Super Rugby News
-
-
@Stargazer I have no problem with that being a red card.
Having said that, I'm forming the opinion that we need to find a way that doesn't make the same penalty grossly different in impact depending on what stage of the game it applies.
-
@antipodean maybe have another card, say and orange one, means he goes off for 10 mins and is automatically cited?
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@antipodean maybe have another card, say and orange one, means he goes off for 10 mins and is automatically cited?
Perhaps the player can be replaced after 10 but the offender can't take the field again.
-
IMO the penalty should give some benefit to the team whose player was illegally tackled. In case of a red-card offence, 10 minutes is not enough to discourage players from committing these offences (even if a replacement player comes on after those 10 minutes like in that orange card idea) and doesn't benefit the opposing team enough.
I think the difference of when in the game a player is sent off (for the rest of the game) should be taken into account when the Foul Play Review Committee determines the punishment of a player who has been found guilty, not during the game by pulling a card with a different colour. Yellow and red should be enough. Add more colours (other than that blue card), and you'll still get discussions eventually. Before you know it, you'll have a rainbow.
-
@Stargazer so you think they 'deserve' more benefit than 10 minutes of 15 v 14 because of 1 players stupidity?
The team with the idiot gets punished and the fans who pay to watch the game get punished by him getting a red card.
I like my team to win, but winning because of someone in the other team getting a red card is a bit hollow.
I am happy for that player to go off and not come back, but allowing the other team back to 15 is a better way to do it, so that it is still a decent game of rugby.
Jamie HEaslip ruined a test against us by starting a trend of kneeing McCaw.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer so you think they 'deserve' more benefit than 10 minutes of 15 v 14 because of 1 players stupidity?
The team with the idiot gets punished and the fans who pay to watch the game get punished by him getting a red card.
I like my team to win, but winning because of someone in the other team getting a red card is a bit hollow.
I am happy for that player to go off and not come back, but allowing the other team back to 15 is a better way to do it, so that it is still a decent game of rugby.
Jamie HEaslip ruined a test against us by starting a trend of kneeing McCaw.
Yes, because otherwise there's no substantial difference between a yellow and a red; I find the deterrence aspect of this very important, too, btw, esp at the end of the season when suspensions are useless. What @Frye suggests, making the time in the bin longer combined with a compulsory replacement might be a good alternative, although I'd prefer that - if the tackled player would have to go off injured as a result of the offending tackle - the offender should not be allowed to be replaced.
-
@Stargazer deterence for something that is often accidental...so lets punish both teams and fans.
Red cards doesnt stop these accidents occuring, doesnt seem to stop the stupid shit either.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer deterence for something that is often accidental...so lets punish both teams and fans.
Red cards doesnt stop these accidents occuring, doesnt seem to stop the stupid shit either.
How many lifting tackles do we see these days? One or two a year? Seems like they're working to me.
-
@taniwharugby I'm not sure they're more often accidental than reckless. Luatua's was in that category.
Accidental ones will not (or should not) result in a red card. World Rugby's recommendation is a penalty or a yellow (maximum). So they are kind of irrelevant to the discussion.
Reckless ones are what I would call the stupid shit. And yes, sometimes a team gets punished for the actions of one of their players. That's an extra reason for teams to get through to their players to stop reckless behaviour and the consequence can be that teams no longer select a player in the starting line-up or in the match day 23 if the player doesn't improve in that respect.
I find it completely irrelevant to the discussion about yellow/red cards in case of high/dangerous tackles whether fans are affected or not. That's entirely between the franchise and it's supporters. This is about player welfare. Don't like your team going down to 14 players because of ill-discipline? Stop going to their games and they'll see the consequences in their revenue.
-
@Stargazer reckless can still be accidental.
-
@taniwharugby No. Legally, they're entirely different.
-
@Stargazer majority of decisions we see on the rugby park, reckless isnt given the same level of seriousness that it might in a court room...so I guess it depends on the use and context.
If you look at the legal sense, if you are driving your car, you rear end someone, you will likely get issued a careless driving charge....if you are driving at excessive speed and have an accident, you are likely to get charged with dangerous driving...if you are out drifting, or doing burnouts, you lose control and hit another car, you will likely get charged with reckless driving, although quite often, the police will go for dangerous as it carries the same penalty as reckless, but without the need to prove intent.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer majority of decisions we see on the rugby park, reckless isnt given the same level of seriousness that it might in a court room...so I guess it depends on the use and context.
If you look at the legal sense, if you are driving your car, you rear end someone, you will likely get issued a careless driving charge....if you are driving at excessive speed and have an accident, you are likely to get charged with dangerous driving...if you are out drifting, or doing burnouts, you lose control and hit another car, you will likely get charged with reckless driving, although quite often, the police will go for dangerous as it carries the same penalty as reckless, but without the need to prove intent.
Someone's been watching too much Suits on Netflix
-
@taniwharugby In simple terms: if you make an accidental high tackle, you are penalised because you are responsible.
If you make a reckless high tackle, you are penalised because you are culpable. You should have taken more care. -
@Stargazer my point was (in response to your post) dangerous is usually deemed worse in rugby, but not in the court.
@MN5 never watched suits....
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer my point was (in response to your post) dangerous is usually deemed worse in rugby, but not in the court.
@MN5 never watched suits....
LA Law? Boston Legal? Ally McBeal?
Nothing further your honour
