France defeat Wales to make Rugby World Cup final

Wales should have won with 14 men and I am upset that they didn't. At the end of the day there is no point in further discussion as we will not agree. It is a matter of perspective, mine is that of a Welshman and yours is that of a journalist

David L, Johnno and the others who are quick to quote the LAW but seem to have little or no imagination! I suggest you remember that the Ref interprets the Law in context to the situation and it's context. In this case the situation was a semi-final, the context was at 4 other similar tackles during the competition (where yellow card/penalty was the decision). My greatest puzzlement over the decision was why he didn't go to the other officials - please don't any of you tell me that in the modern game Refs aren't constantly checking with their colleagues or the TMO - why not this time? In such a big match? I think Roland acted thoughtlessly and the result was we were ALL robbed of what should have been a classic. Pedantic quotes of Laws illustrate an immature grasp of the game - I cannot believe that anyone who claims to be a Rugby Fan honestly believes that Laws are only enacted, never interpreted; context is one of the vital tools a Ref brings to the pit h - in this Roland failed utterly.

Thanks Nick, very gracious of you.

I think you mean gibberer which is a league term.....

Peterlala not a bit pregnant... Fully pregnant... your wife is giving birth and you are speeding to the hospital. You get pulled over for speeding by the police. You've broken the law and it's dangerous... But the policeman looks at the circumstances and says move along ;)

It did spoil the game...but the ref had no option. Of all the rules, those relating to spear tackles must be among the most valuable. I am astounded that people think the law should be ignored because it wasn't a serious breach. That's like saying a try should be allowed because a player's foot barely grazed the touchline. Or that you are just a bit pregnant. Warburton knows better and he should have done better.

Great decision to RED CARD the captain. This is taught to the under 12s and they suffer the same consequence as anyone else for spear tackling a player. Shocking game but a great decision ref.

It wasn't the carding that cost the Welsh the game it was the replacemets. The older lads from the bench took Wales back to their older style of playing. Besides they had the run of the game in the second half they just needed to slot those shots at goal. I was gutted for them but THEY lost it not the ref.

Consistency is all we ask for. There have been similar if not worse tackles in this tournament that only got yellow cards or nothing at all. A yellow card would have been sufficient punishment and we wouldn't be talking about bloody referees instead of great games of rugby. Did the whole Welsh team, management and supporters deserve to be eliminated from the cup because of one poor takle by one player??? Wales obviously need to look at how they played and why the hell they didn't take the field goal option in the last 5 minutes I'll never know but it probably didn't help having your captain on the bench!!!! The refereeing in both hemispheres all year has been garbage and had too much influence on results. The IRB must make the rules more simple especially at the breakdown but across the the whole rule book

Look If I was the ref, I'd have probably gone for a yellow, just because I think I could legitimately get away with that without upsetting either si,de too much, and not wanting to determine the outcome of the game, essentially, or the game be remembered for a ref's call However - Warnburton clearly lifted, and the legs were above the head. You simply cannot criticise Rolland for this decision, as a red was completely justified in the circumstances. Warburton was the silly one, not the ref who had little choice.

I have often thought that a red card ruins too many games. Would it make any sense to change the rules so that when a red card is given the player takes no more part in the game, but the team is only down to 14 on the field for 10 mins.

Just a thought (and it's an admittedly odd-ish one)... Having now dissected the IRB's notes to refs on what constitutes a red-card offence (etc, etc) through these posts, I must say that the application of a law is the application of a law - whether in sport the fans always agree. You'd rather applaud (surely) the ref getting the decision correct (as per the laws of the game) than letting it go and a potentially worse situation occurring. A-la Hair's no-balling of Muralitharan - I actually was irritated by the vitriol that went his way after that. He was merely - and correctly and perfectly within his rights as an official - applying the laws of the sport (as they were written clearly at the time). Regardless of where he was (non-striker or striker's end), he was permitted, by the laws, the consider that certain deliveries may be suspect in his opinion. If so, no ball. Done. As we all know, it could be said that subsequently the laws appear (in the public sense at least) to have been altered to allow Murali to continue getting the ball down the other end to the batsman. Don't we want officials who serve the laws of the game, not the whims of the fans (as hard as that might be to take?). And as others said, if it's under-15 or a World Cup, it doesn't matter. A potential red-card is a potential red-card. Or no-ball.

An article that sums up my thoughs on the Red card. http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/oct/15/rugby-world-cup-sam-warburton?cat=sport&type=article

After a nights sleep 'utterly horrible' isnt a fair comment. I was disappointed the game panned out the way it did.

it would seem that your wife has more brains then you , I take it you are football man ?????

Directive to the refs regarding this tournament: "Foul play - high tackles, grabbing and twisting of the head and tip tackles to be emphasised, with referees to start at red and work backwards." That to me says not a mandatory Red Card. It allows some discretion. There was no intent and the player landed on his back. Of course he stayed down. After all he is French. I say Yellow and the ref should have thought of the big picture, not the headline. Too many times, forums like this are discussing referee decisions instead of the game. Yes it was stupid, luckily not dangerous, and we never saw a fair contest.

In my view the tackle was reckless, but not intentional and warranted a yellow card. Throughout the past year there have been numerous instances of similar tackles, with the decision being to impose a yellow. The decision seemed to rob both sides of initiative, the Welsh lost their way and the French seemed content to sit back and use the advantage. Rolland is a panicky referee and acted far too hastily. He should have thought about it, consulted the touchie, then made his decision

Bad decision end of. It was a yellow card at worst. Not malicious took place in half a second. See tackles like this whistled all the time, never a red card.

Releasing a person in mid air who shoulders hit the ground first can cause more damage and this it was warranted a red card no ifs right call France played ugly so what its 80min game with 15 men game and when the defender commits a stupid tackle like that by not lifting the person to the legal height to complete his tackle and that was one on one you let your team down and your country by being red carded they were all warned you do the crime you get the time

sheek amen. also i don't remember too many welsh feeling sorry for the kiwis when Wayne Barnes knocked them out of the 2007 world cup.