What can WR do about Red Cards ruining games for the fans?

[didds]

I have a feeling that WR will actually DO is :
RC = 10 mins off , and then a replacement comes on.

hmmm... which will in effect mean a RC is the same as a YC, generically. (caveats over no subs left etc )

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I'm referring to the Pro game. I only have the Pro 14 and Aviva and internationals to reference. Even though the standard in the Pro 14 is not great. The majority of calls are correct. Yes there are errors.

 

[crossref]

hmmm... which will in effect mean a RC is the same as a YC, generically. (caveats over no subs left etc )

didds

Not for the player concerned .. it's exactly the same for him, off the pitch permanently and disciplinary hearing etc.
But for those left behind , yes, the RC has about the same impact as a YC
I am not saying that is necessarily what I would do, but I think that WR might jump that way

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, can you explain why you see this as worthwhile please - just seems to be an added complication.

You could also have the very possible situation where a player commits yellow card FP leading up to a try. What would happen then as offence occurs seconds before a try?

I was simply floating an idea I had seen in another sport, in this case, Ice Hockey

Their sin bin is called The Penalty Box.. and it literally is a box...

Their Penalty Box is two minutes. If a team scores a goal while an opponent is serving a non-coincidental minor penalty, the penalty is cancelled and the player may return to the ice.

That "non-coincidental" thing answers your other question. If the penalty is incurred in the scoring of a goal, that goal doesn't bring the player back, the next one does. In reality the Ice Hockey rule is a bit more complicated than that when it come to double (more serious) penalties, I can explain it if you wish but I wasn't thinking of using it here anyway.

What I had in mind was the preventing of the situation we had last week where France copped a YC (an unjustified one IMO) and while the player was off, NZ scored three converted tries.

 

[DocY]

At the risk of quibbling about details while agreeing with the general principle, I don't think there's an issue with yellow cards as they currently stand. I think they're generally handed out sensibly and, where they aren't (or where I don't think they are) the issue is a matter of fact, rather than law or guidance.

I guess this (coming back on after a try) would, in Ian's proposals, add an extra difference between a yellow and red card.

 

[Flish]

Am I correct in thinking that post match citing processes are only for 'should have been a red? If so why not change that process so that yellow cards can be reviewed and additional punishments issued where needed. It still leaves us with red cards for the significant 'you know if it's red' incidents, and yellows for all else. If WR or whoever decide that something is of particular focus this week then they can manage, and accordingly punish off pitch.

Certainly means we're less likely to get it wrong, then right, then wrong again as the moods change.

 

[Phil E]

Red cards are not ruining the game.

Miss-application of them and WR constantly moving the goal posts of what constitutes a Red Card are what's ruining it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Red cards are not ruining the game.

Miss-application of them and WR constantly moving the goal posts of what constitutes a Red Card are what's ruining it.

Same result though Phil

 

[Phil E]

Same result though Phil

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[thepercy]

I vehemently disagree with this and think that this is the root of the problem.

The threshold for red cards has been lowered such that you can be sent off for accidents. It's no good saying "you shouldn't have done it" when the player had no intention of doing it in the first place!

You shouldn't have put yourself in a position where that could happen, you have failed in your duty of care for others looking to enjoy rugby.

 

[thepercy]

Not for the player concerned .. it's exactly the same for him, off the pitch permanently and disciplinary hearing etc.
But for those left behind , yes, the RC has about the same impact as a YC
I am not saying that is necessarily what I would do, but I think that WR might jump that way

So you could make the middle card (Red/Orange) be 20 min off then sub can come on if available.

 

[DocY]

You shouldn't have put yourself in a position where that could happen, you have failed in your duty of care for others looking to enjoy rugby.

What, on the rugby pitch? And you have no duty of care to an opponent. If you did, any sort of tackling would be verboten.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Agree, but for me the problem is sending players off permanently and putting the team down a player for acts that are careless or reckless during game play, but that are not intentional, is wrong. The ultimate sanction needs to be reserved for the dirty players in the game; the eye-gougers, stompers, bag snatchers, head-butters; e.g. Richard Loe, Danny Grewcock, Dylan Hartley, Bakkies Botha etc, those who go out of their way to deliberately injure opponents.

 

[crossref]

this is why I think WR will let a fresh player come on after 10 mins - the punishment for the player getting the RC remains the same, he's off, but the team return to 15 players. It's a simple change, easy to understand. They could even make it 12 or 15 mins if they wanted

 

[thepercy]

Agree, but for me the problem is sending players off permanently and putting the team down a player for acts that are careless or reckless during game play, but that are not intentional, is wrong. The ultimate sanction needs to be reserved for the dirty players in the game; the eye-gougers, stompers, bag snatchers, head-butters; e.g. Richard Loe, Danny Grewcock, Dylan Hartley, Bakkies Botha etc, those who go out of their way to deliberately injure opponents.

So you don't think that these reckless players pose an equal or greater danger as those ruthless thugs?

 

[Ian_Cook]

So you don't think that these reckless players pose an equal or greater danger as those ruthless thugs?

Its doesn't matter whether they do or not.... if they are shown a red card for a serious act of reckless Dangerous Play or a black card for an act of Intentional Foul Play, they will be personally be taking no further part in that game, and therefore will not be a danger to anyone.

Also, if you look back at my OP, you will see that I said both the black card and the red card are an automatic citing, so the judiciary will be able to apply appropriate sanctions, and keep everyone safe from the players for a bit longer.

I do believe that player who commits the kind of foul play that would land them a black card should be punished much more severely than those who act carelessly or recklessly in playing the game. A high tackle might be reckless and perhaps a reaction, but eye gouging or stomping a player's head is a deliberate, wilful act of violence that needs to be expunged from the game.

 

[thepercy]

What, on the rugby pitch? And you have no duty of care to an opponent. If you did, any sort of tackling would be verboten.

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Rugby union is a sport which involves physical contact and, as such, presents inherent dangers. It is very important to play the game in accordance with the laws and be mindful of player welfare at all times. [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]It is the responsibility of players to ensure that they are physically and technically prepared to play within the laws and are committed to participate in accordance with safe practices and enjoyment.[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]It is the responsibility of those who coach or teach the game to ensure that players are prepared to comply with the laws, to play fairly and practice safe conduct. [/FONT]​

 

[Pablo]

I was simply floating an idea I had seen in another sport, in this case, Ice Hockey

Their sin bin is called The Penalty Box.. and it literally is a box...

Their Penalty Box is two minutes. If a team scores a goal while an opponent is serving a non-coincidental minor penalty, the penalty is cancelled and the player may return to the ice.

That "non-coincidental" thing answers your other question. If the penalty is incurred in the scoring of a goal, that goal doesn't bring the player back, the next one does. In reality the Ice Hockey rule is a bit more complicated than that when it come to double (more serious) penalties, I can explain it if you wish but I wasn't thinking of using it here anyway.

What I had in mind was the preventing of the situation we had last week where France copped a YC (an unjustified one IMO) and while the player was off, NZ scored three converted tries.

Iain, if a minor penalty is committed in hockey without the offending team taking possession of the puck, the referee signals for a delayed penalty. If the non-offending team scores, the penalty is not served; the player only goes to the sin bin if his team turns the puck over. This is hockey’s analogy to rugby’s advantage law.

I get where you’re coming from in terms of the idea, but here’s why it wouldn’t work in rugby: too many scoring options. In hockey (and lacrosse, an d other sports that use a sin bin) a goal is a goal is a goal. If you say a rugby sin binning expires on the scoring of a try, then canny teams in good control of a game may seek only to kick penalties for the first 7-8 minutes of a player’s suspension. If you say it expires after a certain number of points, teams may similarly try to engineer their scoring below that threshold to keep the player in the bin for longer, e.g., deliberately missing conversions, etc.

Another comparison with hockey: with a hockey penalty your team is down 20% of manpower (in terms of our skaters; I’m not counting the goaltender as he can’t serve a minor). In rugby, you’re only down 6%. The longer suspension is part of what makes it work in rugby, and the defined period is, IMHO, essential to that.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I get where you’re coming from in terms of the idea, but here’s why it wouldn’t work in rugby: too many scoring options. In hockey (and lacrosse, an d other sports that use a sin bin) a goal is a goal is a goal. If you say a rugby sin binning expires on the scoring of a try, then canny teams in good control of a game may seek only to kick penalties for the first 7-8 minutes of a player’s suspension. If you say it expires after a certain number of points, teams may similarly try to engineer their scoring below that threshold to keep the player in the bin for longer, e.g., deliberately missing conversions, etc.

Another comparison with hockey: with a hockey penalty your team is down 20% of manpower (in terms of our skaters; I’m not counting the goaltender as he can’t serve a minor). In rugby, you’re only down 6%. The longer suspension is part of what makes it work in rugby, and the defined period is, IMHO, essential to that.

The average number of points scored whilst a team is down a man is around 7. this includes the many cases where from the resultant PK 3 points ar scored.

Now we can assume that the 3 would have been score whether or not hte player stayed on the pitch. As the number of defenders does not imat on the difficulty of the kick.

So 4 points are scored that we can potentially attribute to the suspension of the player. From those simple stats I can't see any issue. A side will go for the points to get over the mystical 7.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I get where you’re coming from in terms of the idea, but here’s why it wouldn’t work in rugby: too many scoring options. In hockey (and lacrosse, an d other sports that use a sin bin) a goal is a goal is a goal. If you say a rugby sin binning expires on the scoring of a try, then canny teams in good control of a game may seek only to kick penalties for the first 7-8 minutes of a player’s suspension. If you say it expires after a certain number of points, teams may similarly try to engineer their scoring below that threshold to keep the player in the bin for longer, e.g., deliberately missing conversions, etc.

OK.

When was the last time you saw a team make three successful PKs at goal in 10 minutes?

Also do you really think that teams will engineer NOT scoring a try to keep a player off? This is rather like shooting yourself in the foot. Where's the advantage to be gained in doing this?