Red Cards
-
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 I get your point re the team YC. But I disagree.
The player who cops the "Team" YC has been specifically told to not cynically offend, then makes the deliberate choice to cynically offend.
It's as much about the individual as about the team.
Also, your comment about the reative merits of QT's YC versus (versing) Matera's I think shows a little of your Cantab sympathies. To my mind QT's was only barely yellow, and should have been penalty only, whilst Matera was lucky to only get yellow.
-
@Crazy-Horse I get your point re the team YC. But I disagree.
The player who cops the "Team" YC has been specifically told to not cynically offend, then makes the deliberate choice to cynically offend.
It's as much about the individual as about the team.
Also, your comment about the reative merits of QT's YC versus (versing) Matera's I think shows a little of your Cantab sympathies. To my mind QT's was only barely yellow, and should have been penalty only, whilst Matera was lucky to only get yellow.
-
@booboo Yeah, Berry saying Matera's high shot was passive, implying it was a lesser infringement than Tupaea's, was complete BS. The video footage showed the exact opposite.
@booboo Yeah, Berry saying Matera's high shot was passive, implying it was a lesser infringement than Tupaea's, was complete BS. The video footage showed the exact opposite.
Tribe last night said Choat's tackle was passive - using the same wording. I don't think it should have been Red, but the framework seems to throw reds at head contact, no matter what. The frameowrk also doesn't mention 'passive' I don't think, just about 'force'. Have the refs come up with a sudden new interpretation?
It's a damn lottery.
-
@booboo Yeah, Berry saying Matera's high shot was passive, implying it was a lesser infringement than Tupaea's, was complete BS. The video footage showed the exact opposite.
Tribe last night said Choat's tackle was passive - using the same wording. I don't think it should have been Red, but the framework seems to throw reds at head contact, no matter what. The frameowrk also doesn't mention 'passive' I don't think, just about 'force'. Have the refs come up with a sudden new interpretation?
It's a damn lottery.
@booboo Yeah, Berry saying Matera's high shot was passive, implying it was a lesser infringement than Tupaea's, was complete BS. The video footage showed the exact opposite.
Tribe last night said Choat's tackle was passive - using the same wording. I don't think it should have been Red, but the framework seems to throw reds at head contact, no matter what. The frameowrk also doesn't mention 'passive' I don't think, just about 'force'. Have the refs come up with a sudden new interpretation?
It's a damn lottery.
Passive is the opposite of 'with force' , not a new interpretation, just wording
What does a high degree of danger look like? World Rugby cite the following as signs of a high degree of danger:
âThe tackler draws the arm back prior to contact;
The tackler may leave the ground;
Arm swings forward prior to contact;
The tackler is attempting an active/dominant tackle, as opposed to passive/soak, or âpulling outâ of contact;
The tackler speed and/or acceleration into tackle is high;
Rigid arm or elbow makes contact with BC head as part of a swinging motion Contact;
The tackler completes the tackle (as opposed to immediate release/withdrawal)â
Edit, that's the old one, new one
Low danger
Indirect contact
Low force
Low speed
Passive
No leading head / shoulder / forearmhttps://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17/?highlight=head contact process
-
@Crazy-Horse I get your point re the team YC. But I disagree.
The player who cops the "Team" YC has been specifically told to not cynically offend, then makes the deliberate choice to cynically offend.
It's as much about the individual as about the team.
Also, your comment about the reative merits of QT's YC versus (versing) Matera's I think shows a little of your Cantab sympathies. To my mind QT's was only barely yellow, and should have been penalty only, whilst Matera was lucky to only get yellow.
@booboo given the fickle nature of some penalties, they aren't always cynical.
Sometimes it's over eagerness stepping out of the line making you off side, sometimes going into a ruck someone drives you causing you to go off your feet, sometimes a split second hand on the ground while attacking the ball...not all pens are cynical just like accidental head knocks are not foul play.
-
@booboo given the fickle nature of some penalties, they aren't always cynical.
Sometimes it's over eagerness stepping out of the line making you off side, sometimes going into a ruck someone drives you causing you to go off your feet, sometimes a split second hand on the ground while attacking the ball...not all pens are cynical just like accidental head knocks are not foul play.
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@booboo given the fickle nature of some penalties, they aren't always cynical.
Sometimes it's over eagerness stepping out of the line making you off side, sometimes going into a ruck someone drives you causing you to go off your feet, sometimes a split second hand on the ground while attacking the ball...not all pens are cynical just like accidental head knocks are not foul play.
Most penalties aren't cynical. If only cynical penalties resulted in yellow cards, you would never get yellows from scrums. Yellow cards from multiple penalties annoy me. Giving away multiple penalties is already a huge disadvantage for the penalised side. The other team should be able to take advantage of that.
There are just too many of them IMO, and it is never consistent when they are given.
-
At least the card a thon that is modern rugby is having the desired impact
-
At least the card a thon that is modern rugby is having the desired impact
@Machpants said in Red Cards:
At least the card a thon that is modern rugby is having the desired impact
this just proves there are not enough cards
more cards is the only answer.
-
Uncomfortable question, but is it possible to completely avoid concussion in a contact sport? Or even reduce it much further?
Uncomfortable question, but is it possible to completely avoid concussion in a contact sport? Or even reduce it much further?
no.
the best way to protect players is bigger stand downs and super strict return to play (and just as importantly train) protocols.
-
@mariner4life I think the education/coaching aspect is much smaller than World Rugby like to believe plays a factor.
Defenders can aim lower, but as we have seen, the ball carriers are going into contact lower...only way forward is for the tackler to lie on the ground and hope when he trips over him, he doesnt bump his head!
-
@mariner4life I think the education/coaching aspect is much smaller than World Rugby like to believe plays a factor.
Defenders can aim lower, but as we have seen, the ball carriers are going into contact lower...only way forward is for the tackler to lie on the ground and hope when he trips over him, he doesnt bump his head!
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@mariner4life I think the education/coaching aspect is much smaller than World Rugby like to believe plays a factor.
Defenders can aim lower, but as we have seen, the ball carriers are going into contact lower...only way forward is for the tackler to lie on the ground and hope when he trips over him, he doesnt bump his head!
And don't a lot of concussions happen from tackling with the player's head in the wrong position? Should they be red carded for being reckless with their own head?
Like what was said above, look after the players better once they are hurt. Otherwise we'll end up with touch rugby.
-
At least the card a thon that is modern rugby is having the desired impact
@Machpants said in Red Cards:
At least the card a thon that is modern rugby is having the desired impact
File under food poisoning.
The more you test & measure, the more you record.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@mariner4life I think the education/coaching aspect is much smaller than World Rugby like to believe plays a factor.
Defenders can aim lower, but as we have seen, the ball carriers are going into contact lower...only way forward is for the tackler to lie on the ground and hope when he trips over him, he doesnt bump his head!
And don't a lot of concussions happen from tackling with the player's head in the wrong position? Should they be red carded for being reckless with their own head?
Like what was said above, look after the players better once they are hurt. Otherwise we'll end up with touch rugby.
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@mariner4life I think the education/coaching aspect is much smaller than World Rugby like to believe plays a factor.
Defenders can aim lower, but as we have seen, the ball carriers are going into contact lower...only way forward is for the tackler to lie on the ground and hope when he trips over him, he doesnt bump his head!
And don't a lot of concussions happen from tackling with the player's head in the wrong position? Should they be red carded for being reckless with their own head?
Like what was said above, look after the players better once they are hurt. Otherwise we'll end up with touch rugby.
Yeah pretty sure I saw a stat somewhere that players knock themselves out more often than a dangerous tackle from the opposition. All these cards may slightly reduce the high tackles but how do you stop accidental head contact to hips, knees, team mates etc.
There does seem to be a trend for attacking players to lower their centre of gravity in an effort to not be held up for a maul or to make post contact metres. This lowering of body height is only making it more likely their head is going to come into contact with something.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@mariner4life I think the education/coaching aspect is much smaller than World Rugby like to believe plays a factor.
Defenders can aim lower, but as we have seen, the ball carriers are going into contact lower...only way forward is for the tackler to lie on the ground and hope when he trips over him, he doesnt bump his head!
And don't a lot of concussions happen from tackling with the player's head in the wrong position? Should they be red carded for being reckless with their own head?
Like what was said above, look after the players better once they are hurt. Otherwise we'll end up with touch rugby.
Yeah pretty sure I saw a stat somewhere that players knock themselves out more often than a dangerous tackle from the opposition. All these cards may slightly reduce the high tackles but how do you stop accidental head contact to hips, knees, team mates etc.
There does seem to be a trend for attacking players to lower their centre of gravity in an effort to not be held up for a maul or to make post contact metres. This lowering of body height is only making it more likely their head is going to come into contact with something.
-
-
There does seem to be a trend for attacking players to lower their centre of gravity
I don't think that's anything new is it?
I guess not, but there seem to be a lot of props etc that literally lead with their heads a few feet off the ground now. Very hard for the tackler at times. BOK handled this in the final well, another ref might have found it different.
-
There does seem to be a trend for attacking players to lower their centre of gravity
I don't think that's anything new is it?
I guess not, but there seem to be a lot of props etc that literally lead with their heads a few feet off the ground now. Very hard for the tackler at times. BOK handled this in the final well, another ref might have found it different.
There does seem to be a trend for attacking players to lower their centre of gravity
I don't think that's anything new is it?
I guess not, but there seem to be a lot of props etc that literally lead with their heads a few feet off the ground now. Very hard for the tackler at times. BOK handled this in the final well, another ref might have found it different.
That very approach is required to make sure modern rugby doesn't become a indefensible joke. An organisation that cared about head injuries in a collision sport would mandate reduced contact training and longer stand downs for concussions. Not checking frame by frame if someone touched a head.
-
World Rugby is exploring an innovative law change that would see yellow cards upgraded to reds by television officials at this yearâs World Cup, Telegraph Sport understands.
The move would alter the handling of controversial dismissals such as Freddie Stewardâs for England against Ireland last weekend. The governing body will come to a decision over the next two months after exploring logistical hurdles and consulting with stakeholders, including players and coaches.
There is still a way to go for the off-field upgrades to be in place at the World Cup because the system would need a wider trial, slated for the Under-20 World Championship this summer. Matches would also need an extra TMO, meaning more officials would need to be appointed and trained prior to the flagship tournament, which begins on September 8.
Telegraph Sport understands there is a growing reluctance from referees to give red cards for âgrey areaâ incidents at the World Cup in the wake of Stewardâs sending off. The new law could help reduce these instances for the on-field officials.Initially brought in to shorten stoppages while the on-field officials confer with their TMO, this off-field upgrade system could also ensure that red cards are not branded hastily and that teams have a better chance of keeping all 15 players on the field.
Should the World Cup adopt this law, which is being trialled in the Super Rugby Pacific competition, there will be one major change. In the Super Rugby Pacific competition, yellows have been upgraded to a 20-minute red card with the offending player replaced by a team-mate if the TMO deems the offence to be serious enough. At the World Cup, however, there would only be yellow cards or traditional, permanent red cards.
World Rugby have been enthused by initial reaction to the Super Rugby Pacific trial and would be happy to roll it out further at relatively short notice because it would not need players or coaches to make any material alterations to their World Cup preparation.
One criticism of the Super Rugby trial has been that any upgrade has not always been obvious to spectators at the ground. World Rugby will be eager to address this concern at their showpiece event.There is a growing sense that officials, as well as decision-makers at World Rugby, do not want World Cup matches to hinge on similarly divisive red cards.
âThere is a feeling going into the World Cup that we clearly donât want games decided on incidents like that when there is so much grey around it,â said the source.World Rugby is aiming to aid officials with a background âcalibration processâ that sees the ex-players and coaches that developed the head contact process (HCP), such as former New Zealand centre Conrad Smith and Scotland head coach Gregor Townsend, review a series of incidents every three weeks and circulate a document detailing best practice. Chris Quinlan, the head of judiciary at World Rugby, is also involved in this exercise.
However, it is understood that at this weekâs meeting in Heathrow, decision-makers were split over the correct outcome in the Steward incident.The advent of the HCP, which was launched in 2021 as an evolution of the high tackle sanction framework (HTSF) designed to determine on-field sanctions, means referees must be âvery boldâ to adjudge an on-field collision to be deemed as âa rugby incidentâ.
It was stressed that Jaco Peyper followed protocol on Saturday and did not âpluck a card out of thin airâ. Once the HCP is implemented by officials, a sending-off or a sin-binning are the most likely outcomes.
âAs referees we need to be absolutely sure that there is no fault on behalf of the defender and that his actions were completely unavoidable to go down the âno foul playâ route,â suggested the source.
âA lot of us could understand the calls to go with no foul play but Iâm not sure we would have been comfortable doing that because of the emphasis around protecting playersâ heads.âThe source also underlined the pressure that Peyper would have been under at the Aviva Stadium, something also highlighted by the disciplinary hearing that retrospectively rescinded Stewardâs sanction from a red to a yellow card.
Peyper used the phrase âin the current climateâ upon explaining his decision, and it was outlined that âwe all know that if a player is not in control of what they are doing, they run the risk of being penalisedâ.
âWhat weâll find is that the more incidents we have in the lead-up to the World Cup, the clearer we can be on what is expected of our officiating,â said the source.
âWith hindsight, the judgment ruled that a yellow card was sufficient but we need to acknowledge, in [the Steward] one, that it was a very rare scenario. We certainly donât get a decision that could have three potential outcomes very often.â
The independent disciplinary committee found that Steward had committed an act of foul play, a charge that the player denied, yet downgraded the punishment due to âsufficient mitigating factors including the late change in the dynamics and positioning of the opposing player which should have resulted in the issue of a yellow card rather than a red cardâ.
âRugby is so grey,â said the official. âWe have around 300 tackles a game, so there would have been 4,500 over the course of the Six Nations. Weâre now talking about one of them. There are going to be situations where we are putting a square peg in a round hole but hopefully, the more things crop up, the more guidance we will get. But it really did split the room completely.â
