Red Cards
-
Stating the obvious, but there is a reason why we have robotic players/coaches etc in the media - say the wrong thing and it will come back to bite them. Don't blame them one bit for saying bugger all. 'We' can't seem to handle honesty anymore.
-
Criticising referees is unedifying. Makes the game lose class. In rugby we treat referees with the utmost respect and we shouldn't go away from that just for some "colour in post match interviews".
It is a bloody hard game to referee - far harder than say football or league - and referees missing things is simply a part of the fabric of the game. If the game was simpler less mistakes would be made but then we wouldn't have the chaotic game that is rugby.
I don't necessarily think that Ardie Savea or Aaron Smith committed disciplinary offences but that stuff needs to be stamped out of the game asap.
-
I think that historically refs were almost beyond reproach and should not.be questioned, barely seemed like they were internally even.
But as the game has evolved, I don't think the refs have, still seemingly unapproachable and not to be questioned or critiqued.
Again, I don't agree with the abuse they cop, but like players get written about when they play well/poorly, a ref should be able.to be judged too...albeit more constructive than some seem to be.
-
The problem is the disconnect between amateurism and professionalism. Quite clearly NZR have done a lot of work to address referee abuse in the amateur game and don't consider the rugby public sufficiently mature enough to make a differentiation at the professional level. Which is disappointing because you can't tell me Pickering or Williams are competent.
-
@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.
I got to a decent level of rugby despite being as slow as molasses primarily on my defence.
My go to was the line where the shorts met the shirt.
Softest part of the opponent, and when timed right buckled the ball carrier often resulting in a knock on or forward pass when they tried to offload when the air left their body
-
-
-
First point: tackler was still too high IMHO.
Second point: Barnes' reasoning is sound; Dombrandt's actions have taken some responsibility off the defenders as it reduced their options to adjust height. This is in line with dropping your own player at lineout time, which you rarely see penalised, or pushing someone into the path of a chasing/jumping player at kick chase.
Third point: if Dombrandt had latched on and driven with Marler, then no issue with his actions.
In that circumstance, it would also have worked to have penalised the defending team, mitigating down from yellow or red via Dombrandt's actions, and warning both captains that if it happened again, the attacking side would be penalised.
-
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
People aren't perfect and never have been. Modern game you need to tackle around the chest to stop plays. As long as this remains the key way to clear people out / collide, then head knocks are always going to happen.
Agreed. That's why the mitigation framework for high tackles is in place to reduce the responsibility on tacklers.
We saw that in action over the weekend where player falling into a tackle in ?Brumbies v Highlanders? was "play on" after neck/head contact.
-
I would love to see a proper analysis on the impact of cards on the outcome of the game.
For example how many points on average are scored when a team is down a player, two players. Is this higher than without. How many teams who lose a player to red actually win a game.
If cards are having an overwhelming impact on the outcome of a game/contest then that dilutes the product for the fans and viewing public. We should be penalising the player not the fans.
My personal solution is if it's a yellow or red you simply replace the player instantly and then perhaps give the attacking team 3 points for yellow and 7 for a red. That keeps it at 15 v 15 and the contest is still alive. The risk of 3 points and a penalty so in theory could be 6 point turnaround for cynical play may deter behaviour.
-
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
People aren't perfect and never have been. Modern game you need to tackle around the chest to stop plays. As long as this remains the key way to clear people out / collide, then head knocks are always going to happen.
Agreed. That's why the mitigation framework for high tackles is in place to reduce the responsibility on tacklers.
We saw that in action over the weekend where player falling into a tackle in ?Brumbies v Highlanders? was "play on" after neck/head contact.
I'll keep banging my drum that if the outcome you want is to reduce head injuries, teh ball carrier has a responsibility as well. Voluntarily lowering should get pinged.
Foster made the piont on Breakdown that it's the second tackler who is getting pinged. I think it's really insightful - when you go back, it's rare that the primary tackler is the one hitting the head with force.
-
@MajorRage said in Red Cards:
People aren't perfect and never have been. Modern game you need to tackle around the chest to stop plays. As long as this remains the key way to clear people out / collide, then head knocks are always going to happen.
Agreed. That's why the mitigation framework for high tackles is in place to reduce the responsibility on tacklers.
We saw that in action over the weekend where player falling into a tackle in ?Brumbies v Highlanders? was "play on" after neck/head contact.
I'll keep banging my drum that if the outcome you want is to reduce head injuries, teh ball carrier has a responsibility as well. Voluntarily lowering should get pinged.
Foster made the piont on Breakdown that it's the second tackler who is getting pinged. I think it's really insightful - when you go back, it's rare that the primary tackler is the one hitting the head with force.
Is it though insightful.
It is pretty accurate to say the player tackling below the hips is not hitting anyone in the head.
It is pretty obvious the player coming in higher for the wrap up tackle is the one in danger of head contact.
If we hold off on the 2nd tackler it will free up off loads if we don't commit the 2nd tackler. -
-
I would love to see a proper analysis on the impact of cards on the outcome of the game.
For example how many points on average are scored when a team is down a player, two players. Is this higher than without. How many teams who lose a player to red actually win a game.
If cards are having an overwhelming impact on the outcome of a game/contest then that dilutes the product for the fans and viewing public. We should be penalising the player not the fans.
My personal solution is if it's a yellow or red you simply replace the player instantly and then perhaps give the attacking team 3 points for yellow and 7 for a red. That keeps it at 15 v 15 and the contest is still alive. The risk of 3 points and a penalty so in theory could be 6 point turnaround for cynical play may deter behaviour.
Some data here.
-
-
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
I read somewhere that around 65% of concussions where actually on the tackler and not the person being tackled. So, by trying to get players to go lower are we actually placing the tackler at higher risk?
With the vast majority of that 65% being shit tackling technique
It's an interesting point isn't it. These players are all professionals and have been for years.
They train almost daily and have more data and coaches then they have ever had. They all must have been coached the proper technique, yet they still fuck it up on a consistent basis.
This tells me they are human, and they play a very fast physical game were dominant tackles win games.
We watch slowmo after slowmo criticising the players. I bet down on the ground the margins for error are pretty slim and it is a lot harder to get right then we think. -
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
I read somewhere that around 65% of concussions where actually on the tackler and not the person being tackled. So, by trying to get players to go lower are we actually placing the tackler at higher risk?
With the vast majority of that 65% being shit tackling technique
It's an interesting point isn't it. These players are all professionals and have been for years.
They train almost daily and have more data and coaches then they have ever had. They all must have been coached the proper technique, yet they still fuck it up on a consistent basis.
This tells me they are human, and they play a very fast physical game were dominant tackles win games.
We watch slowmo after slowmo criticising the players. I bet down on the ground the margins for error are pretty slim and it is a lot harder to get right then we think.Perhaps the risk/reward of dominant tackles no longer makes it a 'winning' strategy.
The coaches and players who change their game quickest may well reap the rewards.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Red Cards:
I read somewhere that around 65% of concussions where actually on the tackler and not the person being tackled. So, by trying to get players to go lower are we actually placing the tackler at higher risk?
With the vast majority of that 65% being shit tackling technique
It's an interesting point isn't it. These players are all professionals and have been for years.
They train almost daily and have more data and coaches then they have ever had. They all must have been coached the proper technique, yet they still fuck it up on a consistent basis.
This tells me they are human, and they play a very fast physical game were dominant tackles win games.
We watch slowmo after slowmo criticising the players. I bet down on the ground the margins for error are pretty slim and it is a lot harder to get right then we think.Or maybe what we think is good technique is not the technique that is being coached?
