Talk:Alain Rolland

"That" Tackle

I think not using the word 'controversial' for what is, objectively, the most controversial decision he has ever made, is laughable. There's no doubt he will be remembered for it, so Wikipedia shouldn't shy away from recording the fact. Whether it was correct or not is certainly not relevant, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max sang (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to say what red card in a quarter-final, semi-final or final in either rugby or football isn't controversial? Sending a player off, or not sending him off, is controversial. Awarding a critical penalty, or not awarding it, is controversial. However, it is certainly not notable, as it is commonplace in every major tournament that referees make calls, or fail to make them, that can influence the game.Jeppiz (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would just be worth adding that this has caused a lot of controversy, partly due to him being half French. http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/85975,people,news,waless-nightmare-ref-is-half-french- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.53.48 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw the edit of controverisial tackle has been reverted but if and when it is included please include this reference,

∞ 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.

which shows that Rolland was acting on the rules laid down by the IRB, as warburton didn't "guide" him to the grouns. So the tackle was correct by the laws of the game, just maybe not within the spirit of the game. Cheers 178.250.210.5 (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the important of the decision, I think the article would benefit from some neutral reactions in regards Rolland's decision to award the straight red. Anyone disagree with me adding? South Africa's 1995 World Cup-winning captain Francois Pienaar said: "It is wrong, it is wrong. It was a dangerous tackle, yes, it was a penalty, yes.

That gets my vote. No-one can deny it was a controversial decision, right or wrong, and therefore should be highlighted as such in any impartial forum, such as Wikipedia. FWIW, it seems unduly harsh in the circumstances of a semi-final, and in light of other refereeing decisions for similar situations/offenses during the tournament — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wontigonk (talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Leave it. Unless the IRB release a statement regarding it, leave it. Likewise, we don't have anything regarding Bryce Lawrence, despite the controversy surrounding the quarter final between Australia and South Africa. (see Talk:Bryce Lawrence as well) --Chris 10:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

All of the fan whine and interpretation at the end of the day is irrelevant, the IRB says it's a red card, it can be reliably sources, the rest is just opinion. 178.250.210.5 (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And another source to say it's red directed by the IRB here 178.250.210.5 (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• No need to add controversial or any other comments from other players or the media. As Chris says if the IRB releases a statement then we may want to add something then. Tomorrow we can go through all this again with Craig Joubert. AIRcorn (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What's with the full protection? The article's not been touched for three hours? I thought that went against WP:NO-PREEMPT 178.250.210.5 (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• There has been activity, and I should like to prevent further activity. Please feel free to raise a request at WP:RFPU if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the mediation pointer I'll take it up there, preventing further activity when there had been none for three hours is a clear misuse of admin powers, as it goes against as I said WP:NO-PREEMPT. 178.250.210.5 (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  Taken to WP:ANI instead 178.250.210.5 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Getting back to our coverage of the tackle, it doesn't seem to provide enough context. I think it would be useful to say that it happened early in the match (in the 18th minute, according to the source we cite). --Avenue (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing as this has been mentioned by a welsh minister [1] and the IRB has come out in defence of Roland [2] there is probably a call to add a second sentence regarding this incident. Something saying his call was criticised by Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones, but supported by the IRB. Whatever is written it needs to be consistent with the treatment of Wayne Barnes regarding the 2007 France vs NZ quarterfinal. AIRcorn (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure. Populist politicians (too) often try to pick cheap points at the expense referees. The fact that the IRB defends it goes a long way towards suggesting it was the right decision. It's not that I'm against mentioning it as such, but I am somewhat tired of the same thing going on every time a British time is knocked out in a major tournament. Either there is a big, worldwide referee conspiracy against the Brits (highly unlikely, the Brits are worse losers than others (possible, but not true in my experience) or it's simply that Brits quite naturally dominate on pages related to football and rugby on English Wikipedia. That is still not a reason for automatically commenting on individual decisions made by any referee who ever was in charge of a game of football or rugby involving England, Wales, Scotland, Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal or Chelsea. I've yet to see the day we go through a tournament in football or rugby without calls to comment on what referees did to any of these teams. In short. Sending a player off is not notable. That sports media or the odd politician in the country of the player comments on it still isn't notable. If it's a giant mistake, such as the referee who missed England's equalizer against Germany in the World Cup or the ref who booked the same Croatian player three times, then we have something notable. Having said that, thanks are due to Aircorn for finding these references!Jeppiz (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jeppiz on keeping politicians out of it. So what if the Welsh dude complained about it? He's not an authority on rugby. BiggerAristotle (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No need for it to be politicians, plenty of ex rugby players, coaches and the like are chiming in. Anyway my concern is more about how the information is currently presented. It says he issued a red card but not what makes issuing it notable. I agree red cards are not notable by themselves, but if it is mentioned it should say why this one is. If it is agreed it is not notable then there should be no mention of it at all. AIRcorn (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that the tackle and judgement were notable in themselves, because the "tip tackle" is kind of a new rule (OK, four years old) that most fans remain unaware of, and this is probably the first time the rule has been correctly applied in an international tournament - there were preceding tip tackles in this tournament, where the refs incorrectly gave out yellow cards. Both refs involved were sanctioned, and the two yellow cards from France vs Tonga resulted in 3 and 5 week bans: this was a clear message that red cards were appropriate here, reinforcing the existing "Start at Red and work down" message the IRB has been giving to refs for some time now.[3] - DewiMorgan (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no question (1) that the sending off was "controversial" and (2) that Rolland is half-French. Both these facts should be included in the article and not censored by Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.241.85 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that Alain Rolland has attracted more controversy today, leading to semi protection on this page. Nevertheless even before today it was in my watch list as I wish to amend the text on the world cup tip tackle that saw the sending off of a player. I believe the word "controversial" is essential to balance in the article - i.e. we should say that the red card was controversial. The argument here seemed to rest around no consensus for the word "controversial", but neither is there consensus for NOT saying it is controversial, and we can find a plethora of references referring to the controversy (along with associated controversy around a similarly dangerous tackle in a line out that led to just a penalty, and thus the questions of consistency). I strongly believe the word "controversial" should bi in this article. I agree that the nonsense that has been added today is not encyclopaedic, and nor do we need to invite readers to consider that the man's parentage might bias his professional judgement. What we do need to do is explain why it is even relevant that there is a line about one particular red card in this article. Did he only ever give one red card? Was that his only decision in the world cup? Why do we mention the sending off at all if its not controversial. Thus my proposal: We add the word "controversial", or else we remove the whole sentence as "not notable". If we cannot agree it was controversial, its simply not notable.

Sirfurboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

Don't agree with adding controversial. There is no doubt that it was the correct decision, the IRB and even Warburton have said that. I don't think we can label a decision controversial when the people that count agree it wasn't. If we added controversial every time fans and sportswriters complained about a ref then the article would almost consist of controversial decisions. In regards to consistency, it was the refs that did not red card that were at fault. If anything their decisions were more controversial (you will notice that they did not ref any of the later games). Controversial in itself is also a WP:LABEL, and ambiguous at that. Why is it controversial? Because people who are not as familiar with the rules don't agree with it? Because it happened early in the game? Because it was such a big game? Because it effectively ended Wales chances of making the final? Better to just say something along those line (avoiding WP:Original Research) than "controversial". So to that end I do agree with elaborating on the incident more to explain why we mention this red card and not the say the one he gave against a French player for a similar tackle, or as you say simply remove it as "not notable". AIRcorn (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The correctness of the decision is not what makes it controversial. It is prima facie controversial because of the very great deal of controversy it stirred up. The reasons for the controversy are (1) As you have noted, most people were unaware of the IRB memo that claimed such a tackle should "start at red". The IRB had circulated this to refs and unions, but it was not widely promoted as a new rule. The IRB were victims of their poor publicity and also (2) That the new rule now seems to force a referee to "start at red" when there was no intent behind the action. Compare that with the yellow for Bradley Davies that should have been red! , elading to (3) Clearly the ruling had been inconsistently applied, and to begin consistently applyiong it at the start of a world cup semi final is bound to be controversial. (4) "having no regard" is open for interpretation, and one criticism often heard is that Rolland did not pause to consult other officials before giving the red card. That criticism has been levelled by non partisan commentators. For all those reasons, I think "controversial" is better. However as you point out WP:LABEL, some explanation of the controversy would then be required. The problem may be that this event would then start to dominate the article. Another word may be better, but I cannot think of one. However, again, if we insert no such qualification I think an individual ruling here is not notable. What does make it notable is that it caused a storm of controversy! How about "Rolland sent off Warburtion, causing controversy over application of the recent IRB ruling on tip tackles". We could add a ref to the IRB ruling as well as a link to one or more pieces on the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfurboy (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right about not letting one incident dominate the article. Unfortunately refs only really make the news when they upset someone so it is hard to balance this out. An extended discussion of this incident could probably be handled better at Tip tackle, which will help alleviate any concerns regarding living people. At least the points regarding the IRB not adequately publicising the new directive to the public and inconsistent application of the interpretation would fit better into that article. Referees are not supposed to judge intent in these situations.[4] A dangerous tackle is still dangerous whether you intended it to be or not (it will play a role in the subsequent disciplinary hearing though). "Having no regard" is an interpretation, but then interpretation is part and parcel of most rugby union laws. Although it is generally agreed that he should have consulted with his assistants before issuing the card (at least to help reinforce his decision) it is not strictly required.

How about "In the 2011 World Cup Semi Final between Wales and France, Rolland sent off Welsh captain Sam Warburton eighteen minutes into the game for a dangerous tip tackle. The decision was criticised by ........, but supported by the IRB who had released a directive in 2009 saying that tip tackles should start at a red card and work down." Not sure who to use for the criticising (Warren Gatland, Welsh fans, some former players) and whether to include a very short quote or paraphrased statement ("as being too harsh"). This way we don't say controversial but still indicate it was notable outside this game. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added the text as you suggested, including a ref to the IRB memo and a ref to a guardian article which summarises dissent from players, Warren Gatland and the IRB support of the decision. I am sure we can add other refs but that seemed like a fair cross section.

Sirfurboy (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

With the passage of time it seems absolutely absurd that the 2011 World Cup sending off is not even mentioned. There's probably a place for an article on the decision itself- the discussion above It defines the 2011 World Cup in Wales- and is probably very well remembered out of Wales too. There was so much fallout at the time. There is plenty of stuff to talk about, was the decision right or wrong? Why did the referee apply the rule? Why was the reaction as it was. This was big, there was even a Downfall parody which went viral.

So I am sure there are plenty of sources to back up a pro and anti "Rolland" point of view to actually have quite a good article- if we apply ourselves it could make featured article status. I am sure there are enough people who care about this to act as a check and balance to get a neutral point of view. What is absurd is to not even mention the Semi Final decision to send Sam Warbuton off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.106.15.182 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the point above is s good one. I cannot see how it is a defensible position to not refer to it at all. The reality is referees are there to make decisions, and the big decision he made, rightly or wrongly was to send Sam Warburton off in Eden Park, and that will define his career as a Referee. To borrow a phrase used in another context, "To expect otherwise is rather like hoping that Pontius Pilate will one day be judged as a successful provincial administrator of the Roman Empire."

If we do not include any reference to the 2011 World Cup Semi Final and the red card, we've got some serious editing to do... We'd need to remove any mention of Gravity from the Isaac Newton one, anything about Apollo 11 from the Neil Armstrong one, the Margarat Thatcher one should clearly have nothing other than content relevant to her role in developing rasberry ripple ice cream... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.107.82.226 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.150.35.79, 15 October 2011

Very wise to have removed the reference to his "neutrality" he has shown his true colours.

86.150.35.79 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific about the amendment which should be made. Please also provide references where necessary, per WP:BLP. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from nickgammon, 16 October 2011

Please change the sentence "Alain Rolland (born 22 August 1966) is a former Irish rugby union footballer and current international referee.", to include the phrase "of French descent". This is a reasonable qualification which can be verified by following the categories link at the bottom of his biographical article. Thank you. nickgammon 22:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This can probably be included, and sources can be found by a search for his full name (including one I mentioned in the edit request). However it shouldn't be in the first sentence. Peter E. James (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd class this as a "controversial edit", possibly intended to make some point or other regarding Rolland's possible neutrality. The articles on Jonathan Kaplan and Craig Joubert don't mention "of South African descent" (or, going by the name Joubert "of French descent"), Clive Norling doesn't say "of Welsh descent", Sarah Corrigan doesn't say "of Australian descent" (or, again going purely by the name Corrigan, "of Irish descent"), and so on. As the requester has noted Rolland's antecedents are covered in the category link - why does this need to be noted further? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The category shouldn't be there if the article doesn't contain relevant information and references to verify it. The Kaplan article has "Kaplan was born in Durban to Jewish parents", but not in the lead section. The other articles are stubs and although I haven't looked for sources for those it may not be verifiable or relevant (there is no Category:Welsh people of Welsh descent). Peter E. James (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevancy is exactly my point. Had there been a request to edit the article to add this a week ago I wouldn't have seen much of a problem with it. There wasn't. However suddenly when Wales lose to France with an apparently controversial tackle there's a need to add that Rolland is "of French descent". Odd that no such comment was deemed to be required when Rolland refereed the 6-45 defeat of France (in Paris) by NZ in 2005 or the 39-12 defeat of France by NZ in 2007. As for Kaplan I can't quite see the relevance of his (or his parents') religion either. My point about Norling was exactly that quoting someone's "descent" is (or should be) irrelevant and WP:UNDUE, and in fact a bit silly. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That Rolland has French descent is not controversial, but a matter of simple fact. Moreover one that was mentioned in the article earlier.......... my point being, exactly, that if it was relevant last week then it is still relevant this week, and should not have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgammon (talk • contribs) 07:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done It seems clear that there is not (yet) consensus for this change. Please continue to discuss, and re-request the edit if consensus is reached. Anomie⚔ 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that before the red card incident occurred the article said Rolland, whose father is French, speaks fluent French, making him an 'ideal neutral' referee for matches involving teams from English speaking countries and France, although the sentence was tagged with {{cn}}[5]. It was only removed recently.[6] I think it could be mentioned (with a reference), but it can wait until after all the fuss has died down. However the 'ideal neutral' part is WP:OR and should not be re-added. AIRcorn (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article now read "Rolland, whose father is French, speaks fluent French, (a useful asset when refereeing matches involving teams from both English and French speaking countries)" would there now be consensus? The principle objection to this change was that it appeared to be a response to the current controversy, whereas in fact it was made because I was surprised to find that this information had been deleted during, and perhaps because of the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgammon (talk • contribs) 12:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No objection to the text about his background or language skills, but I would like to see a source before including anything about this being an advantage for him refereeing French-speaking teams. I'm sure there will be a source which mentions this somewhere, but I am too busy/lazy to look right now. BiggerAristotle (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Peter E. James, 16 October 2011

Some of the external links are out of date and need replacing. Please change the first reference to [7], and the external links to archived versions: [8] for the player profile (which can be used as reference for appearances) and [9] for the 2003 World Cup. The other external link can just be removed as it's vandalism (and probably not a valid URL). Also the name in the infobox shouldn't contain inverted commas and references are needed for the name and occupation - [10] has both, and other sources can be found.

Peter E. James (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the deadlinks with the webarchive references you provided and removed the invalid URL. Thanks for that. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 October 2011

{{edit protected}} remove the word dangerous the tackle in question was started by the frenchman's action & his body whieght was part of the mometum warbuton was merley supporting a gymnastic move & not taking the wieght of the french player. This was evidence given to the IRB hearing after the match & helped warburton reduce the penalty from 6 games to just 3 game ban

82.240.84.154 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. There's plenty of reliable sources that declare it a 'dangerous tackle' [11] including the source currently used to verify the sentence [12]. You have not provided any source to contradict that.  Chzz  ►  04:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

France vs England 2012

Should a section be added for his latest blunder - yellow carding the England player Sharples for "deliberate knock on"? It was another high-profile absurd decision which, if applied consistantly,would make it impossible for any player to attempt to intercept a pass.

Not unless he is damned by the IRB. If you rack up every mistake, or assumed mistake a referee makes, then their entire article will consist of hundreds of referee mistakes and nothing that they do correctly. A referee makes at least one bad decision a match, whatever the sport, unless it was a glaring and career changing mistake like, awarding three yellow cards to a single player, it probably won't get mentioned. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alain Rolland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612114903/http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/8440.php to http://www.irishrugby.ie/news/8440.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Frenchness and controversies

Any bio article can have a family/personal/early-life section, which typically mentions the subject's parent's names and occupations, and their nationality if it differs from that of the subject. It has extra relevance in Rolland's case because his fluency in French means he often got picked for matches between a francophone team and a non-Irish anglophone team. It is also true that some people have commented that the closeness of his ties to France meant it was not appropriate for him to referee France matches. These points can reasonably be added if cited to Reliable Neutral Sources. IMO an opinion piece by a journalist who supports the team that his just lost one of his controversial decisions would not qualify unless they write "I'm sorry we lost but I must admit Rolland did not make a mistake".

As regards decisions in particular matches, the first place to document that is in the article about the match itself. Currently 2011 Rugby World Cup knockout stage#Wales vs France only says "The Welsh captain was sent off after committing a tip-tackle, releasing the opponent past the horizontal off the ground in the 18th minute" -- a dry match-report formulation. Rather than add any supplementary material to the ref's bio (or indeed the bio of the tackler or tacklee) it should be at the match article (and then if necessary linked to from the bios). jnestorius^(talk) 22:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)