the big ones then they shouldn't be refereeing at that level.
The AR was totally in the right in this occasion (as per the rules). What SW did was at best dangerous and at worst could have been life threatening.
Just because it was a pivotal match and had Wales gone on to win, would have meant a place in the final, does not mean that the rules should be flouted and or ignored.
Methinks it would have been a very different story had it been rising star SW who was dropped on his head. In saying that Wales did amazingly well to keep France to such a tight game and a win of only 1 point considering most of the match was played with 14 men.
Just because it was a pivotal match and had Wales gone on to win, would have meant a place in the final, does not mean that the rules should be flouted and or ignored.
Methinks it would have been a very different story had it been rising star SW who was dropped on his head. In saying that Wales did amazingly well to keep France to such a tight game and a win of only 1 point considering most of the match was played with 14 men.
I am not a rugby fan, and did not see the incident, but after reading a variety of reports, I think the referee has acted correctly within the rules of the game.
The fact of how important a match this was, and now Wales may have won with a full team is utterly irrelavent. the ref's job is to apply the rules of the game with impartiality, and it would appear that this is what he has done.
There is no room for sentiment in the application of rules applied for the safety of all the players, not just the romantic hopeful's players.
The fact of how important a match this was, and now Wales may have won with a full team is utterly irrelavent. the ref's job is to apply the rules of the game with impartiality, and it would appear that this is what he has done.
There is no room for sentiment in the application of rules applied for the safety of all the players, not just the romantic hopeful's players.
SeaJayPea - if people want to find an excuse for their team losing, they will - this is simply another example of that.
The authorities decided on the referee based on his experience, competence and professionalism, and correctly decided that his lineage is not an issue, and anyone who wishes to make it an issue is simply biased.
Had it not been the lineage of the referee, those people who lack in sufficient objectivity and who allow emotion to overcome the appliance of rules, would have found some other reason for the deicison - the referee parts his hair on the right, he is left-handed, the sun was / wasn't in hie eyes ... the list goes on.
The decision was correctly applied, the game is over. That's it.
The authorities decided on the referee based on his experience, competence and professionalism, and correctly decided that his lineage is not an issue, and anyone who wishes to make it an issue is simply biased.
Had it not been the lineage of the referee, those people who lack in sufficient objectivity and who allow emotion to overcome the appliance of rules, would have found some other reason for the deicison - the referee parts his hair on the right, he is left-handed, the sun was / wasn't in hie eyes ... the list goes on.
The decision was correctly applied, the game is over. That's it.
