Red cards
-
-
-
-
@Blackheart said in Red cards:
In League there is no one sent off in a red card offence and the offender is cited after the match where they are suspended for various weeks depending on the offence.
Union should do the same except the offender be should sin binned for ten minutes then be cited after the match.
I would also like to see an Orange card which is for an offence between a yellow and a red with the offender getting 15 minutes in the bin.
Sending red card offenders off the field for the remainder of the game is ridiculous...thousands have paid alot of money to fly over stay in expensive hotels buy expensive tickets to watch their team...yes penalise the offender after a fair match where millions of viewers can enjoy the game in a fair contest.
Not correct. You can still get sent off. Just the NRL have traded their ethics for the dollar and now they refuse to remove thugs.
As for a fair contest, I'd suggest that the player ejected chose not to make the game a fair contest by electing to play outside the laws and commit an act of foul play.
-
The Red card rule as it is also gives the possibility of a single dodgy ref call 100% determining the result of a match. We've had plenty of threads over the years of such dodgy red card calls. The game isn't tiddlywinks and it runs at at phrenetic pace, accidents will happen and slo-mo makes them seem far more intentional than they are. If that was the AB's out there against England in the WC final and Whitelock had done the same hit in the first 20 mins I'd be surprised if many would be praising the decision. This Argie has form certainly but that shouldn't have influenced the refs decision.
-
Does anyone know a good stats website that could filter games that have had red cards in them?
Would be very interesting to see the percentage of teams that have actually gone on to win a game with a first half red card etc.Im struggling to think of many/any games where a red carded team has won.
Possibly way back when Jonah got two yellows playing for the chiefs against the waratahs. I think the chiefs still won that game. But i would have been about 12 so a bit hazy in my memory. -
Red card system is fine how it is IMO. Players should tackle properly.
Disagree, should be for proper foul play. Eye gouging someone and slipping up, miss timing, attacker ducking head high tackles aren’t the same thing.
I’d prefer:
Red card -gouging, biting, other deliberate foul play etc.
Red card player, yellow card team - high shots etc that aren’t deliberate foul play. -
-
@Nepia Disagree. How is a shoulder to the head not foul play? Bad technique, which the player can control, by tackling high in the first place which leads to contact with the head.
Disagree with your disagree. Only if you pretend rugby is played in a vacuum. There’s room for error in every match and by applying your strict letter of the law I could probably find a red card in every match of the RWC so far.
My method allows for a contest to remain and if a player is later found to have been deliberate in their foul play they can cop a huge suspension.
-
Am I perhaps remembering rugby with rose tinted glasses but I do not recall the prevalence of head shots back in the day.
Is it a function of players getting bigger, stronger and more powerful that they're having to hit harder and higher, with associated higher risk?
-
-
@Nepia yeah for me a RC should be reserved for those deliberate actions.
As has been mentioned before, maybe an orange card, where a player goes off for the rest of the game, but after 15 or 20 mins can be replaced.
There is too much at stake these days,for player, teams, sponsors and then the people that make it all possible, fans, to go along to a match and have it ruined in 20 mins due to a RC...especially when you look at some of the weak arsecards these days, then the cardable offences that go unpunished...it just pisses people off and creates the bias calls.
If there were less RCs and more judiciary visits...I'd even go as far as saying any YC for dangerous play (even accidental ) should at least have a visit to judiciary.
-
So the purpose of the red card is to increase player safety. I guess we need some statistics showing the average number of high tackles per game over the last 10 years or so. Then they would need to see if the new framework has reduced the number of high tackles per game. Only then could you see if the framework has made any difference at all.
I believe the current rush defence/dominant tackle game plan has increased the odds of a misjudged high shot, especially by taller players who already have a higher center of gravity.
If players continue this game plan the framework will have little effect on reducing non deliberate misjudged high shots. They will continue to happen as a byproduct of playing rugby. If this is the case rugby will always have a percentage of games decided by red cards and not the 15v15 everyone paid to watch.
Yes players should just tackle lower however any team playing NZ must have a strategy of attacking the ball to stop the offloads, this increases the risk of a high shot.
I do not believe the current framework will reduce high shots as effectively as tip tackles, does anyone have any idea what will?
-
Lowering the tackle height saw no less head injuries in this trial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47000468
“RFU tackle height trial ended after concussions rise in Championship Cup”I’d suggest, forcing tacklers to go low is dangerous, especially where a player goes for a gap only to be double tackled. The head clashing between tacklers will sky rocket. Not only that but knees to the head of the tackler.
WR have really ballsed this one up. The tackles they deem to be cards all happen very frequently in a match, are fairly difficult to avoid and will continue to happen. The ref or TMO if looking, I'm sure could find half a dozen such collisions in a match.
-
I think the problem is for a lot of the 2010s players were coached to tackle high to smother the offload.
Players with a more classical technique always used to tackle low and hard.
IMHO World Rugby's stand against the high tackle is a good one and is improving the game as a spectacle once again and asvwell as promoting player safety and protecting their long-twrm health.
-
I’ve complained about this on Twitter, and had a few people respond ‘just tackle lower’.
But I’m not sure those people have ever played rugby. High tackles are just a part of the game, and I’m not sure you can ever eradicate them. Yes some are a result of reckless play, but others are just instinct (sticking out an arm when you’ve been stepped by a halfback near the ruck), or tiredness (being caught on the back foot in the late stages of a game).
I’m not sure how you eradicate that from the game. Especially for players above 6ft 6.
At the moment World Rugby have signalled they are happy to ruin games as a spectacle in order to change player behaviour. I think that’s too big a trade-off, and think they need to find a better balance between protecting the players and ensuring games are enjoyable for fans.
-
For the "just tackle lower" crowd, what exactly was Ofa T supposed to do differently?
-
-
@mariner4life said in Red cards:
For the "just tackle lower" crowd, what exactly was Ofa T supposed to do differently?
Not tackle apparently.
