Oh Dear What Can The Matter Be …
News0 min 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 --
so the tackle on Lambie was deemed as illegal and the referees decision to not issue a red was deemed incorrect.
You can't use incorrect decisions as a precedent.
Snags has said it all, Wales, despite being a man down still played well enough to have it in their own hands but it ultimately came down to the fact that their kicking wasn't good enough.
You can't use incorrect decisions as a precedent.
Snags has said it all, Wales, despite being a man down still played well enough to have it in their own hands but it ultimately came down to the fact that their kicking wasn't good enough.
The problem ;kayakamina' is that referees are human and have to make 'on the spot' decisions based on what they see in the space of a few milliseconds. Unfortunately we all do not 'see' the same thing , yes they can consult an assistant referee, but often they are'unsighted'. Having 'tried my hand' at refereeing (in football not rugby) it is not as easy as it appears and it is easy for the 'armchair pundits' (and studio experts) with the benefit of slow motion tv to critcise . (by the way kayakiamina, keep answering my crossword posts)
I can't make up my mind about this one. While ( compared to, for instance, the tackle on Brian O'Driscoll at last World Cup ) it would not look exceptionally dangerous, I feel that Warburton would not know when he dropped him whether he'd land on his back or his head - he was a whisker away from landing on his neck.
Why don't refs make better use of the TMO. Surely this was an instance where he should have been used.
Why don't refs make better use of the TMO. Surely this was an instance where he should have been used.
I agree entirely zinnie about the difficulty of split second decisions.
I raised the Lambie incident as that decision seemed at odds with the directive to the referees for this World Cup for disciplining lifting and dropping offences. The Lambie 'tackle' was discussed by the Ref and both linesmen (sorry assistant referees) who penalised the Fijian offender but did not dismiss him from the field.
At a later citing hearing he was found guilty and given a three match ban.
See you on crosswords no doubt!
I raised the Lambie incident as that decision seemed at odds with the directive to the referees for this World Cup for disciplining lifting and dropping offences. The Lambie 'tackle' was discussed by the Ref and both linesmen (sorry assistant referees) who penalised the Fijian offender but did not dismiss him from the field.
At a later citing hearing he was found guilty and given a three match ban.
See you on crosswords no doubt!
Consistency is key.
Players cited for tip tackles during RWC 2011:
Dominiko Waqaniburotu (Fiji) - Yellow card; subsequent 3 week ban
Sukanaialu Hufanga (Tonga) - Yellow card; 5 week ban
Fabrice Estebanez (France) - Yellow card; 3 week ban
Lekso Gugava (Georgia) - Unseen by ref Allain Rolland; 5 week ban
Sam Warburton (Wales) - Red card; 3 week ban
Players cited for tip tackles during RWC 2011:
Dominiko Waqaniburotu (Fiji) - Yellow card; subsequent 3 week ban
Sukanaialu Hufanga (Tonga) - Yellow card; 5 week ban
Fabrice Estebanez (France) - Yellow card; 3 week ban
Lekso Gugava (Georgia) - Unseen by ref Allain Rolland; 5 week ban
Sam Warburton (Wales) - Red card; 3 week ban
"working backward" means a red card is the default penalty, but if the ref then thinks there were mitigating circumstances he could reduce it to a yellow. But there were none; the tackle was pretty much word for word what the laws proscribe. The ref was close enough to see clearly what happened, and gave the correct penalty.
The tackle on Lambie, and the hearing, were a pointer to how the authorities want these tackles treated (I think there were also a couple of players who got yellow cards, and were subsequently banned - again, the implication was that the yellow cards weren't enough).
The Welsh coach is not happy (NSFW video)
The tackle on Lambie, and the hearing, were a pointer to how the authorities want these tackles treated (I think there were also a couple of players who got yellow cards, and were subsequently banned - again, the implication was that the yellow cards weren't enough).
The Welsh coach is not happy (NSFW video)
jno, although spear tackles per se weren't illegal back then, dangerous tackles were (and still are).
From http://mg.co.za/artic...b-speartackle-warning ...
> IRB head of communications Greg Thomas told Tuesday's edition of The Guardian newspaper: "The new footage shows that it was an unacceptably dangerous tackle and we are instructing referees to deal with this type of offence appropriately.
>
> "The laws do not make any mention of spear-tackling and there is a moratorium on law changes until after the 2007 World Cup but there is provision in the rules for players who commit this type of offence.
>
> "Our instruction is that it is a dangerous tackle and anyone found guilty of it should be dealt with at the higher end of the tariff -- that is to say they should be suspended for three to six months."
>
> However, Umaga and Mealamu will not face restropective punishment after South African match commissioner William Venter took no action against the pair following their citing by the Lions in the immediate aftermath of the incident.
From http://mg.co.za/artic...b-speartackle-warning ...
> IRB head of communications Greg Thomas told Tuesday's edition of The Guardian newspaper: "The new footage shows that it was an unacceptably dangerous tackle and we are instructing referees to deal with this type of offence appropriately.
>
> "The laws do not make any mention of spear-tackling and there is a moratorium on law changes until after the 2007 World Cup but there is provision in the rules for players who commit this type of offence.
>
> "Our instruction is that it is a dangerous tackle and anyone found guilty of it should be dealt with at the higher end of the tariff -- that is to say they should be suspended for three to six months."
>
> However, Umaga and Mealamu will not face restropective punishment after South African match commissioner William Venter took no action against the pair following their citing by the Lions in the immediate aftermath of the incident.
ultimately the Welsh kicking was shyte.....shame the try wasnt five yards closer to the posts.
but then we (the rest of the UK) dont have to put up with the sanctamonious twaddle if they had won.
I just hope the All Blacks seriously roll over Les Escargots now - what are the odds on a 50 point spread?
but then we (the rest of the UK) dont have to put up with the sanctamonious twaddle if they had won.
I just hope the All Blacks seriously roll over Les Escargots now - what are the odds on a 50 point spread?
No one denies that the referee was technically within his rights. However, it will always come down to a judgment as to how dangerous the play is. Sendings off should, imho, be for malicious wounding only.
Rugby has the excellent sinbin system, which could have been used to proper effect here.
Spirit of the law, I think, rather than letter of.
Rugby has the excellent sinbin system, which could have been used to proper effect here.
Spirit of the law, I think, rather than letter of.
it was pretty dangerous. Clerc landed on his neck. I was backing Wales so I was disappointed, but I can't argue with the red card. Warburton needs to work on his tackling technique. I remember Gavin Henson a few years ago picking up an Englishman and walking off with him under his arm - that's the way to do it.
It was dangerous, but not mailcious, More to do with the momentum of the tackle.
Not comparable to taking someone out deliberately in midair.
A yellow card would have been appropriate at best.
However, the referee having made that decision, it is understandable and right that the ban should follow. Rugby has a tradition of respecting its referees.
Not comparable to taking someone out deliberately in midair.
A yellow card would have been appropriate at best.
However, the referee having made that decision, it is understandable and right that the ban should follow. Rugby has a tradition of respecting its referees.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Body & Soul5 mins ago
Elderly Break Magna Carta Glass
News8 mins ago
