Steward RC

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,050
Post Likes
2,327
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Of course, we all know we can't referee intent anyway...
We are asked to do it all the time by the law book?
Intent, Intentionally, Intention and Intentional are mentioned a total of 47 times in the law book.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
11,968
Post Likes
1,734
if the card is rescinded then that will really clinch the argument for the 20 minute rule.
that fair enough.
But it strikes me as creating a fix to fix an attempted fix. maybe the original fix needs fixing instead of creating a whole new law to fix it
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
No it wont. It will just mean the ref got it wrong.

The To4 you mean.

But, as it stands at the moment, the question of whether a head-contact RC is warranted or not, is a complex and nuanced one. So this means in turn that we inevitably will have a steady proportion of RCs that are retrospectively considered 'wrong'. Likely there will be a number at the RWC ..

Which is part of why the sanction we administer for a technical head-contact collision RC has become disproportionate. Teams shouldn't lose a player for half the game because a player braced in the wrong direction and To4 then made a technical mistake in following a flow-chart in their heads.. ...
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
that fair enough.
But it strikes me as creating a fix to fix an attempted fix. maybe the original fix needs fixing instead of creating a whole new law to fix it
but the original fix is in response to the concussion crisis - so I think impossible to unwind. (and a good thing). The 20min rule fixes an unanticipated consequence of the concussion drive.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
11,968
Post Likes
1,734
well that original fix could be fixed wrt unintended consequences (CF Steward in this thread). rather than create a fix with a 20 minute RC. just fix the original reason for a RC.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,620
Post Likes
499
We are asked to do it all the time by the law book?
Intent, Intentionally, Intention and Intentional are mentioned a total of 47 times in the law book.
I meant it to be read with a weary sigh, as an overused cliche :)
 

pedr

Getting to know the game
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
96
Post Likes
6
How about a red card = 10 minutes with a two player advantage? Offending player plus one other leaves, after 10 minutes the extra player can return and the offender can be replaced? 20 minutes does make the sanction different for the whole last quarter of the match, and it seems to me that a red card should have more of an effect than a yellow?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,678
Post Likes
1,756
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Which is why we need the 20 min rule..

(And perhaps two types of RC)
This is something for which I have advocated for a long time...

Law 9 needs to be divided into sections that reflect three different types of foul play... Cynical; Careless/Reckless; Intentionally Dangerous.

Yellow Card for acts of foul play that are Cynical... intentional technical infringements such as deliberate knock-ons, repeated offsides on defence etc... player comes back on after 10 minutes

Red Card for acts of foul play that are Careless or Reckless cause or are likely to cause injury to an opponent (late and early tackles, tackles without the ball etc)... player is dismissed for the rest of the match, but can be replaced after 20 minutes.

Black Card for acts of foul play that are Intentionally Dangerous such as punching, stamping, eye-gouging, bag-snatching, biting etc (i.e. what sendings-off used to be for).... player is dismissed for the rest of the match and is not replaced.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
I like it .
You need to adapt your framework to include
.. racist/homophobic and similar abuse (black card)
.. and MOA (black card?)

what about bringing the game into disrepute by insulting another players mother, in the style of Joe Marler what colour does that get?
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
This is something for which I have advocated for a long time...

Law 9 needs to be divided into sections that reflect three different types of foul play... Cynical; Careless/Reckless; Intentionally Dangerous.

Yellow Card for acts of foul play that are Cynical... intentional technical infringements such as deliberate knock-ons, repeated offsides on defence etc... player comes back on after 10 minutes

Red Card for acts of foul play that are Careless or Reckless cause or are likely to cause injury to an opponent (late and early tackles, tackles without the ball etc)... player is dismissed for the rest of the match, but can be replaced after 20 minutes.

Black Card for acts of foul play that are Intentionally Dangerous such as punching, stamping, eye-gouging, bag-snatching, biting etc (i.e. what sendings-off used to be for).... player is dismissed for the rest of the match and is not replaced.
I've been pretty vocal about enacting a black card, much in the way the Gaelic sports use them, which is similar to what Ian outlines above. It provides an additional level of flexibility and a black card does indicate that the referee believes that the infringement is sufficiently serious to warrant an expulsion from the match and ongoing punishment for the team. My current feel from some players that I know is that they see the RC as "losing it's punch", with the high contact protocol meaning that many players are receiving RC who would normally not have seen them. I can always remember how effective showing a YC/RC to a player who has seriously infringed used to have with other player behaviour, now they seem to be run of the mill.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
🟦 - ✔️
🟨 - ✔️
🟧 - "not quite red" (Steward incident?)
🟥 - ✔️
◼️ - 🔜

I wonder if we can add these to the cards wallet as well?
🟪 -???
🟩 - ???
 

RemainingInTheGame


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 16, 2022
Messages
99
Post Likes
65
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
🟦 - ✔️
🟨 - ✔️
🟧 - "not quite red" (Steward incident?)
🟥 - ✔️
◼️ - 🔜

I wonder if we can add these to the cards wallet as well?
🟪 -???
🟩 - ???
Yep, Purple card for players who act like general jerks.

Not allowed to discuss game with you afterwards or be near you when you are having a beer.

Can be given before, after or during a game.

Often referred to as 'The Number 9 Card' or 'The Front Row Flag'...
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
870
Post Likes
468
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
I understand the position on a third card or the 20 minute rule, but surely the Steward situation and other similar scenarios could be better managed under the current framework through "better" assessment of mitigation.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
How about a red card = 10 minutes with a two player advantage? Offending player plus one other leaves, after 10 minutes the extra player can return and the offender can be replaced? 20 minutes does make the sanction different for the whole last quarter of the match, and it seems to me that a red card should have more of an effect than a yellow?
No.
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
716
Post Likes
233
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
🟦 - ✔️
🟨 - ✔️
🟧 - "not quite red" (Steward incident?)
🟥 - ✔️
◼️ - 🔜

I wonder if we can add these to the cards wallet as well?
🟪 -???
🟩 - ???
I once managed a reporting process where were reporting daily on the quality of controls. What started off as a RAG status (Red, Amber, Green) eventually ended as a 7 colour matrix (Purple, Orange, Blue and White were added) to deal with various nuances between Red and Green.

Not our finest piece of work.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I once managed a reporting process where were reporting daily on the quality of controls. What started off as a RAG status (Red, Amber, Green) eventually ended as a 7 colour matrix (Purple, Orange, Blue and White were added) to deal with various nuances between Red and Green.

Not our finest piece of work.
There was a touch of tongue-in-cheek in my post about where we are heading....towards not our finest piece of work if we keep bringing in cards.
 
Last edited:

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
448
Post Likes
118
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
How about a red card = 10 minutes with a two player advantage? Offending player plus one other leaves, after 10 minutes the extra player can return and the offender can be replaced? 20 minutes does make the sanction different for the whole last quarter of the match, and it seems to me that a red card should have more of an effect than a yellow?
Interesting idea, and not one I've heard before. This would make a difference particularly in the last 10 mins of a game, where there is no effective difference to the non-offending team between a YC and a RC.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
I understand the position on a third card or the 20 minute rule, but surely the Steward situation and other similar scenarios could be better managed under the current framework through "better" assessment of mitigation.
I think you are assuming that the Tof4 on the day got it wrong, by not applying mitigation .
Maybe, maybe not - we'll see later today I imagine when the appeal is heard .

But if they DID get it wrong then IMO that just strengthens the case for the 20 minute thing -- see post 44 above
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
870
Post Likes
468
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
I think you are assuming that the Tof4 on the day got it wrong, by not applying mitigation .
Maybe, maybe not - we'll see later today I imagine when the appeal is heard .
If the TO4 got it wrong on Saturday then the solution is better training on correct application of the current guidance, not bringing in a new card or the 20 minute thing.

If they got it right based on the current framework but it is decided the current framework needs modification, I think it is easier and more appropriate to modify the current guidance regarding mitigation rather than adopt a new a new card or the 20 minute thing.

But if they DID get it wrong then IMO that just strengthens the case for the 20 minute thing -- see post 44 above

I don't like the position saying the TO4 got it wrong, therefore, rather than fix the incorrect application, we need to introduce a 20 minute red card to account for when the referee gives a red card incorrectly.
 
Top