Red Cards
-
@Nevorian IMO, they need to find a better way to deal with offences, sure a punch, kick head butt etc deserve the full extent of the law, however, it still doesnt sit well with me as a paying fan watching a game where some dick knees someone in the head in the 15th minute, the 80 minute match should be all but ruined for all those watching, whether my team has 15 or 14.
-
The bigger issue for me is judiciary sentencing.
Some bloke whacks a guy in the head with his shoulder, at pace.
World Rugby says we're going to protect the head, so have a red card.
Judiciary says have a 50% reduction on the 6 week entry point because you've never been to the judiciary before.Regardless of whether it's 78 minutes, 20 minutes, or 2 minutes, you have to ask whether the punishment fits the crime.
-
@NTA kinda at the heart of it really isn't it.
People say the red card and not coming back should be the deterrent to thuggish behaviour, but for me, the bigger picture should be the multi week ban and a fine (relative to one's earnings from the game)
Right now the balance is wrong IMO.
-
More of the disincentive should be at the judiciary / tribunal than the actual game. AFL has got it right. A player is reported and then the mere threat of being suspended and then losing your spot in the team seems to be a pretty strong deterrent.
-
@taniwharugby honestly, I want the risk reward to be so clear that people don't attempt high cleanouts. Right now there is still reward if it goes ok. There shouldn't be... Everyone should know the act gets punished big time.
I'm an idealist
-
@nzzp I don't think that is unreasonable - red cards have basically removed the tip tackle from the game, or at least the action where guys try to pick up the ball carrier from below the hips.
Now we need to reward lower tackling and punish anything where they lead with the shoulder etc.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
I have seen comments on here about how players will cop a tougher time with NH Refs.
I thought the refereeing of foul play in the last NPC was ridiculously lenient (when compared to the rest of the world)
That didn't prepare the players or the fans very well for this SR crack down
-
@nzzp I don't think that is unreasonable - red cards have basically removed the tip tackle from the game, or at least the action where guys try to pick up the ball carrier from below the hips.
Now we need to reward lower tackling and punish anything where they lead with the shoulder etc.
There's ones that are completely unnecessary like Scott Barrett's, but then there's ones like the below (from the initial article) where it's a lot harder for the defender to avoid. I don't think you can really solve the problem while still allowing attackers to charge at the defenders like that.
-
@Anonymous hard to avoid? 18 drives up from not very low, clearly going high and then his teammate hits high for good measure.
-
@Anonymous hard to avoid? 18 drives up from not very low, clearly going high and then his teammate hits high for good measure.
Yep
Both of the dirty fluffybunnies should have gone
-
@Anonymous hard to avoid? 18 drives up from not very low, clearly going high and then his teammate hits high for good measure.
By hard to avoid, I'm meaning without either putting himself at more risk or giving up easy metres and quick ball there's no way to completely prevent it from ever happening. Yes, of course he could have avoided it by going lower or executing better but players are going to make mistakes or misjudgements when tackling. How many similar tackles are made but are fine because there's no head contact? If you're only penalised when it goes wrong, is that going to stop players from trying to get it right?
The current approach seems to incentivise better execution rather than tackling lower. And it doesn't seem like there as been much/any improvement in execution.
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
or giving up easy metres and quick ball
This is the straw man. It's the point! If you can't do something legally, it doesn't mean you can get away with doing it illegally, I don't think it's something that's hard to understand.
The alternative is saying it's ok to pull down lineout jumpers because you couldn't get the ball, ok to tackle players without the ball because otherwise they were going to do damage to your team, ok to deliberately knock a ball forward because otherwise it was going to an unmarked opposition player.
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
or giving up easy metres and quick ball
This is the straw man. It's the point! If you can't do something legally, it doesn't mean you can get away with doing it illegally, I don't think it's something that's hard to understand.
The alternative is saying it's ok to pull down lineout jumpers because you couldn't get the ball, ok to tackle players without the ball because otherwise they were going to do damage to your team, ok to deliberately knock a ball forward because otherwise it was going to an unmarked opposition player.
Upvote
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
or giving up easy metres and quick ball
This is the straw man. It's the point! If you can't do something legally, it doesn't mean you can get away with doing it illegally, I don't think it's something that's hard to understand.
The alternative is saying it's ok to pull down lineout jumpers because you couldn't get the ball, ok to tackle players without the ball because otherwise they were going to do damage to your team, ok to deliberately knock a ball forward because otherwise it was going to an unmarked opposition player.
At some point players are going to have to accept that conceding points/metres/possession is the only outcome available at that point in the game, and fix it at a future point in the game.
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
or giving up easy metres and quick ball
This is the straw man. It's the point! If you can't do something legally, it doesn't mean you can get away with doing it illegally, I don't think it's something that's hard to understand.
The alternative is saying it's ok to pull down lineout jumpers because you couldn't get the ball, ok to tackle players without the ball because otherwise they were going to do damage to your team, ok to deliberately knock a ball forward because otherwise it was going to an unmarked opposition player.
At some point players are going to have to accept that conceding points/metres/possession is the only outcome available at that point in the game, and fix it at a future point in the game.
... And get those meters themselves.
What I would be doing is aggressively penalizing people who voluntarily drop into contact or carry low. You get protection, you don't get to carry leading with your head
-
-
@Nepia the key for me, is that we have an even contest of 15 v 15 for as much of a match as possible, I dont want to see 15 v 13/14...even if it works in my teams favour.
Do rugby players get fined for cards, they do in NRL dont they?
Obviously in a comp like the NPC where some players earn $10k for thier season, so it needs to be relative.
