Wales considered cheating but didn't...! Says Gatland

First topic message reminder :

Fresh leading article on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15347253.stm

Runster wrote:

Davie wrote:Taff - this has been gone over hundreds of times already, those earlier offenses that were "only" given yellow cards were all reviewed after the match and effectively increased to red card offenses. Not only that, but the referees in question were warned that they hadn't performed their duties correctly

Call me old fashioned, but how could allowing a team to continue with 15 men when they should have had 14 be addressed after a match? Wales had their man sent off, the other offending teams did not. Wales managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not putting their kicks over, but surely it wasn't a level playing field when Wales had 14 and the other offenders were allowed to continue with 15. Am I alone in thinking this is unfair?

Thank you.At last someone who shares the same sense of fair play!Felt that I was in a madhouse!

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Runster wrote:

Davie wrote:Taff - this has been gone over hundreds of times already, those earlier offenses that were "only" given yellow cards were all reviewed after the match and effectively increased to red card offenses. Not only that, but the referees in question were warned that they hadn't performed their duties correctly

Call me old fashioned, but how could allowing a team to continue with 15 men when they should have had 14 be addressed after a match? Wales had their man sent off, the other offending teams did not. Wales managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not putting their kicks over, but surely it wasn't a level playing field when Wales had 14 and the other offenders were allowed to continue with 15. Am I alone in thinking this is unfair?

Thank you.At last someone who shares the same sense of fair play!Felt that I was in a madhouse!

I don't understand the point the two of you are making. Refereeing mistakes in previous games are NOT a good reason to repeat those mistakes in a current game. All you can say is that Fiji and Tonga were lucky to have 15 in their game. This does not in any way mean that Wales were hard done by in their's. They're completely unrelated incidents.

I wonder what Gatland hopes to achieve by airing such thoughts? He appears to be trying to make a moral case, but surely it's more than just that? Is he trying to force the IRB to review the directive? What do people think he's trying to achieve or change?

I tghink it will more likely bring the 23 man squad back into the limelight as you wouldn't be able to fake injury then.

Anyone any idea why it wasn't used in the WC?

From that BBC article

""I honestly believe Alain Rolland made the wrong decision. I think the right decision was a yellow card.

"In the terms of the rules and the regulations, he is perfectly entitled to give a red card - but every game is different.
Continue reading the main story

I honestly believe Alain Rolland made the wrong decision. I think the right decision was a yellow card

Warren Gatland on Sam Warburton's red card (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15347253.stm):

"You have got to take into account the circumstances of the situation, the intent. And I think in that situation, with his experience and the role he was given, that a yellow card was the right decision to make."

Pretty much sums up what we've been discussing the last few days. It summarises what many current players and ex-players felt about the incident.

From that BBC article

""I honestly believe Alain Rolland made the wrong decision. I think the right decision was a yellow card.

"In the terms of the rules and the regulations, he is perfectly entitled to give a red card - but every game is different.
Continue reading the main story

I honestly believe Alain Rolland made the wrong decision. I think the right decision was a yellow card

Warren Gatland on Sam Warburton's red card (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/15347253.stm):

"You have got to take into account the circumstances of the situation, the intent. And I think in that situation, with his experience and the role he was given, that a yellow card was the right decision to make."

Pretty much sums up what we've been discussing the last few days. It summarises what many current players and ex-players felt about the incident.

Already done here - https://www.606v2.com/t16406-wales-considered-cheating-but-didn-t-says-gatland (to death it would seem)

Good candidate for thread merge?

I doubt if he ever really gave it any thought.

I think this is just Gatland mouthing off and seeing what those stuffed shirts at the IRB will do.

They will probably fine him just to rake in some more cash.

Merge the Henson ones whilst you're at it.

Is he bringing game into disrepute by doing this? Don't be surprised to see him censured in some way. And yes, no NZ job for him now

Merge seems sensible

How can they? he didn't do it, he only thought about it.

yeah i know that but clearly by saying he thought about it HE is publicizing the fact he considered cheating....he may well have unknowingly dropped himself in it. But IRB may also wish to move on form the whole incident and offer informal guidance

Imagine if they do fine Gats for thinking something. Would they then ban players for thinking of spear tackling or punching somebody or dropping a scrum.

Good to know that NZ will not have a coach because he has thoughts! Even funnier that they are thoughts about cheating!

I would have done it under those circumstances , is it really cheating or exploiting a loop hole in the rules?
They should have had an extra place on the bench for a prop anyway, but the powers that be choose not to do this.
I'm sure many teams have done this before, why the fuss after the event or in this case after it didn't happen!

tomathy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Runster wrote:

Davie wrote:Taff - this has been gone over hundreds of times already, those earlier offenses that were "only" given yellow cards were all reviewed after the match and effectively increased to red card offenses. Not only that, but the referees in question were warned that they hadn't performed their duties correctly

Call me old fashioned, but how could allowing a team to continue with 15 men when they should have had 14 be addressed after a match? Wales had their man sent off, the other offending teams did not. Wales managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not putting their kicks over, but surely it wasn't a level playing field when Wales had 14 and the other offenders were allowed to continue with 15. Am I alone in thinking this is unfair?

Thank you.At last someone who shares the same sense of fair play!Felt that I was in a madhouse!

I don't understand the point the two of you are making. Refereeing mistakes in previous games are NOT a good reason to repeat those mistakes in a current game. All you can say is that Fiji and Tonga were lucky to have 15 in their game. This does not in any way mean that Wales were hard done by in their's. They're completely unrelated incidents.

They are not unrelated because all teams involved,both the offenders and the victims are part of the same cup competition.ALL sides must be subject to the same interpretation of the laws,surely.

His players behave impeccably throughout the whole Tournament. Even in adversity. They play the best rugby in the Cup. They made the whole of Wales proud.

"Now lets see how can I completely phhok all this up in one fell swoop" thinks Gatts... " I know!"

He really is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

+1

or the sharpest tool in the shed!

I don't think that the IRB are doing any such thing... Read the article, it is merely speculative and some re-hashing of the earlier article published by the BBC

The IRB is "privately stunned" by Gatland's comments, BBC Sport understands, and will review them.

I would have done it and i even thought why don't they during the game when Adam went off,
i thought of it because of the Wasps connection.

But the IRB surely can't fine/ban a coach for thinking like that when he is in a corner in the RWC semi finals.

I have two thoughts on the matter-

1. Gatland just wanted to stuff it to the IRB and Rolland with a great big F you.

2. Alternative motive , side swipe at the Aussies for the next game?

deadfred wrote:Imagine if they do fine Gats for thinking something. Would they then ban players for thinking of spear tackling or punching somebody or dropping a scrum.

Good to know that NZ will not have a coach because he has thoughts! Even funnier that they are thoughts about cheating!

clearly not the thought, but the fact he has publicized it they will frown on. and it is also totally out of context, he should never have siad it but the only context i can see it being valid is if the opposition were rumoured to have cheated. A big blemish on our rep and reminds me what i dislike about gatland's leadership. Look how good we were without managerial controversy

Think......


Pause......


Engage Brain.....


Speak!


Maybe the WRU should enforce this on Gatland prior to press conferences.


In fairness, there is not a professional coach in the world who hasn't thought about getting a prop to develop an injury and go to uncontested scrums when their team was up against it, so I have no issue with Gatland for thinking about it. The fact is though, he didn't do it, so I am not quite sure what the IRB think they are going to be investigating, it is nonsense from them.

That said, Gatland really should just keep his trap shut as he seems to make quite a habit of putting one of his feet in it.

It's like he's been keeping in all his stupid comments since the start of the world cup and couldn't stand it any more.

Gatland: So, we're really disappointed with the result, fair play to France, the red card was harsh, erm... um, Arrrrrgghhh! Eeeek! Grrrrnnggh! OK, I THOUGHT ABOUT CHEATING, BUT DIDN'T. HAH! THERE, I SAID IT! Blimey, that feels better...

Edwards: Christ Almighty, boss.

Me thinks there are too many people on the IRBs payroll with not enough to do.

When Gatland calls it a day in several years time i would be one of the first to buy his books,
it would be a guaranteed no punches held back slagging of any thing that has p!ssed him off.

Non of this one section were a ex-player or coach suggests how a "certain" person annoyed them,
Gatland would name and shame everyone.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Think......


Pause......


Engage Brain.....


Speak!


Maybe the WRU should enforce this on Gatland prior to press conferences.


In fairness, there is not a professional coach in the world who hasn't thought about getting a prop to develop an injury and go to uncontested scrums when their team was up against it, so I have no issue with Gatland for thinking about it. The fact is though, he didn't do it, so I am not quite sure what the IRB think they are going to be investigating, it is nonsense from them.

That said, Gatland really should just keep his trap shut as he seems to make quite a habit of putting one of his feet in it.

I havent seen the context in which the statement came out, maybe it was a leading question along the lines of "did you think about faking an injury with one of your props so you would have uncontested scrums?"

Gatts wrote:

deadfred wrote:Imagine if they do fine Gats for thinking something. Would they then ban players for thinking of spear tackling or punching somebody or dropping a scrum.

Good to know that NZ will not have a coach because he has thoughts! Even funnier that they are thoughts about cheating!

clearly not the thought, but the fact he has publicized it they will frown on. and it is also totally out of context, he should never have siad it but the only context i can see it being valid is if the opposition were rumoured to have cheated. A big blemish on our rep and reminds me what i dislike about gatland's leadership. Look how good we were without managerial controversy

Well said Gatts. Welsh Rugby and the Welsh fans in general, should have a burning, inner-pride, right now. Nothing can diminish that fact. Not even a silly political mistake by the Coach. It will blow over. Maybe a slap on the wrist and a fine. You guys, should just go out and beat Oz with that full-on, sexshy rugby style of yours. Then, come Home, to a fully-deserved and huge welcome. Either way - that should happen. No matter what happens with Gatland or the game on Friday. It was a joy to watch Wales play rugby in this RWC. Ye lit it up.

Credu!

Maesteg he was answering a question,
the press know he is to honest for his own good and enjoys telling it as it is,
that's why like every single head line he has grabbed by saying something controversial has come from a misquote,
The press always leave out what they ask.

But ultimately will Gatland give a stuff? i imagine he couldn't

Taffineastbourne wrote:

tomathy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Runster wrote:

Davie wrote:Taff - this has been gone over hundreds of times already, those earlier offenses that were "only" given yellow cards were all reviewed after the match and effectively increased to red card offenses. Not only that, but the referees in question were warned that they hadn't performed their duties correctly

Call me old fashioned, but how could allowing a team to continue with 15 men when they should have had 14 be addressed after a match? Wales had their man sent off, the other offending teams did not. Wales managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not putting their kicks over, but surely it wasn't a level playing field when Wales had 14 and the other offenders were allowed to continue with 15. Am I alone in thinking this is unfair?

Thank you.At last someone who shares the same sense of fair play!Felt that I was in a madhouse!

I don't understand the point the two of you are making. Refereeing mistakes in previous games are NOT a good reason to repeat those mistakes in a current game. All you can say is that Fiji and Tonga were lucky to have 15 in their game. This does not in any way mean that Wales were hard done by in their's. They're completely unrelated incidents.

They are not unrelated because all teams involved,both the offenders and the victims are part of the same cup competition.ALL sides must be subject to the same interpretation of the laws,surely.

Yes, but the referees in the other games MISINTERPRETED them, and this has been backed up by the subsequent bans to the players involved. Their's wasn't just a differentapplication of the laws. It was a wrong one. Even when referees are using the exact same interpretations there will still be some human error. The fact that mistakes were made by referees in other games in no way means they should be repeated in future ones.

Cheers Gibson,it really matters to Wales and us fans when we get reconnection from other top nations,
and we are really proud of Wales win or lose on Friday we feel very happy.

maestegmafia wrote:
I havent seen the context in which the statement came out, maybe it was a leading question along the lines of "did you think about faking an injury with one of your props so you would have uncontested scrums?"

He was talking about the red card, claiming it was wrong as it ruined the spectacle, and then randomly went off on a tangent, saying that they had considered doing this but decided not to for fear of ruining the game, as if the two decisions (awarding the red card and not faking an injury) were somehow analogous.

maestegmafia wrote:I don't think that the IRB are doing any such thing... Read the article, it is merely speculative and some re-hashing of the earlier article published by the BBC

The IRB is "privately stunned" by Gatland's comments, BBC Sport understands, and will review them.

Just thought I'd quote this. For those suggesting IRB are daft over this

They are going to stick one of these on his head from now on
http://www.dancewithshadows.com/tech/hitachi-thought-powered-remote.asp

stupid for him to say that but why would IRB assess it? he didnt do it so why assess it?

tomathy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

tomathy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Runster wrote:

Davie wrote:Taff - this has been gone over hundreds of times already, those earlier offenses that were "only" given yellow cards were all reviewed after the match and effectively increased to red card offenses. Not only that, but the referees in question were warned that they hadn't performed their duties correctly

Call me old fashioned, but how could allowing a team to continue with 15 men when they should have had 14 be addressed after a match? Wales had their man sent off, the other offending teams did not. Wales managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by not putting their kicks over, but surely it wasn't a level playing field when Wales had 14 and the other offenders were allowed to continue with 15. Am I alone in thinking this is unfair?

Thank you.At last someone who shares the same sense of fair play!Felt that I was in a madhouse!

I don't understand the point the two of you are making. Refereeing mistakes in previous games are NOT a good reason to repeat those mistakes in a current game. All you can say is that Fiji and Tonga were lucky to have 15 in their game. This does not in any way mean that Wales were hard done by in their's. They're completely unrelated incidents.

They are not unrelated because all teams involved,both the offenders and the victims are part of the same cup competition.ALL sides must be subject to the same interpretation of the laws,surely.

Yes, but the referees in the other games MISINTERPRETED them, and this has been backed up by the subsequent bans to the players involved. Their's wasn't just a differentapplication of the laws. It was a wrong one. Even when referees are using the exact same interpretations there will still be some human error. The fact that mistakes were made by referees in other games in no way means they should be repeated in future ones.

That's not the point I'm making. What if Fiji who didn't have a player sent off when they should have had won the match and it was in the knockout phase? How do you redress that? Re-match? Maybe the IRB should have refs overseeing their refs in real time to ensure they apply the laws? If my team had lost to a full strength Fiji when they should have had the massive disadvantage of being a prop down for an hour, I would be rightly furious. The IRB should sort this Shiite out.

Runster wrote:
That's not the point I'm making. What if Fiji who didn't have a player sent off when they should have had won the match and it was in the knockout phase? How do you redress that? Re-match? Maybe the IRB should have refs overseeing their refs in real time to ensure they apply the laws? If my team had lost to a full strength Fiji when they should have had the massive disadvantage of being a prop down for an hour, I would be rightly furious. The IRB should sort this Shiite out.

You can't redress it, but it didn't happen. If Warburton had not got a red card and Wales had won then France would have good reason to be upset. It didn't happen though.

its obviously a very new concept for wales to be on the end of what they feel is an unfair decison, allthough he deserved a red card anyway!!!! therefore not unjust in any respect.

It happens wales and trust me it actually really happens and all your doing is making a mockery out of the countries that really are at the other end of bad decisions- like marodonas hand ball goal, and then the million and one decisions after including lampards goal last wc. This RWc has seen bad reffing go against SA v AUS..chelsea v barcelona in the cl semi final when they had 3 definite penalties not awarded, ireland in the play off game against france with henrys hand ball...If you guys keep this up i am gonna lose all respect that i had for you lot- its starting to become so self indulgent is ridiculas.

I am sure the loss of your respect will curtail any further comment immediately and therefore i would hope it will also curtail your relentless banging on about irrelevant comparisons...rugby is fundamentally different from football in case you hadn't noticed. Rugby is a contact sport and therefore the refereeing of contact becomes a significantly greyer debate.

Do you understand that?

this is about bad decisions going against a team- and a fans view.comaprisons can and will be made.The rule IS SO SIMPLE . IF YOU PICK SOMEONE UP AND DROP HIM YOU FACE A RED CARD. You need to accept that wales wasnt even harshly treated and that you are sounding like a spoilt brat. just get over it and move on .

gatts if you wanna talk about A completely different subject like is the rule wrong or not, or how we can improve consitancy be my guest- but understand what i am talking about and debate that- dont talk about irrleavancies to this debate because its the only angle you have

mystiroakey wrote:this is about bad decisions going against a team- and a fans view.comaprisons can and will be made.The rule IS SO SIMPLE . IF YOU PICK SOMEONE UP AND DROP HIM YOU FACE A RED CARD. You need to accept that wales wasnt even harshly treated and that you are sounding like a spoilt brat. just get over it and move on.

You make me laugh, I don't need an angle, according to you we should all drop it anyway, you complain about whinging and yet without it you would have nothing to post. Who are you to tell people how they should feel about the issue?

i find it difficult to read you rant for obvious reasons but i believe this is a forum for debate so don't start throwing your weight around, i am commenting on your failure to grasp the issue and not making personally abusive remarks, that is your MO.

I am not complaining wales were harshly dealt with, far from it. The only question i have had on this issue is whether the ref had the discretion to award less than red. Can you answer that? No.

You just don't understand what you are talking about and that is what i am drawing attention to, you lecture people as if you know anything about the subject, making comparisons with football decisions proves you dont.

wales face irb non-cheating probe-merged thread
wales face a an irb review for not cheating.

what exactly do the irb hope to acheive with this waste of time. will gatlands admission that wales did not cheat bring the sport and the tournament into disrepute? what if the irb find that gatland is responsable for not cheating? what will the sanction be? will they not ban him from coaching?

no-blood gate is sure to turn the rugby world on its head.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/wales/8834598/Rugby-World-Cup-2011-IRB-to-investigate-Warren-Gatlands-claim-on-considering-cheating-against-France.html

It's all a load of nonsense. Just Gatland shooting from the lip as usual.

However there is a barely disguised dig at the IRB in there so expect a fine Mr G. A fine for not cheating would be interesting. Guilty until proven innocent.

But the IRB have their own agenda so I wouldn't be surprised.

This reminds me of the Hansie Cronje scandal.

He was supposed to throw a match but didn't, then the bookies leaked some tapes.

What is going to be next, microphones in dressing rooms.

Any number 7 in world rugby "I am going to cheat this weekend"

Any coach " what do you mean cheat?"

Number 7 "Well, I am going to see how far the referee allows me to infringe"

Any coach" That's fine, but it isn't cheating"

Number 7 " what do you mean it isn't cheating? If I steal the ball from an offside position, or when I am not supporting my weight, isn't that cheating?"

Coach. " NO, that is not cheating"

Number 7 " Then what is cheating?"

Coach " If you think about it"

.

doctornickolas wrote:It's all a load of nonsense. Just Gatland shooting from the lip as usual.

However there is a barely disguised dig at the IRB in there so expect a fine Mr G. A fine for not cheating would be interesting. Guilty until proven innocent.

But the IRB have their own agenda so I wouldn't be surprised.

i think you are right. they will want to punish gats for criticising the good mr rolland.

gat has been pretty quiet for the last few months. it was only a matter of time before he said some thing stupid. should be called doing a gatland.