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

[VM75]

I disagree. IMO, the increase is down to only one thing... the lowering of the standard of seriousness required for a the issuance of a RC

Before the introduction of cards, sending offs were very, very rare, and any player who was sent off almost certainly had committed an act of egregious violence against an opponent; a kick in the head, punch in the face.

But the game is better now IMO for the reduction in on field thuggery acts.

However those days are long gone now and professionalism has changed the way this code operates, back in the RC'dless days we didn't have players suffering cognitive concussion related problems in the numbers that they have been recently.

There is a minority Rugby code that has virtually no cards or removal of players, judging by viewer number they're looking for extra fans :shrug:

 

[Ian_Cook]

But the game is better now IMO for the reduction in on field thuggery acts.

What Benjamin Fall did last week was NOT thuggery, it was an accident at best and careless at worst.

Thuggery, is the kind of thing I have listed in the OP for a black card. IMO, they are the only things that a player should be punished for by being sent off AND his team being made to play a man short. You choose to punch an opponent, you let your team down by doing so. Punching an opponent, or stomping on his head , or bag snatching or eye gouging.. they are all WILFUL acts of violence. What Fall did last weekend was not wilful, it was a momentary misjudgement. His team did not deserve to be down to 14 men for the rest of the game because of it.

However those days are long gone now and professionalism has changed the way this code operates, back in the RC'dless days we didn't have players suffering cognitive concussion related problems in the numbers that they have been recently.

Well, I'm an advocate of punishing the player (severely during and after the game) not punishing him and his team, for stuff that happens in the course of game play.

If you've been keeping up you will be aware that have objected right from the outset at the stupidity of the high catch Laws, right back to the first incident of note with Dan Biggar v Finn Russell in Wales v Scotland 2015 where Russell was YC and copped a two week suspension for standing his ground while Dan Biggar who recklessly jumped at full speed from about 5m away and put everyone in danger got off scot free. I could not understand at the time how a player in motion (and not in possession) could wilfully charge into his opponent who was almost stationary (and also not possession) and it was somehow the opponent's fault, and I still can't. If the player can't do this to his opponent on the ground, why on earth should he be granted the right to do so merely because he recklessly jumps in a dangerous fashion at his opponent?

The better option would be to ban jumping for a kicked ball altogether, or only allow the non-kicking side to jump for a kicked ball.

 

[didds]

only allow the non-kicking side to jump for a kicked ball.

FWIW my prefreed solution. It may also cut down on kicking tennis. (?)

didds

 

[Pablo]

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?

I’m taking your proposal to a logical extreme, it’s true. But conceivably a team could engineer themselves to within a point of whatever threshold you set, then push for a try - the advantage being the YC recipient doesn’t return until 6 points over the threshold.

But even in a less extreme read, if your threshold is one-try-and-the-binning-ends, it’s entirely conceivable that Team A kicks a PK right after B’s yellow card, then scores a converted try; later in the match Team B gets the man advantage from deep in their own half (unkickable PK) and then scores an unconverted try.

10 points vs 5 for the man to be brought back on: I consider that inequitable.

 

[Pablo]

One more thought: what about a YC given as a PT is awarded? Does the PT end the binning, or is it the NEXT try? Far too many new problems vs. the old problem you’re trying to solve (and for my $0.02, I don’t think there is a current problem with YCs and the sin bin)

 

[didds]

Its so clearly the try AFTERthe guy has gone off. I really can;t see any complication in this concept at all.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Its so clearly the try AFTERthe guy has gone off. I really can;t see any complication in this concept at all.

didds

Of course, just as the stats show that the try scored which results in the YC (or the three points scored from the PK & YC) is not counted in the points scored while a player is in the bin.

I still don't get Pablo's proposed tactic; you don't attempt to score so that you can keep the player off because if you do score, that player will come back on, making it more difficult to score. Err, wot?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

One more thought: what about a YC given as a PT is awarded? Does the PT end the binning, or is it the NEXT try? Far too many new problems vs. the old problem you’re trying to solve (and for my $0.02, I don’t think there is a current problem with YCs and the sin bin)

NO and NO again. The Try is awarded and then a card is issued. So no points have yet been scored during the binning. Also, logically, if a Penalty is award and a player binned the resultant PK to goal does not remove the bin. It woudl just make no sense. Again, and yes I bang on about the word, it is about context.

 

[DocY]

I still don't get Pablo's proposed tactic; you don't attempt to score so that you can keep the player off because if you do score, that player will come back on, making it more difficult to score. Err, wot?

TBH, I can see how it would change team's tactics, though not to the degree being proposed above.

I could easily imagine a player being YC'd, 90 seconds later his opponents get a 5m penalty. "Hang on boys, they've got a man in the bin and if we get a try he'll come back. Let's take the points now and we've still got 8 minutes to go for the try without him"

But I still don't like the idea - I don't think there's anything wrong with YCs at the moment, only silly RCs

 

[Dickie E]

One more thought: what about a YC given as a PT is awarded? Does the PT end the binning, or is it the NEXT try?

Ian's #24 covers this

 

[Dickie E]

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/346401

So the takeaway is that the ref should have all angles available at the decision time. So it was the TV people’s fault?

 

[Dickie E]

And
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/rugby-australia-defend-angus-gardner-red-card-reversal

 

[Phil E]

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/346401

So the takeaway is that the ref should have all angles available at the decision time. So it was the TV people’s fault?

Or to put it another way....the panel we appointed cocked up and now we have to justify what they said somehow?

 

[Dickie E]

Or to put it another way....the panel we appointed cocked up and now we have to justify what they said somehow?

I don't think the panel did cock up. We can all see the French player get a little nudge that threw him, marginally, off balance.

 

[Phil E]

I don't think the panel did cock up. We can all see the French player get a little nudge that threw him, marginally, off balance.

But that's happened before and been deemed as not a mitigating factor.

Regardless I think some of the wording the panel used was wrong and completely turned the process on its head. Now WR feel they have to justify it.

 

[Dickie E]

But that's happened before and been deemed as not a mitigating factor.

not only are they saying it is a mitigating fcator, they are also implying that if ref & TMO had had the luxury of seeing that too, they would have reached the same conclusion.

 

[Phil E]

not only are they saying it is a mitigating fcator, they are also implying that if ref & TMO had had the luxury of seeing that too, they would have reached the same conclusion.

We may never know the answer to that one....unless someone asks AG.

 

[didds]

not only are they saying it is a mitigating fcator, they are also implying that if ref & TMO had had the luxury of seeing that too, they would have reached the same conclusion.

I may be out oif the loop here.

I thought that the on field decision was the only one available under the instructions etc? eg no mitigating factors permissable.

??

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

TBH, I can see how it would change team's tactics, though not to the degree being proposed above.

I could easily imagine a player being YC'd, 90 seconds later his opponents get a 5m penalty. "Hang on boys, they've got a man in the bin and if we get a try he'll come back. Let's take the points now and we've still got 8 minutes to go for the try without him"

But I still don't like the idea - I don't think there's anything wrong with YCs at the moment, only silly RCs

"A Bird in the hand..."

 

[thepercy]

What Benjamin Fall did last week was NOT thuggery, it was an accident at best and careless at worst.

His carelessness/recklessness caused his opponent to miss the rest of the match, and potential could have ended his career/ability to walk/life. That IMO is why WR has created this hard stance.