Rugby World Cup 2011 - New Zealand

[dtaai-maai]

Nice to see a game of rugby, at last. Neither England, France or Wales managed to produce one.

I take it you don't have any Welsh friends, Mr P? Well, none that matter, obviously!

[pharvey]

I hope it's 5 RMB. Pete

Watching the game Pete? The ref is hitting the loose forwards - namely McCaw and Pocock, so this is going to be an interesting 2nd half. NZ look the better, but are making a fair few handling errors and missed tackles........ 40 mins left, Aus down by 8 pts - anything can happen.

Good post, pharvey, because it demonstrates how even somebody who knows the game can be blinded by hope.

Don't extract the urine DM

I was trying!! At the end of the day, the Blackness look superb. Although their defense on the odd occasion can be breached - look at Argentina.

They will now go on to absolutely tw@t the surrender monkeys........ Wales of course will see to them in the forthcoming 6 Nations.....

[dtaai-maai]

They will now go on to absolutely tw@t the surrender monkeys........ Wales of course will see to them in the forthcoming 6 Nations.....

As will we all. A cuillere de bois pour les faibles bleus.

D'accord?

[dozer]

If it's any consolation Wales, you wouldn't make it to the football World Cup final with 14 players on the pitch either.

[redzonerocker]

Nice to see a game of rugby, at last. Neither England, France or Wales managed to produce one. Ta very much to the all Blacks. Enjoyed that. Terrific try too.

Now crush Les Frogs with a cricket score!

A bit harsh on the Welsh

Second best team of the tournament by a big margin, the unluckiest too

[JimmyGreaves]

Yes it was a good game Mr Plum.

But I think that you must not have been watching much of the competition as Wales produced a great performance to beat Ireland and a few more along the way. It's not just about tries, a 6-3 win can be a great game.

[pharvey]

They will now go on to absolutely tw@t the surrender monkeys........ Wales of course will see to them in the forthcoming 6 Nations.....

As will we all. A cuillere de bois pour les faibles bleus.

D'accord?

Ah but of course....... at not a Love Spoon at that!

[pharvey]

Nice to see a game of rugby, at last. Neither England, France or Wales managed to produce one. Ta very much to the all Blacks. Enjoyed that. Terrific try too.

Now crush Les Frogs with a cricket score!

Oh dear, it appears you're also a muppet when it comes to sport Mr P....... there MUST be a few more avenues for you to try....

[pharvey]

If it's any consolation Wales, you wouldn't make it to the football World Cup final with 14 players on the pitch either.

The Wendyball World Cup....... come again?

[MrPlum]

Oh dear, it appears you're also a muppet when it comes to sport Mr P.......

A 'muppet' complements Wales on being 'superb' and sympathizes over the sending off? I'm surprised.

I was referring to the final stages. The England, France and Wales games WERE disappointing games of rugby. England showed flashes of brilliance but made too many mistakes. Wales hardly showed anything, after the sending off and couldn't get the ball between the uprights. France defended well but were poor in attack. Maybe you were watching different games.

Sorry but the NZ v Australia game today was much more entertaining.

This 'muppet' will be rooting for Wales in their next game.

[Jaime]

It takes a lot of bottle for a referee to uphold the laws of the game. Because so few have the bottle (especially in the presence of a hostile crowd, it's sad when your team is the team on the receiving end. However, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

OK - this is where I admit that I am a ref! *ducks flying bricks*

I also played the game for many years (played vets rugby last season) and think I have a reasonable grasp of the Laws and the spirit of the game.

Naturally, I own a copy of the Laws of the Game and so I don't need to trawl the internet for clarification on these matters - but it does help that some of you have pasted extracts here!

The important thing in my view with regard to BB's post quoted above is that whilst French referee Rolland acted correctly in awarding a penalty for what he considered to be a dangerous tackle, the Laws of the Game do not describe an automatic red card as the sanction for this offence. The sanction is clearly stated to be a penalty.

The justification for a red card is derived from Paddy O'Brien's 2009 directive, extracts of which were pasted in this thread by Dtaai Maai. The fact that a separate directive, issued outside the actual laws of the game, is needed points to a much bigger problem for the game of Rugby union, whose laws have failed to reflect the massive increases in the speed of the game and in the strength, power and athleticism of its participants. This is a common criticism of the sport and is a fair one.

I can tell all of you that these days, even at village club level, a commitment to physical culture is ingrained in the vast majority of players and the game is far harder and faster than I ever remember. These days, it is fair to say that even village rugby players are genuine athletes. If you have never reffed a game of rugby (and I think from memory, BB has) it is almost impossible to describe to you all how fast things happen in the contact area and how difficult it is to make an instant decision with total confidence. Believe me - it is scary!

This brings me back to the French referee Rolland and the Paddy O'Brien directive.

The important elements of the directive were pasted by Dtaai Maai and are repeated below:

1) The player is lifted and then forced or speared into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

2) The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

3) For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

Referees and citing commissioners should not make their decisions on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment as per Law 10.4 e of the circumstances of the tackle

A directive was also issued to referees before the tournament, relating to such tackles, which stated: “Foul play – high tackles, grabbing and twisting of the head and tip tackles to be emphasised, with referees to start at red and work backwards.”

I have highlighted two lines in this text. The first, in red, indicates where I think French referee Rolland got it wrong as I believe that Warburton did show regard for the player's safety - had he held onto him the momentum of both players would have probably resulted in the French player being driven into the ground - possibly suffering a very, very serious injury. He was also careful to avoid landing directly on the French player - clear as day if you watch the replay. This is the view taken almost unanimously by pundits of many different nationalities - BB is about the only strong dissenter! I accept that I am only able to come to this conclusion because I have the benefit of slow motion replay but French ref Rolland had a completely unimpeded view of the tackle from about 3 or 4 metres away.

The second bit of highlighted text (in blue) is very ambiguous (start at red and work backwards..!!!??) but it implies that there should be consideration of a hierarchy of seriousness. This is where I believe French ref Rolland failed again. Irrespective of what he thought he saw, he did not stop to consider the situation, which would have allowed him to make a more reasoned judgement. This is something that is hammered home to referees during the qualification/training process and I believe is fundamental. Instead, he - rather than Warburton - had the rush of blood to the head and was brandishing his red card even before his compatriots surrounded him, football style, demanding 'justice.'

To summarise then;

1. A red card is not prescribed in the Laws of the Game as the automatic sanction for this type of offence
2. French referee Rolland was applying the sanction as prescribed by Paddy O'Brien's directive
3. The directive remains ambiguous and contradictory
4. French referee Rolland rushed his decision

Now I am, admittedly, a Welsh rugby supporter and obviously devastated by the outcome of the game yesterday. I completely concur with Dtaai Maai's summary of the game though and Wales should still have won it. There we are - these things happen! I also believe - contrary to Mr Plum's assertion - that a Wales-NZ final would have been VERY competitive, with a NZ win by no means a sure thing. I thought the NZ-Aus game today was pretty ordinary by SH standards of recent years and couldn't see anything that really would have put fear into Wales. Must have been very frustrating for Gatland and Co to watch today.

As a ref I also empathise with the French referee Rolland because I know that he, in turn, empathises with the French players. His father is French, his wife is French, his children speak French at home.... HE IS FRENCH! When you are refereeing your own team, you always empathise with their situation. This does not mean that you openly favour one side but it does mean that you are more likely to see things one way rather than the other. It is human nature and is a feature of the amateur game but at this level...!!??. I believe that this explains the failure to stop and think and the swiftness of the red card. It is the reason why this man should never referee a game involving France ever again. Of course, none of the great and good in the rugby world would dare to suggest such things but it is what the whole rugby world is thinking after RWC 2011 was turned into a non-event by the actions of one man. I think - and hope - that this will be the most one sided final ever with the All Blacks putting the least worthy finalists ever to the sword.

To be fair to the French, they realise how preposterous their place in the final is - there were muted celebrations at the final whistle. To add insult to injury, French 7 Julien Bonnaire was awarded man of the match - he looked suitably embarrassed as his name was called out, which is not surprising as he did not have an opposing number for 63 minutes of the match.

The game of rugby union should be embarrassed by the way the show piece event of the sport has been turned into a total anticlimax.

[Jaime]

The camera never lies:

[PeteC]

Something I've never read anywhere. What's the pay range for these Rugby Union top teams? Pete

[Jaime]

In case anyone was in doubt - here is Rolland caught by the paparazzi in a private moment:

[MrPlum]

I also believe - contrary to Mr Plum's assertion - that a Wales-NZ final would have been VERY competitive

Where did you get this? I made NO such assertion and would have been very happy to watch a Wales v NZ final.

Thanks for the rest of your excellent post. I would add that, IMO, for a sending off offence, and considering the impact it can have on a game, a video review of the incident by officials should be mandatory. Bit like a third umpire in Cricket. Or tennis players who get 3 opportunities to appeal a decision.