Red Cards
-
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
I think under current laws, the number can't go down.
Can you expand on why? What doesn't make sense to me is why people think players can't tackle lower, or not tuck the arm and lead with the shoulder, or not pretend to only have eyes for the ball and run straight through a jumping player's legs?
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
I think under current laws, the number can't go down.
Can you expand on why? What doesn't make sense to me is why people think players can't tackle lower, or not tuck the arm and lead with the shoulder, or not pretend to only have eyes for the ball and run straight through a jumping player's legs?
I don't think it's so much that they can't, it's more that they won't with the current approach. Why would a team or player voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage compared to everyone else? Would you accept your team losing (or by) more just to prevent any of the players getting red carded? With teams so focused on winning the collisions, it's a hard sell to just concede them all (or a lot of them) to the opposition.
There either needs to be a concerted effort to change by all teams, or it has to be forced onto them. And the first option is unlikely to happen.
-
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
I think under current laws, the number can't go down.
Can you expand on why? What doesn't make sense to me is why people think players can't tackle lower, or not tuck the arm and lead with the shoulder, or not pretend to only have eyes for the ball and run straight through a jumping player's legs?
I don't think it's so much that they can't, it's more that they won't with the current approach. Why would a team or player voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage compared to everyone else? Would you accept your team losing (or by) more just to prevent any of the players getting red carded? With teams so focused on winning the collisions, it's a hard sell to just concede them all (or a lot of them) to the opposition.
There either needs to be a concerted effort to change by all teams, or it has to be forced onto them. And the first option is unlikely to happen.
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
I think under current laws, the number can't go down.
Can you expand on why? What doesn't make sense to me is why people think players can't tackle lower, or not tuck the arm and lead with the shoulder, or not pretend to only have eyes for the ball and run straight through a jumping player's legs?
I don't think it's so much that they can't, it's more that they won't with the current approach. Why would a team or player voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage compared to everyone else? Would you accept your team losing (or by) more just to prevent any of the players getting red carded? With teams so focused on winning the collisions, it's a hard sell to just concede them all (or a lot of them) to the opposition.
There either needs to be a concerted effort to change by all teams, or it has to be forced onto them. And the first option is unlikely to happen.
So you're better off on the sidelines than conceding a couple of metres and/or an offload?
-
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
I think under current laws, the number can't go down.
Can you expand on why? What doesn't make sense to me is why people think players can't tackle lower, or not tuck the arm and lead with the shoulder, or not pretend to only have eyes for the ball and run straight through a jumping player's legs?
Goes back to what I said earlier. Mistakes happen.
You can coach coach coach, but in the heat of the moment, the first instinct may put people at risk. I'm not condoning, or suggesting at all, but reality is that unless the following rule changes are made, these things are always going to happen:
- Tackling around the legs only
- No running clean outs
- Cannot jump to catch a ball
As long as players can do these things, it doesn't matter how much you coach, suspend, red card, these sort of accidents will continue to happen, because for the most part, they are what they are. Accidents.
-
@MajorRage you don't think tackling around the legs only would lead to a gazillion cards?
Depends on how tackles are sanctioned. If it remains yellow/red for neck/head but penalty for chest then no.
Don't think it would be much of a game though.
-
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
I think under current laws, the number can't go down.
Can you expand on why? What doesn't make sense to me is why people think players can't tackle lower, or not tuck the arm and lead with the shoulder, or not pretend to only have eyes for the ball and run straight through a jumping player's legs?
I don't think it's so much that they can't, it's more that they won't with the current approach. Why would a team or player voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage compared to everyone else? Would you accept your team losing (or by) more just to prevent any of the players getting red carded? With teams so focused on winning the collisions, it's a hard sell to just concede them all (or a lot of them) to the opposition.
There either needs to be a concerted effort to change by all teams, or it has to be forced onto them. And the first option is unlikely to happen.
So you're better off on the sidelines than conceding a couple of metres and/or an offload?
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
I think under current laws, the number can't go down.
Can you expand on why? What doesn't make sense to me is why people think players can't tackle lower, or not tuck the arm and lead with the shoulder, or not pretend to only have eyes for the ball and run straight through a jumping player's legs?
I don't think it's so much that they can't, it's more that they won't with the current approach. Why would a team or player voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage compared to everyone else? Would you accept your team losing (or by) more just to prevent any of the players getting red carded? With teams so focused on winning the collisions, it's a hard sell to just concede them all (or a lot of them) to the opposition.
There either needs to be a concerted effort to change by all teams, or it has to be forced onto them. And the first option is unlikely to happen.
So you're better off on the sidelines than conceding a couple of metres and/or an offload?
A couple of metres and/or an offload every third tackle vs getting a red card every 500 tackles. Numbers pulled from my arse, but yeah. In the majority of games you'd be better off taking the risk of a red card.
-
-
Another factor is it's surprising how many attacking players lower their centre of gravity and almost lead with the head.
I'm also curious how many players had intent when receiving their reds or was it purely poor technique and reactionary.
Another factor is it's surprising how many attacking players lower their centre of gravity and almost lead with the head.
I'm also curious how many players had intent when receiving their reds or was it purely poor technique and reactionary.
I noticed someone in the weekend (Gallagher? One of the new locks I think) basically bent at the waist and torpedoed ahead everytime he got the ball - accident waiting to happen and coaches should be identifying shit like that and ironing it out.
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
I think under current laws, the number can't go down.
Can you expand on why? What doesn't make sense to me is why people think players can't tackle lower, or not tuck the arm and lead with the shoulder, or not pretend to only have eyes for the ball and run straight through a jumping player's legs?
I don't think it's so much that they can't, it's more that they won't with the current approach. Why would a team or player voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage compared to everyone else? Would you accept your team losing (or by) more just to prevent any of the players getting red carded? With teams so focused on winning the collisions, it's a hard sell to just concede them all (or a lot of them) to the opposition.
There either needs to be a concerted effort to change by all teams, or it has to be forced onto them. And the first option is unlikely to happen.
So you're better off on the sidelines than conceding a couple of metres and/or an offload?
A couple of metres and/or an offload every third tackle vs getting a red card every 500 tackles. Numbers pulled from my arse, but yeah. In the majority of games you'd be better off taking the risk of a red card.
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
I think under current laws, the number can't go down.
Can you expand on why? What doesn't make sense to me is why people think players can't tackle lower, or not tuck the arm and lead with the shoulder, or not pretend to only have eyes for the ball and run straight through a jumping player's legs?
I don't think it's so much that they can't, it's more that they won't with the current approach. Why would a team or player voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage compared to everyone else? Would you accept your team losing (or by) more just to prevent any of the players getting red carded? With teams so focused on winning the collisions, it's a hard sell to just concede them all (or a lot of them) to the opposition.
There either needs to be a concerted effort to change by all teams, or it has to be forced onto them. And the first option is unlikely to happen.
So you're better off on the sidelines than conceding a couple of metres and/or an offload?
A couple of metres and/or an offload every third tackle vs getting a red card every 500 tackles. Numbers pulled from my arse, but yeah. In the majority of games you'd be better off taking the risk of a red card.
If you have the SH get back to 15 men after 20 mins
Down to 14 and it changes the risk / reward significantly.
-
I remember some stats (which I might be imagining but hey this is the Fern) about the tackler being more likely to get a head knock when tackling around the legs as well; it's pretty easy to put your head in the wrong position when tackling low. I can see why players prefer to go a bit higher, particularly when it can result in a dominant tackle and snuff out offloads etc.
There's so much grey area it's hard to police effectively, especially for refs doing it live.
That said, SBarrets hit was a late shoulder to the jaw of a player standing upright in an exposed position. He should be gone for a long time for that sort of filth. But there are quite a few other examples where the attacking player has gone low into contact and copped a shoulder to the face, that sort of scenario is tough as it's contact to the head with force, but mitigated by it being partly the attacking players fault for ducking at the last second. I'm not really sure how to avoid those, but obviously World Rugby really wants to minimise regular contact with the head due to the long term effects it can have on the players.
-
I know he is not Mr Popular, but Phil Gould made a point on the weekend during the Bulldogs game. There was a nasty head clash between two Bulldogs players as they both went in to do a low tackle. Gould said this is the risk of forcing players to tackle lower, instead of one low and one higher.
Tackling lower can more dangerous for the tackler. As pointed out in a post above knees and hips get in the way and there is the risk of a head clash.
-
@Crazy-Horse I think the new directive for age grade rugby is below the nipple line
-
@Crazy-Horse I think the new directive for age grade rugby is below the nipple line
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@Crazy-Horse I think the new directive for age grade rugby is below the nipple line
Gotta admit I have always gone for the nipples.
-
A simple way could just be if its cynical or dangerous its 10 minutes and replaced. There are 7 reserves so it shouldn't impact the side too much.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/04/20/ethan-de-groot-spoken-to-about-soft-red-card-comments/
I think this point is dead wrong:
But Lendrum said recent criticism of match officials in immediate post-match interviews by players - particularly Ardie Savea and Aaron Smith - had been addressed. "Respect for referees is a critical value for our game. What we want to see is feedback around referees... being made through appropriate channels."Rugby and rugby media is so fucking boring and this is basically saying act even more like a robot. As a fan, I'd much rather see the players saying what they actually think or those sideline/post-game interviews are just bullshit filler. Sport, as entertainment, should thrive on the fans getting involved, but they seem to want it all very behind closed doors, just watch the game and don't care.
Edit: btw, I'm condoning ref abuse, but if you think a call went the wrong way and you just lost because of it, you should be able to say that in your post-game talk.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/04/20/ethan-de-groot-spoken-to-about-soft-red-card-comments/
I think this point is dead wrong:
But Lendrum said recent criticism of match officials in immediate post-match interviews by players - particularly Ardie Savea and Aaron Smith - had been addressed. "Respect for referees is a critical value for our game. What we want to see is feedback around referees... being made through appropriate channels."Rugby and rugby media is so fucking boring and this is basically saying act even more like a robot. As a fan, I'd much rather see the players saying what they actually think or those sideline/post-game interviews are just bullshit filler. Sport, as entertainment, should thrive on the fans getting involved, but they seem to want it all very behind closed doors, just watch the game and don't care.
Edit: btw, I'm condoning ref abuse, but if you think a call went the wrong way and you just lost because of it, you should be able to say that in your post-game talk.
@gt12 yeah is a fine line, happy for them to point out the things they got wrong, but I guess its how they do this; it can come across as a legit concern about officiating, but also whiny, we lost, waaah
