Rugby World Cup

[HST Power]

Wales, so unlucky! I was hoping they'd pull it out of the bag but it was not to be. Still, they gave it a good shot. (Pity they couldn't get a drop goal actually!)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would note three points from this semi-final:-

1)...France scored 3 from 3 penalty kicks at goal for a total of 9 points

2)...Wales scored 1 from 4 penalty kicks at goal for a total of 3 points

3)...Ed Morrison, head of elite referee development at the Rugby Football Union, confirmed that the match referee Alain Rolland was totally correct to send off the Welsh captain, Sam Warburton, as he stated that the rules of the game clearly state that dropping a player from shoulder level warrents an automatic red card.

 

[HST Power]

I agree, it was almost certainly a red card. That was a nasty tackle.

 

[JoeGJ1984]

IMO a red card was harsh - I'd have said a yellow card was better. ITV showed other similar tackles, one looking worse, but with no red card. Had Warburton dumped the other guy head first or, worse still, driven his head into the ground, then I would have said a red card was justified, but as it is, I would say it warranted a yellow card.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

IMO a red card was harsh - I'd have said a yellow card was better. ITV showed other similar tackles, one looking worse, but with no red card. Had Warburton dumped the other guy head first or, worse still, driven his head into the ground, then I would have said a red card was justified, but as it is, I would say it warranted a yellow card.

But there again, are you a qualified rugby referee, who has to apply the rules of the game as they are written. We can all have our views on the matter and I agree that it was not a "spear" tackle, but the rules that apply to dropping a player from shoulder level were made to protect players from neck injuries that could result in catastrophic consequences. The previous posting above that I made gives the rules clarification on this type of offence.

 

[Oswyntail]

IMO a red card was harsh - I'd have said a yellow card was better. ITV showed other similar tackles, one looking worse, but with no red card. Had Warburton dumped the other guy head first or, worse still, driven his head into the ground, then I would have said a red card was justified, but as it is, I would say it warranted a yellow card.

ITV showed other tackles, and the comment was made that one looked worse - but it wasn't, as it was not from the same height or at the same angle. They also introduced extraneous guff about Warburton being a "clean" player, so didn't "deserve" a red, or that he pulled away at the last moment, so there was no "intent". Intent and previous record are not mentioned in the laws, quite rightly. Warburton did dump the player neck first, and the potential for damage is actually greater (the neck is designed to cushion strikes to the head direct, but the French chap was landing on his neck that was already bent, so was taut and lacking the flexibility to act as a cushion).
IMHO, it is also incorrect to state that the sending off "ruined" the match. It is quite possible that, left to themselves, the Welsh team would have followed their frequent pattern of a 20 minute blitz, 50 minutes getting carried away with themselves, and 10 minutes of do-or-die, chasing the result. As it was, the do-or-die lasted for most of the match.

 

[passmore]

But there again, are you a qualified rugby referee, who has to apply the rules of the game as they are written. We can all have our views on the matter and I agree that it was not a "spear" tackle, but the rules that apply to dropping a player from shoulder level were made to protect players from neck injuries that could result in catastrophic consequences. The previous posting above that I made gives the rules clarification on this type of offence.

A point of view about what will inevitably become a contentious point hardly needs to be qualified, does it?
My opinion was that it was a nasty tackle and that the referee made the right decision in terms of fair application of the rules. Am I, therefore, not allowed not to have such an opinion because I'm not and never have been, a qualified rugby referee?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A point of view about what will inevitably become a contentious point hardly needs to be qualified, does it?
My opinion was that it was a nasty tackle and that the referee made the right decision in terms of fair application of the rules. Am I, therefore, not allowed not to have such an opinion because I'm not and never have been, a qualified rugby referee?

I have a great deal of respect for your opinions expressed in postings, as you are a forum member who makes considered judgement postings, but my response to you would be to say that having an opinion is one thing, but the correct application of the rules by a person conversant with them is a totally different matter, as the decision made by the match referee actually affects what happens on the field of play, but opinions either from the spectators in the stadium or those at home watching or listening to the match, whilst admirable in their own right, do not affect the result of a game.

My point is that a qualified Rugby referee, especially at the elite pool level, will have more understanding of the totality of the rule book better than would a spectator or an onlooker not trained to that very high level, unless this person was qualified to the same level.

However, every forum member is entitled to hold an opinion on any matter and I would totally defend the right of any forum member to hold to any point of view.

 

[Madge Wildfire]

I have a great deal of respect for your opinions expressed in postings, as you are a forum member who makes considered judgement postings, but my response to you would be to say that having an opinion is one thing, but the correct application of the rules by a person conversant with them is a totally different matter, as the decision made by the match referee actually affects what happens on the field of play, but opinions either from the spectators in the stadium or those at home watching or listening to the match, whilst admirable in their own right, do not affect the result of a game.

My point is that a qualified Rugby referee, especially at the elite pool level, will have more understanding of the totality of the rule book better than would a spectator or an onlooker not trained to that very high level, unless this person was qualified to the same level.

However, every forum member is entitled to hold an opinion on any matter and I would totally defend the right of any forum member to hold to any point of view.

Good, because IMO that kind of tackle needs to be removed from rugby altogether, and the more red cards that are awarded the quicker the players will get the message.

Tackles like that may delight biased crowds and tv commentators, but had the French players' neck snapped he would have probably been facing the rest of his life in a wheelchair (if he was lucky).

 

[HST Power]

A fully deserved win for New Zealand this morning.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The match was worthy of the final itself. At least Australia came out for the second half with a determination to really test New Zealand, but the Kiwis' defence was solid when it was most called upon to be so.

It was noticeable to see how many missed place kicks faded past the right-hand upright.

 

[Greenback]

It was missed kicks that were ultimately the downfall for Wales. Although losing the open side flanker, arguably the most important poisiton in the modern game, didn't help, they still gave the French a terrific game, and if the kicks had gone over would have won 16-9.

However, sport, particularly at this elvel, is all about 'what if's'. If Warburton hadn;t been sent off, the French may have played a diferent type of game. We will never know. What I do know, is that in any sport, viewers and spectators prefer to see a contest that isn't decided by the sending off of one of the partciipants. We can argue about whether the decision was correct, but the referee's decision is final.

 

[anthony263]

It was missed kicks that were ultimately the downfall for Wales. Although losing the open side flanker, arguably the most important poisiton in the modern game, didn't help, they still gave the French a terrific game, and if the kicks had gone over would have won 16-9.

However, sport, particularly at this elvel, is all about 'what if's'. If Warburton hadn;t been sent off, the French may have played a diferent type of game. We will never know. What I do know, is that in any sport, viewers and spectators prefer to see a contest that isn't decided by the sending off of one of the partciipants. We can argue about whether the decision was correct, but the referee's decision is final.

Well at least we did better than England etc

 

[HST Power]

It was noticeable to see how many missed place kicks faded past the right-hand upright.

Yes, the guy doing the conversions for New Zealand seemed to be quite nervous. But he got the most important one when he came back on as a blood substitution. There were quite a few scrapes in the game, and quite a lot of 'ketchup', as the ITV commentator put it!!!!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sam Warbuton, the captain of Wales, has been given a three-match ban that will keep him out of the 3rd and 4th place play off against Australia. He has been given 48 hours in which to submit an appeal.

 

[HST Power]

Bring on the final! Naturally, my money is on the All Blacks.

 

[Oswyntail]

A good game, based on forward domination, backed up with crushing defence, very entertaining. In fact, a typical England game of the type that has been sneered at enthusiastically by the SH teams throughout the competition. I can see France beating NZ.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why did Warren Gatland find it necessary to make the press statement that he did today? It reflects badly upon the team and they still have to play Australia in the 3rd place play-off match.

 

[Greenback]

Why did Warren Gatland find it necessary to make the press statement that he did today? It reflects badly upon the team and they still have to play Australia in the 3rd place play-off match.

Gatland is an honest man who is still upset with the circumstances of the match. He was trying to make a point about judgment, and the lack of it from Alain Rolland (in Gatland's opinion). I think Rolland made a decision that was in keeping with the letter of the law, and that he would have done the same in any match he was given. He is not an inconsistent refereee, though there are inconsistencies between him and the other top referees in the way that they handle games.

I think his point about cheating was valid. It crossed the coaching team's mind, and they decided (pretty quickly) that it wasn't ethical, moral, or in sympathy with the spirit of the game or of sport in general.

It goes without saying, I hope, that no Welsh rugby fan would have wanted it to happen, and I doubt that they would have got away with it had they tried it anyway. It would have brought Welsh rugby into huge disrepute.

I don't see that it reflects badly on the team. They had nothing to do with it, as they were on the field palying rather than in the box where the discussion was said to have occurred!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I still see no reason whatsoever why he decided to go public in such a way. He could have kept this to himself and then no-one would have been the wiser.

 

[anthony263]

I have praise hinm for being honest. read in the western mail this morning that graham henry says that wales should be playing new zealand in the final not france.

Sadly silly errors etc cost wales.

lets hope we can reedem ourselves and get something out of this against austrailia on friday

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I have praise hinm for being honest. read in the western mail this morning that graham henry says that wales should be playing new zealand in the final, not England

Have the Western Mail not been following this Rugby World Cup and what is Graham Henry talking about.....New Zealand will play France (not England or Wales) in the final..:roll:

 

[anthony263]

Have the Western Mail not been following this Rugby World Cup and what is Graham Henry talking about.....New Zealand will play France (not England or Wales) in the final..:roll:

Sorry, mistake by me I meant france. power cut off not long after i typed it.

only now noticed it.

 

[Oswyntail]

Interesting Question! I think it is better, morally, to have resisted the temptation to cheat than not to recognise the temptation. Of course all the players and management team will have thought, even if only briefly, of illicit action, even if only turning into soccer players and trying to bully the ref. It is to their credit that they did not, and got stuck in to trying their hardest within the laws. If the IRB try to sling some "disrepute" charge one must hope it fails; the manager has, IMHO, enhanced the reputation of teh game.

 

[Greenback]

I think it was a brave move to bring this out into the open, and as such it should applauded. Even before the 'Bloodgate' incident, everyone knew this sort of thing was going on, but no one would even admit to talking about it, never mind actually doing it!

Gatland has brought this up to illustrate that sometimes, players, referees and coaches need to acknowledge that the game itselfis more important than anything else. Rolland does not referee with the same empathy for the occasion, the pressures and the players, that other referees do.

Regardless of the result, the match would have been a far better spectacle in my opinion had a red card not been issued. I believe that the French would not have played the sort of game that reverted to, had they not had the advantage of numbers. I'm not one of those that think that Wales would have aytomatically won without the sending off, but the face and character of the game would have been much different.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps it might have been better, if he really wanted to make his feelings known, to have done so after the match against Australia had been played. It is all a question of timing, to my way of thinking.

 

[Butts]

I think it was a brave move to bring this out into the open, and as such it should applauded. Even before the 'Bloodgate' incident, everyone knew this sort of thing was going on, but no one would even admit to talking about it, never mind actually doing it!

Gatland has brought this up to illustrate that sometimes, players, referees and coaches need to acknowledge that the game itselfis more important than anything else. Rolland does not referee with the same empathy for the occasion, the pressures and the players, that other referees do.

Regardless of the result, the match would have been a far better spectacle in my opinion had a red card not been issued. I believe that the French would not have played the sort of game that reverted to, had they not had the advantage of numbers. I'm not one of those that think that Wales would have aytomatically won without the sending off, but the face and character of the game would have been much different.

Agreed it may have been more enjoyable but for the dismissal.

At least the Kiwis gave them there come uppance

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At least the Kiwis gave them there come uppance

Which team are you referring to here....New Zealand played Australia in the semi-final.

 

[Greenback]

Perhaps it might have been better, if he really wanted to make his feelings known, to have done so after the match against Australia had been played. It is all a question of timing, to my way of thinking.

I think you are probably right, but the media spotlight is still on the tournament, and the rugby world is still discussing the incident and the wider implications. It's no surprise really that the media were still putting questions to Gatland on the subject, and with his track record, they knew they were going to get an honest response!

It's not the first he has said something that he may regret (at least privately!) later, but his openness and willingness to talk bluntly is part of his character, as Ryan Jones found out when he lost the captaincy!

 

[Butts]

Which team are you referring to here....New Zealand played Australia in the semi-final.

Sorry have just got back from Geneva that was my Nostradamus moment - hope i'm correct