Rugby World Cup - 2011

[gnvqsos 10]

So would you use your judgement in allowing a team to attempt a conversion, even if allowing the team to do it it may ruin the match? No of course not, you'd follow the rules.

 

The rules stated very clearly that with this type of tackle you have to judge the situation solely by the incident and you are not to judge intent. These rules are as clear as the rules that state that a team can attempt a conversion after scoring a try.

 

Have you ever ever officiated at a sporting event or been called upon to exercise judgement.If the rules are that straightforward why is the training period in most sports so protracted?Most people can learn the rules but it takes experience to apply them otherwise you might find the whistle between your lips tomorrow;a quick blowing session would be a rude wake-up call on a Sunday.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Have you ever ever officiated at a sporting event or been called upon to exercise judgement.If the rules are that straightforward why is the training period in most sports so protracted?Most people can learn the rules but it takes experience to apply them otherwise you might find the whistle between your lips tomorrow;a quick blowing session would be a rude wake-up call on a Sunday.

 

This is the point, there has been an attempt to make the rules on dangerous tackles straight forward so they can be banished from the game.

 

Fine, I can accept that if you were refereeing the match you wouldn't have sent off the player, but you have to accept that in doing so you were not following the rules laid down to you. In a game of importance in a World Cup there isn't room for the referees to decide what rules are important and what rules aren't. The referee's have to be consistent.

 

I also take your point about needing experience to referee the game, especially so at international level. So it's worth noting that the referee that made the decision was very experienced at that level, and he was also backed up by the review panel made up of other experienced officials.

[HeadingNorth 11]

I have refereed rugby union and tried to evaluate the players as well as the incident,and make a reasoned judgement.

 

Maybe you should try following the rules instead. You might make a half-decent referee one day.

[gnvqsos 10]

Maybe you should try following the rules instead. You might make a half-decent referee one day.

 

I have since retired but I would prefer to be a half-decent ref to an armchair waster who does nothing to contribute to the game;anyone can be a critic and a cynic,but the genuine enthusiast will stick their neck out.

[gnvqsos 10]

This is the point, there has been an attempt to make the rules on dangerous tackles straight forward so they can be banished from the game.

 

Fine, I can accept that if you were refereeing the match you wouldn't have sent off the player, but you have to accept that in doing so you were not following the rules laid down to you. In a game of importance in a World Cup there isn't room for the referees to decide what rules are important and what rules aren't. The referee's have to be consistent.

 

I also take your point about needing experience to referee the game, especially so at international level. So it's worth noting that the referee that made the decision was very experienced at that level, and he was also backed up by the review panel made up of other experienced officials.

 

When the French players attacked the Welsh player the law suggests they should have been penalised and carded,but I cannot recall the ref doing this,can you?

[Agent Orange 11]

Come on New Zealand. I am an All Black today!

[JFKvsNixon 11]

When the French players attacked the Welsh player the law suggests they should have been penalised and carded,but I cannot recall the ref doing this,can you?

 

Perhaps he should have, but a little bit of handbags doesn't really compare with a dangerous tackle that has caused serious spinal injuries in the past. There have been a couple of studies that do suggest that the majority of spinal injuries in Rugby occur out of the scrum.

 

The IRB have made strides to stop spinal injuries inside the scrum with the banning of non-specialised player in the front row of a contested scrum. The Welsh Rugby Union was successfully sued because one of it's referees didn't follow the rules and "used his judgement" to allow a non specialised player in the front row which led to a serious spinal injury.

 

So now the IRB are trying to make further strides against spinal injuries by dictating to their referees how to deal with dangerous tackles.

 

So lets look at the facts:

 

1 - The rules said that referee had no choice but to send the player off.

2 - There was a communication to the referees just before the tournament which reminded the referees to send of players who commit that type of dangerous tackle.

 

You still say that the player shouldn't have been sent off. The basis of you argument is that:

 

1 - You are an ex-referee and you know better.

2 - It was a World Cup semi-final, and it ruined a good match.

3 - Some of the ex-international players think that the rules should should have been ignored.

[gnvqsos 10]

Perhaps he should have, but a little bit of handbags doesn't really compare with a dangerous tackle that has caused serious spinal injuries in the past. There have been a couple of studies that do suggest that the majority of spinal injuries in Rugby occur out of the scrum.

 

The IRB have made strides to stop spinal injuries inside the scrum with the banning of non-specialised player in the front row of a contested scrum. The Welsh Rugby Union was successfully sued because one of it's referees didn't follow the rules and "used his judgement" to allow a non specialised player in the front row which led to a serious spinal injury.

 

So now the IRB are trying to make further strides against spinal injuries by dictating to their referees how to deal with dangerous tackles.

 

So lets look at the facts:

 

1 - The rules said that referee had no choice but to send the player off.

2 - There was a communication to the referees just before the tournament which reminded the referees to send of players who commit that type of dangerous tackle.

 

You still say that the player shouldn't have been sent off. The basis of you argument is that:

 

1 - You are an ex-referee and you know better.

2 - It was a World Cup semi-final, and it ruined a good match.

3 - Some of the ex-international players think that the rules should should have been ignored.

 

Thats a matter of judgement like the red card incident.I think this debate is becoming sterile so I will say goodbye and thanks.

[Agent Orange 11]

Congratulations to the All Blacks. France were very unlucky, they played very well and made NZ look pretty normal.

[gnvqsos 10]

Didn't think much to the ref in this match - thankfully his decisions (rather his lack of) didn't favour one team overall.

 

Yes a lot of high tackles went unpunished-was this the same ref who dismissed Warburton?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Yes a lot of high tackles went unpunished-was this the same ref who dismissed Warburton?

 

No the referee who dismissed Warburton was Alain Rolland, he refereed the last World Cup final.

[Alien52 10]

No the referee who dismissed Warburton was Alain Rolland, he refereed the last World Cup final.

Craig Joubert(SA) was the ref today.And I do think France were robbed.