Red Cards
-
@Derpus they do, but mostly due to their team not being good enough, but if an appointed official makes a critical error that alters the outcome, which is subsequently overturned, that is different.
I am just saying it potentially opens up another can of worms.
-
@taniwharugby such an outcome would present serious issues for the continued viability of professional sport. Insurance premiums would be higher than player salaries. I really doubt it would ever happen.
@Derpus nor do I, but as I said, just pointing it out as a possible risk.
-
Sam Gilbert's reddest red in a season of reds raises a question for me.
How much coaching mitigation into red card situations actually happens?
I know there is a lot of talk about lowering tackle points etc (most of which comes post a RC) but it has been yonks since coaches and players have known the risks of hooking a leg and driving up in a cleanup yet it still happens.
Hooking a leg is a deliberate coached technique to unbalance a player. Is the reward from moving a player at a ruck really worth the risk of it going wrong and getting RC'd?
This one is easily fixed yet hasn't been which means we are probably still going to see slack technique causing reds.
It's not 'right' but it also undermines the argument against a 20 minute red in that years of full reds hasn't changed coaches so why not keep some shape to the game?The big change I would like to see is punishment for foul play that results in a player having to exit the game. Basically if you injure a player through an illegal act (that was deemed illegal for safety reasons) then you must leave the field as well. Whether it is a straight swap out, YC then swap or RC and swap probably depends on severity.
As example I point to the illegal clean on Sam Cane (side entry and lower limb targeting ). If that had actually been picked up by the officials should the offending player get to continue to play? -
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Red Cards:
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
North are just scared of litigation. Everything is always about money.
Bit tin foil hat this.
Really? I would have thought fear of litigation was a major player.
In the WR talk and press releases about these measures there is a lot of strongly worded reference to player wellbeing that looks/sounds very lawyer-ish and a clear record of "look at what we are doing/can't blame us". All fair enough.
-
Sam Gilbert's reddest red in a season of reds raises a question for me.
How much coaching mitigation into red card situations actually happens?
I know there is a lot of talk about lowering tackle points etc (most of which comes post a RC) but it has been yonks since coaches and players have known the risks of hooking a leg and driving up in a cleanup yet it still happens.
Hooking a leg is a deliberate coached technique to unbalance a player. Is the reward from moving a player at a ruck really worth the risk of it going wrong and getting RC'd?
This one is easily fixed yet hasn't been which means we are probably still going to see slack technique causing reds.
It's not 'right' but it also undermines the argument against a 20 minute red in that years of full reds hasn't changed coaches so why not keep some shape to the game?The big change I would like to see is punishment for foul play that results in a player having to exit the game. Basically if you injure a player through an illegal act (that was deemed illegal for safety reasons) then you must leave the field as well. Whether it is a straight swap out, YC then swap or RC and swap probably depends on severity.
As example I point to the illegal clean on Sam Cane (side entry and lower limb targeting ). If that had actually been picked up by the officials should the offending player get to continue to play?Sam Gilbert's reddest red in a season of reds raises a question for me.
How much coaching mitigation into red card situations actually happens?
I know there is a lot of talk about lowering tackle points etc (most of which comes post a RC) but it has been yonks since coaches and players have known the risks of hooking a leg and driving up in a cleanup yet it still happens.
Hooking a leg is a deliberate coached technique to unbalance a player. Is the reward from moving a player at a ruck really worth the risk of it going wrong and getting RC'd?
This one is easily fixed yet hasn't been which means we are probably still going to see slack technique causing reds.
It's not 'right' but it also undermines the argument against a 20 minute red in that years of full reds hasn't changed coaches so why not keep some shape to the game?The big change I would like to see is punishment for foul play that results in a player having to exit the game. Basically if you injure a player through an illegal act (that was deemed illegal for safety reasons) then you must leave the field as well. Whether it is a straight swap out, YC then swap or RC and swap probably depends on severity.
As example I point to the illegal clean on Sam Cane (side entry and lower limb targeting ). If that had actually been picked up by the officials should the offending player get to continue to play?do we really think that particular example is a case of a coached technique or more likely a player trying to clear someone out...failing because the player (hooper) hes trying to clearout is stronger...hell, just a better player....then getting frustrated and doing someone monumentally stupid
I do agree that would have been a clear cut example of an old school red, dont come back deal
for me it highlights where we've got too by bundling complete accidents in with deliberate foul play. that deliberate act gets treated almost identically to two players both watching the ball in the air colliding...the ref just makes a subjective decision on which one was more likely to catch it first
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Red Cards:
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
North are just scared of litigation. Everything is always about money.
Bit tin foil hat this.
Really? I would have thought fear of litigation was a major player.
In the WR talk and press releases about these measures there is a lot of strongly worded reference to player wellbeing that looks/sounds very lawyer-ish and a clear record of "look at what we are doing/can't blame us". All fair enough.
@Crazy-Horse said in Red Cards:
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
North are just scared of litigation. Everything is always about money.
Bit tin foil hat this.
Really? I would have thought fear of litigation was a major player.
In the WR talk and press releases about these measures there is a lot of strongly worded reference to player wellbeing that looks/sounds very lawyer-ish and a clear record of "look at what we are doing/can't blame us". All fair enough.
You can't get rugby induced head trauma if you don't play.
Most of these initiatives are aimed squarely at Mammas who've moved on from cowboys
-
Unfortunately the issue of cards reared it's ugly head again last night. One thing I wondered about at the time, and it was brought up by the half time panel on Stan, is do we need to reconsider the rule that two yellows equals a red when one of the yellows was a team yellow?
As far as I see it, the spirit of that rule is to further punish a player for foul play who hasn't reigned himself in after the first yellow. Which I think is fair enough.
Do you think the punishment dished out to Matera, the Crusaders and the people watching the game was fair given the circumstances? At worst, Matera was guilty of offside(?), a penalty offence if his team wasn't on a warning, and a shoulder to the head that didn't look as though it was done with intent (like QT's card). Not disputing the legitimacy of either of Matera's yellows, I am questioning whether the red card last night fitted the crime.
I am hoping that responses aren't influenced by the team affected. I am are long time hater of cards and I reckon I would be feeling the same way if the Chiefs were the team on the receiving end.
-
Unfortunately the issue of cards reared it's ugly head again last night. One thing I wondered about at the time, and it was brought up by the half time panel on Stan, is do we need to reconsider the rule that two yellows equals a red when one of the yellows was a team yellow?
As far as I see it, the spirit of that rule is to further punish a player for foul play who hasn't reigned himself in after the first yellow. Which I think is fair enough.
Do you think the punishment dished out to Matera, the Crusaders and the people watching the game was fair given the circumstances? At worst, Matera was guilty of offside(?), a penalty offence if his team wasn't on a warning, and a shoulder to the head that didn't look as though it was done with intent (like QT's card). Not disputing the legitimacy of either of Matera's yellows, I am questioning whether the red card last night fitted the crime.
I am hoping that responses aren't influenced by the team affected. I am are long time hater of cards and I reckon I would be feeling the same way if the Chiefs were the team on the receiving end.
The ‘team’ yellow point is valid
Matera isn’t a great example though because the second offence probably should’ve been a red anyway
-
The ‘team’ yellow point is valid
Matera isn’t a great example though because the second offence probably should’ve been a red anyway
The ‘team’ yellow point is valid
Matera isn’t a great example though because the second offence probably should’ve been a red anyway
And he shouldn't have even been on the field the last couple of weeks after what can only be described as a shocking miscarraige of justice prior.
-
Unfortunately the issue of cards reared it's ugly head again last night. One thing I wondered about at the time, and it was brought up by the half time panel on Stan, is do we need to reconsider the rule that two yellows equals a red when one of the yellows was a team yellow?
As far as I see it, the spirit of that rule is to further punish a player for foul play who hasn't reigned himself in after the first yellow. Which I think is fair enough.
Do you think the punishment dished out to Matera, the Crusaders and the people watching the game was fair given the circumstances? At worst, Matera was guilty of offside(?), a penalty offence if his team wasn't on a warning, and a shoulder to the head that didn't look as though it was done with intent (like QT's card). Not disputing the legitimacy of either of Matera's yellows, I am questioning whether the red card last night fitted the crime.
I am hoping that responses aren't influenced by the team affected. I am are long time hater of cards and I reckon I would be feeling the same way if the Chiefs were the team on the receiving end.
@Crazy-Horse Good point. It would have made a difference during the game, but not after. Matera got a yellow in the round 15 game against the Reds, so now he has 3 yellows against his name. That means he would have made the trip to the judiciary anyway. So I agree with Duluth that Matera isn't a good example, but for different reasons.
During the game, I wished there were more camera angles, because I'm not so sure there was direct contact to the head (concluding that from the absence of a sudden neck/head movement from the tackled player). The camera angles the judiciary gets to see, can be used either to scratch the yellow, upgrade it to a red, or confirm the yellow). Only in the first option, he won't get to three yellows. In the last case, he may get off without a suspension. In case of an upgrade to red, he'll definitely not play the final.
Generally speaking, I've always thought that a red card for two marginal yellows (such as a team yellow for repeated infringing) is a bit harsh. Maybe it would be an option to send the player off, but have him replaced after the 10 minutes from the second yellow instead of after 20 minutes from the red card?
-
@Crazy-Horse Good point. It would have made a difference during the game, but not after. Matera got a yellow in the round 15 game against the Reds, so now he has 3 yellows against his name. That means he would have made the trip to the judiciary anyway. So I agree with Duluth that Matera isn't a good example, but for different reasons.
During the game, I wished there were more camera angles, because I'm not so sure there was direct contact to the head (concluding that from the absence of a sudden neck/head movement from the tackled player). The camera angles the judiciary gets to see, can be used either to scratch the yellow, upgrade it to a red, or confirm the yellow). Only in the first option, he won't get to three yellows. In the last case, he may get off without a suspension. In case of an upgrade to red, he'll definitely not play the final.
Generally speaking, I've always thought that a red card for two marginal yellows (such as a team yellow for repeated infringing) is a bit harsh. Maybe it would be an option to send the player off, but have him replaced after the 10 minutes from the second yellow instead of after 20 minutes from the red card?
@Stargazer said in Red Cards:
Maybe it would be an option to send the player off, but have him replaced after the 10 minutes from the second yellow instead of after 20 minutes from the red card?
Won't matter as of next year - WR already flagged the law changes they're keeping (50:22 and goal line drop out) and 20 minute red card is not part of it.
-
@Stargazer said in Red Cards:
Maybe it would be an option to send the player off, but have him replaced after the 10 minutes from the second yellow instead of after 20 minutes from the red card?
Won't matter as of next year - WR already flagged the law changes they're keeping (50:22 and goal line drop out) and 20 minute red card is not part of it.
-
@NTA Yes, that's right, but sometimes they allow regional variations (SANZAAR would have to ask for permission), so fingers crossed that we can keep the 20 min red card that way.
-
@Stargazer will it help us?
Without looking for stats,I get the feeling we are well ahead in the red card count versus NH and that could hurt come Test time.
-
@Stargazer said in Red Cards:
Maybe it would be an option to send the player off, but have him replaced after the 10 minutes from the second yellow instead of after 20 minutes from the red card?
Won't matter as of next year - WR already flagged the law changes they're keeping (50:22 and goal line drop out) and 20 minute red card is not part of it.
@Stargazer said in Red Cards:
Maybe it would be an option to send the player off, but have him replaced after the 10 minutes from the second yellow instead of after 20 minutes from the red card?
Won't matter as of next year - WR already flagged the law changes they're keeping (50:22 and goal line drop out) and 20 minute red card is not part of it.
Keep the retard league ones and get rid of the one that's better for the game - sounds about right for the NH fisheads.
-
The ‘team’ yellow point is valid
Matera isn’t a great example though because the second offence probably should’ve been a red anyway
The ‘team’ yellow point is valid
Matera isn’t a great example though because the second offence probably should’ve been a red anyway
Fucked if I know anymore.
Cheika also went on about bending at the hips being a mitigation , but not bending at the knees. He suggested it is not always possible to bend at the hips because the distance between the tackler and his target can be too close to allow hip bending.
Either way the boffins have created a mess.
-
The ‘team’ yellow point is valid
Matera isn’t a great example though because the second offence probably should’ve been a red anyway
Fucked if I know anymore.
Cheika also went on about bending at the hips being a mitigation , but not bending at the knees. He suggested it is not always possible to bend at the hips because the distance between the tackler and his target can be too close to allow hip bending.
Either way the boffins have created a mess.
@Crazy-Horse said in Red Cards:
The ‘team’ yellow point is valid
Matera isn’t a great example though because the second offence probably should’ve been a red anyway
Fucked if I know anymore.
Cheika also went on about bending at the hips being a mitigation , but not bending at the knees. He suggested it is not always possible to bend at the hips because the distance between the tackler and his target can be too close to allow hip bending.
Either way the boffins have created a mess.
Too funny! Just like when Cheika was going around for Randwick, he's made that up on the run! He'd have no persuasive basis for it other than a loud whiny voice.
He was good on the paddock. His master at No 8, John Maxwell, was hard and intimidating. Chieka was hard and plain unscrupulous.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Red Cards:
The ‘team’ yellow point is valid
Matera isn’t a great example though because the second offence probably should’ve been a red anyway
Fucked if I know anymore.
Cheika also went on about bending at the hips being a mitigation , but not bending at the knees. He suggested it is not always possible to bend at the hips because the distance between the tackler and his target can be too close to allow hip bending.
Either way the boffins have created a mess.
Too funny! Just like when Cheika was going around for Randwick, he's made that up on the run! He'd have no persuasive basis for it other than a loud whiny voice.
He was good on the paddock. His master at No 8, John Maxwell, was hard and intimidating. Chieka was hard and plain unscrupulous.
@Mick-Gold-Coast-QLD said in Red Cards:
@Crazy-Horse said in Red Cards:
The ‘team’ yellow point is valid
Matera isn’t a great example though because the second offence probably should’ve been a red anyway
Fucked if I know anymore.
Cheika also went on about bending at the hips being a mitigation , but not bending at the knees. He suggested it is not always possible to bend at the hips because the distance between the tackler and his target can be too close to allow hip bending.
Either way the boffins have created a mess.
Too funny! Just like when Cheika was going around for Randwick, he's made that up on the run! He'd have no persuasive basis for it other than a loud whiny voice.
He was good on the paddock. His master at No 8, John Maxwell, was hard and intimidating. Chieka was hard and plain unscrupulous.
Maybe, maybe not. He didn't have a horse in the race last night so not sure he would have had a reason to whine apart from seeing a game he loves going down a path he may not like. I like him on that panel. Never liked him as the Wallaby coach though.
