^
Spot on! It is a foul of zero tolerance. Rolland had no option but to apply the rule of law.
That he let go (and dropped him) as opposed to driving him into the ground has zero bearing on the decision making process.
(bolded for emphasis).
Quote:
To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off theground:
The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card
should be issued for this type of tackle.
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.
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 based 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.
|
http://ht.ly/6Yd0Y
In other words Rolland was not allowed to make a "judgement call" on Warburton's intentions. He and every other referee in the tournament were under orders to apply the law and administer a red.
So .... as Chuckie said. You want someone to blame? Blame the IRB if you must for the rigidity of the rule. But consider before doing so at least it allows for consistancy of punishment for one of the most dangerous plays in the sport.
A momentary lapse of reason by Warburton.