SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs

[Billy Tell]

Based on matches I’ve seen in the NH this year, Reece was lucky to not see red.

Otherwise I didn’t see any major differences in the reffing (law variations excepted).

[Higgins]

@billy-tell said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:

Based on matches I’ve seen in the NH this year, Reece was lucky to not see red.

Otherwise I didn’t see any major differences in the reffing (law variations excepted).

Never in danger of that judging by the standards they apply to Owen Farrell.

[Cyclops]

@chris-b

I'm sympathetic to this, but the reality is that we now understand how serious head injuries are so have a duty of care to limit them.

That said, maybe we change the safety-oriented penalties to suspensions. So instead of a red card contact to the head is an automatic 1 match ban, mitigations and intentions irrelevant. The penalty is roughly equivalent, but the match stays 15v15.

I get that it means the team on the receiving end doesn't benefit, but I think if you ignored the safety aspects it would generally be fair to be penalty only in those circumstances so I think that's reasonable.

[Nevorian]

Tackle coaches have definitely got their work cut out for them to ensure absolutely and utterly I contact is made with the head

[nostrildamus]

@kruse said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:

@gunner said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:

@bones said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:

DMac jumped.

And?
Taylor deliberately tackled him in the air, and he went past 180 degrees.

You know what 180 degrees is, yeah?

A helluva lot of time spent at varsity?

[Chris B.]

@cyclops said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:

@chris-b

I'm sympathetic to this, but the reality is that we now understand how serious head injuries are so have a duty of care to limit them.

Yeah - without doubt.

But, surely this can be done without ruining the game.

Red card offences being 10 minutes in the bin and the player having to be replaced just seems obvious to me - then deal with offence using suspensions. Not only maintains the integrity of the match, but less hanging out the ref to dry - having to make an instant decision, where panel hearings go on for hours and involve QCs!!!

It's pretty rare IMO that you see anything in the way of genuine dirt these days - most cards are timing gone horribly wrong. I'm pretty doubtful that the current red card rules add anything much to safety. I doubt players are balancing their decisions on whether they'll get a yellow or a red - both are highly undesirable.

[mariner4life]

@chris-b yep. it would be hard to argue that the current situation is reducing anything. It's certainly not reducing viewer frustration.

[Derpus]

@chris-b well, they've more or less done this with the replacement after 20 minutes rule. A red should still carry a heavier team punishment than a yellow.

[Derpus]

@chris-b i think it's pretty clear that the rules have changed the tackle technique from players, which is the desired outcome.

Have a watch of any NRL game to see what a game without an enforced head high rule actually looks like. Worlds apart.

[Chris B.]

@derpus Yes - they have - which has largely achieved the desired outcome.

We now need to return to a game that is decided by people scoring tries and kicking goals - and not by mistimed tackles.

[Derpus]

@chris-b that would be returning to a world without CTE - good luck.

[antipodean]

@derpus said in SRA: Final. Crusaders vs Chiefs:

@chris-b that would be returning to a world without CTE - good luck.

CTE will still exist. Brain injury is dependent on acceleration, not specific contact.

[Chris B.]

@derpus It doesn't need to be - it just needs a better balance restored, where the spectators aren't being punished for player misdeeds - and sometimes just perceived misdeeds.