Red Cards
-
@Derpus morons.
The law trial has been running for the past two years in the southern hemisphere and is popular; seen as a way to not ruin a game’s spectacle and, in tandem with a strong judiciary, ample punishment. But in the northern hemisphere, the 20-minute red card has been slammed as dangerous and, given red-carded teams are actually winning more than 60 per cent of Super Rugby games, not enough of a punishment to drive behavioural and coaching change.
Maybe they need to recognise it goes further than players and coaches...consistency of applying the framework, both by ref and judiciary.
-
I'd be interested to see the stats from the NH. Is it true that there is a bigger disincentive and high collisions have been 'fixed', or is there more use of YCs through more lenient interpretation of mitigations?
Most of our RCs have been for collisions where tacklers have been trying to lessen risk but it is still happening (especially from tall locks). The NH concept that the SH aren't taking things seriously enough is bullshit. Coaches don't want 20 minutes with a player short in a comp of closely fought games.
Refs however seem to be using the 'lesser punishment' as a reason for hard line assessment of mitigating factors. -
@Derpus I just think they hate rugby and the game's supporters.
-
@Derpus so a RC is given, that affects the outcome of a game, the difference between missing or hosting a final for a team, the RC is then overturned by the judiciary...that is a huge financial loss to the team.
Do the team on the side of the 'wrong' RC have grounds to litigate too?
The current model is broken, without a doubt, but simply burying thier heads in the sand and leaving things as they are is pathetic.
-
Putting aside arguments of 'ruining the game' for a moment as there is plenty of ammo to fire back about good games that were 14 on 15 (in fact sometimes it improves the game).
The valid aim of this is to reduce incidence of head contact. I can see no evidence that either the 80 or 20 minute RC version is better than than other in achieving this.
There is a changed focus both NH and SH on technique to try and reduce incidents but the fact remains that head contact can and will still happen. It doesn't take much for a planned tackle impact point to move when the ball carrier is trying to evade.
I am firmly in the camp of full RCs for obvious recklessness, clumsiness, laziness or dirty play BUT these debatable situations that hinge on mitigating factors are best analysed off field. Either a 20 minute 'Orange' card and a judicial review or the 20 minute period is spent reviewing the incident by an off-field ref with a decision on whether the player can return or not.
It is these borderline 'accidents' that are the problem. -
Putting aside arguments of 'ruining the game' for a moment as there is plenty of ammo to fire back about good games that were 14 on 15 (in fact sometimes it improves the game).
The valid aim of this is to reduce incidence of head contact. I can see no evidence that either the 80 or 20 minute RC version is better than than other in achieving this.
There is a changed focus both NH and SH on technique to try and reduce incidents but the fact remains that head contact can and will still happen. It doesn't take much for a planned tackle impact point to move when the ball carrier is trying to evade.
I am firmly in the camp of full RCs for obvious recklessness, clumsiness, laziness or dirty play BUT these debatable situations that hinge on mitigating factors are best analysed off field. Either a 20 minute 'Orange' card and a judicial review or the 20 minute period is spent reviewing the incident by an off-field ref with a decision on whether the player can return or not.
It is these borderline 'accidents' that are the problem. -
Putting aside arguments of 'ruining the game' for a moment as there is plenty of ammo to fire back about good games that were 14 on 15 (in fact sometimes it improves the game).
The valid aim of this is to reduce incidence of head contact. I can see no evidence that either the 80 or 20 minute RC version is better than than other in achieving this.
There is a changed focus both NH and SH on technique to try and reduce incidents but the fact remains that head contact can and will still happen. It doesn't take much for a planned tackle impact point to move when the ball carrier is trying to evade.
I am firmly in the camp of full RCs for obvious recklessness, clumsiness, laziness or dirty play BUT these debatable situations that hinge on mitigating factors are best analysed off field. Either a 20 minute 'Orange' card and a judicial review or the 20 minute period is spent reviewing the incident by an off-field ref with a decision on whether the player can return or not.
It is these borderline 'accidents' that are the problem.obvious recklessness, clumsiness, laziness
that's where we part ways....you are then leaving it on the ref/TMO to decide that.
The nasty filth, yep, ref can clearly call on those, and I would expect 100 times out of 100 the judiciary would not overturn a punch/kick/knee.
I think the accidental ones, will still fall into the clumsy/lazy bracket, reckless is slightly different IMO and is largely based around the persons intentions and disregard for thier actions and then we are expecting a ref to rule on thier intention when attempting the action.
-
I totally get the point that a 20 minute red would be out of place for eg head kicking and it is ludicrous to think otherwise.
-
I've seen discussions on NH forums and social media, both in French and English, where people argue against the 20-minute red card, because they think coaches will use it to field an "expendable" player to take out an important opposition player (read: injure him, so he has to leave the field), who then gets red-carded and can be replaced by a better player after 20 minutes.
I've seen that attitude in discussions about cards, foul play etc in the NH before. Not sure whether it's just conspiracy theories, or whether there's some truth to it that NH coaches would resort to that kind of tactics, but if that's a common thought among those in power positions as well, then that explains some of the resistance to 20-minute red cards.
By the way, if it could be proven that a coach and player do that, it's intentional foul play and the "expendable" player will not only face a much longer suspension (high-end entry point instead of mid-range), but coaches will face fines and bans, too (possibly life-bans)! Not to mention that if they resorted to kicking or punching type of offences, the entry-points for suspensions are much higher to begin with.
-
obvious recklessness, clumsiness, laziness
that's where we part ways....you are then leaving it on the ref/TMO to decide that.
The nasty filth, yep, ref can clearly call on those, and I would expect 100 times out of 100 the judiciary would not overturn a punch/kick/knee.
I think the accidental ones, will still fall into the clumsy/lazy bracket, reckless is slightly different IMO and is largely based around the persons intentions and disregard for thier actions and then we are expecting a ref to rule on thier intention when attempting the action.
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
obvious recklessness, clumsiness, laziness
that's where we part ways....you are then leaving it on the ref/TMO to decide that.
The nasty filth, yep, ref can clearly call on those, and I would expect 100 times out of 100 the judiciary would not overturn a punch/kick/knee.
I think the accidental ones, will still fall into the clumsy/lazy bracket, reckless is slightly different IMO and is largely based around the persons intentions and disregard for thier actions and then we are expecting a ref to rule on thier intention when attempting the action.
All I mean is to raise the threshold a little to clearly obvious. At the moment refs have to decide what is a 'significant change in height' or 'late' and seem to vary wildly.
-
I've seen discussions on NH forums and social media, both in French and English, where people argue against the 20-minute red card, because they think coaches will use it to field an "expendable" player to take out an important opposition player (read: injure him, so he has to leave the field), who then gets red-carded and can be replaced by a better player after 20 minutes.
I've seen that attitude in discussions about cards, foul play etc in the NH before. Not sure whether it's just conspiracy theories, or whether there's some truth to it that NH coaches would resort to that kind of tactics, but if that's a common thought among those in power positions as well, then that explains some of the resistance to 20-minute red cards.
By the way, if it could be proven that a coach and player do that, it's intentional foul play and the "expendable" player will not only face a much longer suspension (high-end entry point instead of mid-range), but coaches will face fines and bans, too (possibly life-bans)! Not to mention that if they resorted to kicking or punching type of offences, the entry-points for suspensions are much higher to begin with.
@Stargazer guess they look back to the 'bloodgate' debacle, which was in the NH...
I honestly cant see any coach/player going out to deliberately do something damn the consequences, but I do think there needs to be a financial repercussion on Cards, to the player and team/coach (the player fine would need to be relative to earnings, so probably wouldnt be able to be disclosed given an NPC only player might earn $20k, his fine would need to be different to Scott Barrets fines for same offence)
-
I've seen discussions on NH forums and social media, both in French and English, where people argue against the 20-minute red card, because they think coaches will use it to field an "expendable" player to take out an important opposition player (read: injure him, so he has to leave the field), who then gets red-carded and can be replaced by a better player after 20 minutes.
I've seen that attitude in discussions about cards, foul play etc in the NH before. Not sure whether it's just conspiracy theories, or whether there's some truth to it that NH coaches would resort to that kind of tactics, but if that's a common thought among those in power positions as well, then that explains some of the resistance to 20-minute red cards.
By the way, if it could be proven that a coach and player do that, it's intentional foul play and the "expendable" player will not only face a much longer suspension (high-end entry point instead of mid-range), but coaches will face fines and bans, too (possibly life-bans)! Not to mention that if they resorted to kicking or punching type of offences, the entry-points for suspensions are much higher to begin with.
@Stargazer said in Red Cards:
I've seen discussions on NH forums and social media, both in French and English, where people argue against the 20-minute red card, because they think coaches will use it to field an "expendable" player to take out an important opposition player (read: injure him, so he has to leave the field), who then gets red-carded and can be replaced by a better player after 20 minutes.
I've seen that attitude in discussions about cards, foul play etc in the NH before. Not sure whether it's just conspiracy theories, or whether there's some truth to it that NH coaches would resort to that kind of tactics, but if that's a common thought among those in power positions as well, then that explains some of the resistance to 20-minute red cards.
By the way, if it could be proven that a coach and player do that, it's intentional foul play and the "expendable" player will not only face a much longer suspension (high-end entry point instead of mid-range), but coaches will face fines and bans, too (possibly life-bans)! Not to mention that if they resorted to kicking or punching type of offences, the entry-points for suspensions are much higher to begin with.
I'm convinced most of the people on social media rugby forums have never played a game in their lives.
-
@Stargazer guess they look back to the 'bloodgate' debacle, which was in the NH...
I honestly cant see any coach/player going out to deliberately do something damn the consequences, but I do think there needs to be a financial repercussion on Cards, to the player and team/coach (the player fine would need to be relative to earnings, so probably wouldnt be able to be disclosed given an NPC only player might earn $20k, his fine would need to be different to Scott Barrets fines for same offence)
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@Stargazer guess they look back to the 'bloodgate' debacle, which was in the NH...
I honestly cant see any coach/player going out to deliberately do something damn the consequences, but I do think there needs to be a financial repercussion on Cards, to the player and team/coach (the player fine would need to be relative to earnings, so probably wouldnt be able to be disclosed given an NPC only player might earn $20k, his fine would need to be different to Scott Barrets fines for same offence)
The example they might remember is the Boks trying to take out Wilkinson.
-
An age group club team I co-coached in the ACT had their star player kicked in the leg (probably aiming for the knee) 5 minutes into the final by an opposition player that was sent off. The comp rule for that age group was that RCs could be replaced immediately and guess who the sub was? Only their captain who had previously started every game.
-
An age group club team I co-coached in the ACT had their star player kicked in the leg (probably aiming for the knee) 5 minutes into the final by an opposition player that was sent off. The comp rule for that age group was that RCs could be replaced immediately and guess who the sub was? Only their captain who had previously started every game.
@Crucial see at club level and below, I think red cards stay unchanged, because there are thugs that play and would really give no shits if they are banned, and not coming back on is probably the biggest deterrent you have.
I'm only looking at provincial above, where these people are being paid, and most would have aspirations of super rugby or higher, meaning something like that will impact thier career.
-
@Derpus so a RC is given, that affects the outcome of a game, the difference between missing or hosting a final for a team, the RC is then overturned by the judiciary...that is a huge financial loss to the team.
Do the team on the side of the 'wrong' RC have grounds to litigate too?
The current model is broken, without a doubt, but simply burying thier heads in the sand and leaving things as they are is pathetic.
@taniwharugby litigate on what grounds? The system necessarily allows for refereeing error.
To litigate in the sense you are talking about there would probably have to be some action that resulted in financial loss and that breached WR regulations.
The litigation im talking about is a class action for brain damage/CTE from former players. To combat a claim in negligence in, for example, the UK or Aus WR need to be able to demonstrate they took steps to mitigate a risk they should have been aware of. They know about CTE.
-
@taniwharugby litigate on what grounds? The system necessarily allows for refereeing error.
To litigate in the sense you are talking about there would probably have to be some action that resulted in financial loss and that breached WR regulations.
The litigation im talking about is a class action for brain damage/CTE from former players. To combat a claim in negligence in, for example, the UK or Aus WR need to be able to demonstrate they took steps to mitigate a risk they should have been aware of. They know about CTE.
@Derpus in the real world there is insurance for an error causing others a financial loss...and if there is insurance, often there is an avenue for recovery of those costs from the at fault party.
An extreme example I am sure, but a possible one...low risk is not no risk.
