Red Cards
-
@chimoaus Asafo Aumua is a good example of a player who got yellow and was then cited (and that citing was upheld and resulted in a suspension).
-
@chimoaus Asafo Aumua is a good example of a player who got yellow and was then cited (and that citing was upheld and resulted in a suspension).
@Stargazer said in Red Cards:
@chimoaus Asafo Aumua is a good example of a player who got yellow and was then cited (and that citing was upheld and resulted in a suspension).
That might be the one where they missed the foul play altogether? But that is a good example where the player is dealt with after the game.
-
@Stargazer What match did Aumua get his yellow card in?
@Stargazer What match did Aumua get his yellow card in?
I was wrong and @chimoaus is right. Aumua got away with it altogether and didn't get a card at all during the game (against the Highlanders), but he got cited for smashing his shoulder in Gareth Evans' face (immediately resulting in a black eye).
-
@Stargazer What match did Aumua get his yellow card in?
I was wrong and @chimoaus is right. Aumua got away with it altogether and didn't get a card at all during the game (against the Highlanders), but he got cited for smashing his shoulder in Gareth Evans' face (immediately resulting in a black eye).
@Stargazer said in Red Cards:
@Stargazer What match did Aumua get his yellow card in?
I was wrong and @chimoaus is right. Aumua got away with it altogether and didn't get a card at all during the game (against the Highlanders), but he got cited for smashing his shoulder in Gareth Evans' face (immediately resulting in a black eye).
and the officials looked at it!
-
@Stargazer I am interested in how many Red cards get overturned or downgraded. Do they ever upgrade from yellow to red?
If the 4 refs on the day only get it right say 60% of the time then 40% of the time a team is disadvantaged unfairly by being a man down for potentially 10 extra minutes and then losing that player.
Should professional teams and athletes have to put up with the incorrect decision being made even 10% of the time if you know what I mean.
I would also be interested if cards have any impact on the outcome of a game. I guess the timing of the card is important here, early reds might have more impact than late for example.
I would also be interested if cards have any impact on the outcome of a game. I guess the timing of the card is important here, early reds might have more impact than late for example.
One benefit of the Paddy Ryan card - it happened with under 10 minutes to go so the colour of the card didn't have a impact on that game (yellow vs red)
-
@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.
