Rugby World Cup 2011: Go Canada!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by NBC

As much as I would like to see New Zealand exorcise some demons by dismantling this very poorly performing French side, I'm not convinced that they are going to beat Australia. It is a massive match against their auld enemy. They are the top team in the tournament and should win. But it is far from decided.

I agree. I am looking forward to the game though. Should be a good one and regardless of who wins I just hope France self-destructs against them next week.

[Stay Golden]

Watching France fake injuries to get time off the clock and get water to players on the field was frustrating. Then the player would on cue bounce up and be perfectly fine. Putrid for Rugby. The announcers didn't care for that nonsence either.

[ChuckieNZ]

The red card was over the top, but the ref hardly had a choice. The IRB has mandated that any spear tackle is an automatic red card. It's very black and white which was unfortunate because I don't believe their was malice intent in the tackle and I'm sure the Welsh would have come out on top if it wasn't for that.

So it really comes down to two things. Was it a spear tackle? (it clearly was). And should the IRB give the ref more latitude to make situational rulings in the area of spear tackles?

Spear tackles have the same attention in rugby as headshots do in hockey.

[Bagor]

^
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).

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.

[NBC]

There have been no less than five tackles similar to the Warburton hit on Clerc in this current World Cup and none of them resulted in anything more than a penalty. Outside of the French coach, a plurality of commentators involved with the game did not think the tackle warranted a red card.

Wales are out of the WC, but for all intents and purposes I'd be surprised if Alain Rolland works another top-level match at this or any other major tournament.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by NBC

There have been no less than five tackles similar to the Warburton hit on Clerc in this current World Cup and none of them resulted in anything more than a penalty. Outside of the French coach, a plurality of commentators involved with the game did not think the tackle warranted a red card.

Wales are out of the WC, but for all intents and purposes I'd be surprised if Alain Rolland works another top-level match at this or any other major tournament.

Present these other tackles you speak off where the player was lifted off the ground and speared or dropped.

Outside of the French coach .... really? You make it sound so cut and dried when it's anything like it. See quote at end. I can present umpteen more if you want.

As for Rolland ... I guarantee you he'll be reffing for many more years to come although he won't be looking forward to his next visit to Cardiff. Why wouldn't he work another top-level match ... because he followed the laws as they were laid out to him?

Former Wales captain Robert Jones believes referee Alain Rolland was right to send off Sam Warburton in their 9-8 World Cup semi-final defeat by France in Auckland.
The Irish referee banished the flanker for a dangerous tackle on wing Vincent Clerc in the 18th minute.
Jones told BBC Radio 5 live: "The Sam Warburton decision was the right one."
But Jones says the game's rulers left Rolland with no option and should review their stance......

....."As disappointing as it is for me as a Welshman, the Sam Warburton decision was the right one.
"Initially it looked fine, like a well-made tackle. But in slow motion you can see he has lifted Vincent Clerc and dropped him.
"If you go by the letter of the law, that is a red card.
"I think they [International Rugby Board] have to look at that law, and have to give the referee the opportunity to base his decision on the way the game is going and the players involved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugb...h/15323153.stm

[Bagor]

3 week ban.

AUCKLAND: Wales captain Sam Warburton was given a three-week ban here on Sunday following his red card for a 'dangerous tip tackle" in the World Cup semi-final defeat by France....

Before the World Cup started, the IRB reiterated tackles involving a player being lifted off the ground and tipped horizontally and then forced or dropped to the ground are illegal and constitute dangerous play.
The IRB memorandum issued on June 8, 2009 stated such tackles "must be dealt with severely by referees and those involved in the off-field disciplinary process."

Independent judicial officer Christopher Quinlan of England said Rolland's decision to send off Warburton, criticised by many pundits, was in line with IRB directives and concluded the offence was "mid-range" on the scale of seriousness, which has an entry point of six weeks.
But taking account of Warburton's admission, "outstanding character, disciplinary record and remorse," he reduced the ban to three weeks.

Below (IMO) Sorta sums up the whole debate but fails to mention that Rolland wasn't allowed to check his morals or emotions in his decision making process.

Former Wales fly-half Phil Bennett summed up the mood of many of his rugby-obsessed compatriots when he said Sunday that Rolland's ruling was "technically correct, but morally wrong, emotionally wrong, wrong to the bottom of my gut".

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/un...016-1lrc6.html

[NBC]

What a wonderful and clinical display by the All Blacks today, especially the forwards. One through 8 were outstanding. They kept Oz under constant pressure, forced a lot of turnover ball and held a rigid defense the few times Oz managed to keep possession. McCaw was in scintillating form at the breakdown and Kaino battered the Australian forwards for 80 minutes. Quade Cooper kicking the ball straight into touch at the beginning of the match was fantastic. He certainly failed to live up to the hype the Australian media have been plying upon him. Probably the only downside for NZ was Weepu's lack of consistency in his goal kicking, other than that they were magnificent.

If les Coqs continue to perform so poorly, the final at Eden Park next weekend won't be much of a final. You keep hearing about how France always has one big game at the World Cup. Many are not convinced that this outfit have the ability to step up to another level. There seem to be some significant problems between Lievermont and the bulk of his players. They don't seem to respect him and he has had personality clashes with some of his senior players, which has led to awfully strange starting XV omissions and submissions. If NZ perform to anything approaching their best, they really shouldn't have much difficulty with a French team that is woefully bereft of ideas in attack and whose dressing room seems to be fraught with all sorts of tensions.


Marc Lievremont's France are simply the worst team ever to 'grace' the World Cup final

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...Cup-final.html

[GirlySports]

The New Zealand anthem's been in my head all day.

[killer_carlson]

I pvr'd it. What a great game. They were 50% (or less?) on kicking for points today and were still utterly dominant. Australia's defence was great today otherwise it would have been a blowout.

If NZ plays half this good against France, it will be a blowout.

[Stay Golden]

Next up, All Blacks go out and dismantle France.

[CMPunk]

Forget about dismantle, I want the All Blacks to lay the cleats to those cheese eating surrender monkeys

[ChuckieNZ]

What a fantastic, complete performance by the All Blacks.

My favourite moment was near the end of the match, where the All Blacks forced another turnover at scrum time and Brad Thorn couldn't contain his emotion. Raw passion from a man who will be playing his last match as an All Black next week.



One more.

[Locke]

Um. So. Yeah. Uh, the Final.

TSN Broadcast is 3:30am Sunday morning. If someone is willing to host, I'm game. I dont think we're going to be able to find a willing pub though and my apartment is a little small....

[troutman]

This has been an enjoyable tournament, even though there is no suspense about NZ eventually winning it all.

[Rjcsjc62]

New Zealand opened as a 16.5 point favorite.

[NBC]

France have undone NZ on a couple of occasions, when no one gave them any chance at all. The 1999 SF and the '07 QF saw France emerge the unlikely winners. That '99 SF was something else. Down 24-10 and looking at an insurmountable deficit, the French midfield and back line produced some extraordinary attacking rugby to overturn the deficit and win 43-31. That was something else.

Having said that, this French side has shown little of that attacking flair this time round. This side defends well (uncharacteristically French) but is bereft of ideas in attack. They just seem to kick away possession.

NZ should beat them but the ghosts of 1999 and 2007 might help to make it interesting.

[Slava]

That '99 game was actually really exciting to watch. I can't stand the French this year though after their shameful play vs. Tonga.

Also Locke, I can't host this game at 3:30am. If this was a game in 1999 I would've been game to do so, but times have changed. To be honest I'm not even sure that my going anywhere at that time of day is likely....a 3:30 kickoff means that the game ends around 5:30. My kids wake up at 6-7am so chances are that I'm going to PVR this one!

[ChuckieNZ]

Kickoff is at 2am, TSN pre-game begins at 1:30am.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by NBC

France have undone NZ on a couple of occasions, when no one gave them any chance at all. The 1999 SF and the '07 QF saw France emerge the unlikely winners. That '99 SF was something else. Down 24-10 and looking at an insurmountable deficit, the French midfield and back line produced some extraordinary attacking rugby to overturn the deficit and win 43-31. That was something else.

Having said that, this French side has shown little of that attacking flair this time round. This side defends well (uncharacteristically French) but is bereft of ideas in attack. They just seem to kick away possession.

NZ should beat them but the ghosts of 1999 and 2007 might help to make it interesting.

I vaguely remember the 1999 match. France were amazing in the 2nd half.

and in 2007, The all-blacks lost because they didn't wear black! They wore some ridiculous grey jersey and deserved to lose!