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

[All Black]

Why not add the Bismarck one to your collage?

But add to that. How many red cards have NZ gotten in Test rugby? well the answer is 3. Since 1925, New Zealand received a total of 3 red cards:
Cyril Brownlie (vs England), Twickenham Stadium, 1925
Colin Meads (vs Scotland), Murrayfield, 1967
Sonny Bill Williams (vs British & Irish Lions), Westpac Stadium, 2017

That's a very suspicious low amount...

Oh and now I see what you mean about before...with you saying 'we never get red cards'.

 

[smartcooky]

Crusaders v Sharks, May 17th 2014
16min - Sharks' Jean Deysel was red-carded for stomping Jordan Taufua on the face
63 min - Sharks' Willem Alberts was sin-binned.
They played 64 min with 14, and ten of those minutes with 13
Sharks won 30-25

 

[Car]

Fair enough.

I picked that idea up from Ice Hockey's penalty box rule.

Watching both sports, I have to say that I'm not a big fan of it. It was introduced back in the day because a certain team was scoring too much during their power plays, but I think nowadays the sport would overall profit from more goals.

Often enough, we've seen yellow cards turn games around in rugby, if one try ended the one man advantage, that would be less likely. Are there any stats on how often they make a game more interesting and how often they kill it off because the other team is pulling away?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Great post Cooky.

Like the red / black cards ideas.

On yellows I start from the position that far too often yellows for pretty trivial offences decide matches. Part of the intention of the bin was to allow a couple of handbag swinging miscreants time to cool down. With the game as it now is, especially at the top level, the need for that’s now largely fallen away.

So you could perhaps drop the bin time to 5 minutes, but perhaps with the threat that a 3rd team yellow would get a 15 minute sanction and almost certainly decide the match.

Or you could go really radical and not have a yellow at all. Any Unfair offence that would otherwise have copped a yellow could instead lead to an automatic drop at goal straight in front on the 22 worth 5 points. Although the player would remain on the pitch, in most cases his actions would be costing his team the equivalent of a try which is a pretty reasonable sanction. Maybe even introduce a tactical element and give the captain of the innocent team the choice of the 5 minute bin or the DG.

Underpinning all this though is the need for consistency from the officials.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Im a bit embarrassed with some of the kiwis comments on the news articles over in NZ, a majority of people now seem to be saying who ever can jump higher should be protected.

other than the ludicrousness of having to anticipate how high the opposition is going to jump....maybe carry around a little stats sheet to check after you put the bomb up?

we're basically saying the better or more athletic players should be protected, more fuel for those that say the AB's get favorable treatment and there goes any contest in the air.

*kicks the ball*
ref: everyone get out of Folau's way because he can jump high
everyone: if we cant challenge the why does he need to jump?
ref:....look how graceful he is
everyone:...but....
ref: RED CARD!

 

[smartcooky]

I have objected right from the outset at the stupidity of the current high catch Laws, right back from the first incident of note with Dan Biggar v Finn Russell in Wales v Scotland 2015 where Russell was yellow carded and copped a two week suspension for standing his ground while Dan Biggar who recklessly jumped at full speed from about 5m away putting everyone in danger, ended up pivoting over Russell and falling to the ground and 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 IMO would be to either

a. ban jumping for a kicked ball altogether, or
b. only allow the non-kicking side to jump for a kicked ball.

At least that way, kick-chasers would know that the only way to contest the ball would be to tackle the catcher as his feet touch the ground.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I have objected right from the outset at the stupidity of the current high catch Laws, right back from the first incident of note with Dan Biggar v Finn Russell in Wales v Scotland 2015 where Russell was yellow carded and copped a two week suspension for standing his ground while Dan Biggar who recklessly jumped at full speed from about 5m away putting everyone in danger, ended up pivoting over Russell and falling to the ground and 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 IMO would be to either

a. ban jumping for a kicked ball altogether, or
b. only allow the non-kicking side to jump for a kicked ball.

At least that way, kick-chasers would know that the only way to contest the ball would be to tackle the catcher as his feet touch the ground.

Why can't we revert back to how it was before these ridiculous laws came into play? Like how it was during 2007 when South Africa for example used the Box-kick-and-chase tactic and wingers like Habana and JP Petersen contested for the ball, without the fear of being carded.

Look at how teams have adapted since these laws. South Africa as an example after that whole string of cards in 2016 for "illeagal contesting", our chasers now time their runs to get a better hit on the catcher as soon as he lands, where the poor guy is defenceless, resulting in more broken ribs.

 

[Scotty]

I have been thinking long and hard about this problem for some time now. I think I have the basis for a solution that keeps the discipline, keep the sanctions for the really serious offenders, but allows the referees more latitude in deal with infringers fairly. I know this is never likely to be adopted or taken seriously by WR, but this is a discussion forum, so here goes.

The first thing is that IMO Rugby Union has a big problem with on field sanctions. You have penalty kick, yellow card and red card. The disparity between YC and RC is huge, you can get the same sanction for infringements as wide apart as mistiming contact with a jumping player (as we saw in the NZ v France game) and biting an opponents ear off or kicking his head into next Wednesday...there is nothing in between, and the earlier a RC given, the bigger the impact it has on the game. Its all very well saying, "well the player will get his punishment in the judiciary", but how is that fair on the rest of the players and the fans.

IMO, the Foul Play Law needs to be re-organsied to separate certain types of serious foul play from other less serious types. The overall Law (now Law 9 under the 2018 Laws) should be called Foul Play, and there should be three sections, Intentional Foul Play, Dangerous Play and Unfair Play. Also, while we keep the existing yellow and red sanction cards, we introduce a black card. The rationale behind this will be explained soon

Black Card: The player is sent from the field and is not replaced. This type of card is an automatic citing.

Red Card: The player is sent from the field for the rest of the game, but he may be replaced with another player after 10 minutes has expired. The replacement of that player costs the infringing team one of their replacements; if are there are no more replacements, the team plays one short. A Red Card is an automatic citing.

Yellow Card: Maximum 10 minute suspension from the game. The same player (or a replacement player) may come back onto the field when the 10 minutes expires. However, if the opposing team scores a try, the player may return to the field even if time has not expired (this does not apply to the red card)

Intentional Foul Play:
- All offences where the player intentionally strikes or assaults an opponent or an official
- This would be infringements such as striking, kicking, punching, biting, stomping, bag-snatching, eye-gouging, and intentional Dangerous Play.
- Intentional Foul Play would be the only category in which you can be given a black card.

Dangerous Play:
- All offences that occur in the normal course of play, where the infringer acts negligently or recklessly (but not intentionally) with potential to cause injury to an opponent.
- This would be infringements such as high tackle, early tackle, late tackle, tackling or playing an opponent without the ball, tackling or playing an opponent in the air, collapsing a ruck, maul or scrum, shoulder charge, no-wrap/no-arms tackle, tip tackles and kicking the ball out of the ball-carrier's hands.
- Dangerous Play, if serious, could result in a Yellow Card, and if serious enough could result in a Red Card,
- The referee can still show you a Black Card if he decides that your act of Dangerous Play was intentional.

Unfair Play:
- All infringements that are technical in nature with no risk of injury to an opponent
- This would be infringements such as intentional knock-forward, obstruction, knocking the ball into touch, touch in goal or over the dead ball line, simulation, time wasting, repeated infringing and misconduct.
- Unfair play, if intentional could result in a yellow card. A second yellow card offence would result in a red card.

I know there will be objections from some the usual suspects... "its too complicated" or "just what we need, more Law changes" but I also know that you usual suspects are the ones who whinge longest and loudest about the way the Laws are now, so don't complain when someone is willing to offer suggestions as to what to do about it.

If all you want to do is whinge, then don't bother wasting everyone's time, but if you have some constructive and/or positive contributions or suggestions to make, feel free to have at it.

Yellow card should stay the same, 10 minute sin bin. Regardless of any other factors

The new card, black should be the one inbetween, 10 min sin bin and forced sub, maximum 1 week sanction or 1 game ban if serious if intentional unfair play or no intentional dangerous play.

Leaving red same as before

Keep the continuity of red and yellow but introduce a new middle card rather the swapping the meaning of a card.

Its a good idea, bad thing about your idea of a try scored and the player comes back is what if there is a deliberate knock on results in yellow card and pen try. And even if they score in the first min of the card through individual brilliance rather than the man advantage then it means the teams had no sanction.


Cards must be thought of on a points system though.
Yellow 1
Black(red in your description) 2
Red(black in your description) 3

2 yellow card offences is a black. 2 points
A yellow and a black card offence is a red. 3 points

Cant get 2 black card offences

Red is red.

If a player has had a yellow and then does a black card offence then its fair to give him a red but should not incur more than a 2 week ban.

But i like your idea and am curious to your feed back to my points. For the record i havnt read all the comments therefore some of what ive said may be duplicated, appologies.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Just allow tackling the man in the air. That way players who find themselves under a player in the air will help that player get to ground safely.

If they hit them and they land on head it’d still be red.

Players are now stuck in a weird position of tackling= penalty or doing nothing= penalty or maybe getting away with it.

In my opinion doing nothing is almost always more dangerous as your leaving it to physics rather than your strength.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I like this although I agree with what others have said about not letting a player who received a yellow back on after a try is scored.

Whilst we are at it I'd like to see the punishments at scrums changed so scrum offenses result in the offending team going back 10m and the attacking team being given the ball but can only restart with a tap and go.

 

[Bean]

I think the first rule should be; If you're going to hand out a Yellow or Red, you must seek the advice of the video ref.

 

[duncanb]

I think the first rule should be; If you're going to hand out a Yellow or Red, you must seek the advice of the

Why?

 

[Scotty]

I think the first rule should be; If you're going to hand out a Yellow or Red, you must seek the advice of the video ref.

Stupid idea, if something is a obvious red or yellow then why slow the game down for the sake of it, any doubt then yes bit not every time.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Stupid idea, if something is a obvious red or yellow then why slow the game down for the sake of it, any doubt then yes bit not every time.

Because what may appear an obvious yellow / red may not be upon further inspection - think Luke Pearce.

 

[Scotty]

Because what may appear an obvious yellow / red may not be upon further inspection - think Luke Pearce.

I get your point but making it mandatory would waste alot of time when a guy clearly knocked it forward with no realistic chance of catching it, deliberate knock on no review needed, pen YC, no issue

Ok red card it makes sense but not yellow

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i really wish we hadn't drifted into "deliberate" knock downs, bit of a pet peeve if mine in so far as its another thing we've found a reason to give penalties and cards for.

IMHO most of the time it comes down to the attacking team has just left it too late to make their pass and the defensive line is up. i honestly don't think it should be a penalty, if they don't regather then the attacking team is going to get an attacking scrum because of the knock on, generally that's about as much advantage as i think it deserves.

We really need to look at any of the rules that require interpretation of what was going to happen in the future, we've basically taken the old penalty try approach (which it mind memory everyone complained "how can you predict what was going to happen") and applied to loads of things.

"he was never going to regather that!"....how often do we say things like i never though he was going to do that after someone does something spectacular?

or that knock down had an overlap and so its a yellow card....i would say one 1 or 2 in 10 overlaps directly results in a try and yet we're that deserves 10 mins without a player?

If the defense wants to come up with an arm out trying to stop the pass i'd rather see the attacker looking for that and just blow past the inside shoulder as that tackle is going to be less effective

rant over

 

[Scotty]

i really wish we hadn't drifted into "deliberate" knock downs, bit of a pet peeve if mine in so far as its another thing we've found a reason to give penalties and cards for.

IMHO most of the time it comes down to the attacking team has just left it too late to make their pass and the defensive line is up. i honestly don't think it should be a penalty, if they don't regather then the attacking team is going to get an attacking scrum because of the knock on, generally that's about as much advantage as i think it deserves.

We really need to look at any of the rules that require interpretation of what was going to happen in the future, we've basically taken the old penalty try approach (which it mind memory everyone complained "how can you predict what was going to happen") and applied to loads of things.

"he was never going to regather that!"....how often do we say things like i never though he was going to do that after someone does something spectacular?

or that knock down had an overlap and so its a yellow card....i would say one 1 or 2 in 10 overlaps directly results in a try and yet we're that deserves 10 mins without a player?

If the defense wants to come up with an arm out trying to stop the pass i'd rather see the attacker looking for that and just blow past the inside shoulder as that tackle is going to be less effective

rant over

I disagree, its simple if they knock on with one hand in a downward motion and dont regether its a deliberate knock on and deserves and penalty, if its a real chance at a try or advantage its a yellow, if there is no question that the try is scored its yellow and pen try.

If he knocks the ball up and has a chance at catching it then its just a knock on. Unless its with one hand and no realistic chance, its the risk they run.

I hate to see an opportunity to see a brilliant try ruined by someone who has no chance at the intercept, dont get me wrong its great to see it pulled off.

Play needs to go on to see if it was a realistic chance, he knocks it forward but dives to regather it fair play even if it was with one hand he knocked it forward to stop the spectacular ones being punished. Cant have refs blowing to early, only pen/card/PT after he hasnt regathered at that point the sanction is decided not just because he knocked it down.

Id like to see them have the vision to see the intercept in advance and step on the inside too or keep the ball but tbh not the point, we are talking when it does go wrong for the man trying to intercept.

 

[Reiser99]

On the subject of coming back from a yellow early, looking at the hockey rule, it seems to work because the sin bin is very short at 2 minutes and there doesn't seem to be many goals scored. Where as for rugby 10 minutes is a longer time and to have a player come back after a minute because the opposition take a quick tap and score immediately would be ridiculous.

Some one suggested twenty minutes for a red and ten for a yellow, how about halving them both so yellow is 5 mins? Is that long enough? If the idea is to separate dangerous and unfair play, then dangerous play would still have the same sin bin time with the addition of the playing not coming back and then the yellow sin bin would still leave the team a man down, but not completely handicap them for an eighth of the game.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I disagree, its simple if they knock on with one hand in a downward motion and dont regether its a deliberate knock on and deserves and penalty, if its a real chance at a try or advantage its a yellow, if there is no question that the try is scored its yellow and pen try.

If he knocks the ball up and has a chance at catching it then its just a knock on. Unless its with one hand and no realistic chance, its the risk they run.

I hate to see an opportunity to see a brilliant try ruined by someone who has no chance at the intercept, dont get me wrong its great to see it pulled off.

Play needs to go on to see if it was a realistic chance, he knocks it forward but dives to regather it fair play even if it was with one hand he knocked it forward to stop the spectacular ones being punished. Cant have refs blowing to early, only pen/card/PT after he hasnt regathered at that point the sanction is decided not just because he knocked it down.

Id like to see them have the vision to see the intercept in advance and step on the inside too or keep the ball but tbh not the point, we are talking when it does go wrong for the man trying to intercept.

if they we're being that generous then i might agree but thats not how its being officiated (in NZ anyway). Twice last year otago had yellow and penalty tries awarded against them for "deliberate" knock on, both flicks very much in the up direction. the first bounced off another attacker away the the "interceptor" and so he couldn't regather and the second he flicked it a bit too hard, full length dive, got both hands too it but not enough to control it. both PT's and both yellows, feedback was more or less you actually DO have to regather or you're more than likely going to get pinged.

or the highlanders game a few weeks ago, aaron smith gets done for a deliberate knock on on about our ten meter line, once again it bounced off another attacker so he didnt have a chance to regather, yellow card because they had a 1 man overlap....still 40m to run though, about 20min later in the same game one of the warratahs does pretty much the same thing on there 22 (so much closer to the line)....no obvious overlap so just a penalty.

just seems like too many if buts or maybes, decisions to be made and the more decisions to be made the more room for different interpretations

i guess i find penalties and cards less entertaining than things like a knock down, id rather just give the scrum or even a free kick if they'd rather "do a move" close to the line and get on with it

 

[Reiser99]

if they we're being that generous then i might agree but thats not how its being officiated (in NZ anyway). Twice last year otago had yellow and penalty tries awarded against them for "deliberate" knock on, both flicks very much in the up direction. the first bounced off another attacker away the the "interceptor" and so he couldn't regather and the second he flicked it a bit too hard, full length dive, got both hands too it but not enough to control it. both PT's and both yellows, feedback was more or less you actually DO have to regather or you're more than likely going to get pinged.

or the highlanders game a few weeks ago, aaron smith gets done for a deliberate knock on on about our ten meter line, once again it bounced off another attacker so he didnt have a chance to regather, yellow card because they had a 1 man overlap....still 40m to run though, about 20min later in the same game one of the warratahs does pretty much the same thing on there 22 (so much closer to the line)....no obvious overlap so just a penalty.

just seems like too many if buts or maybes, decisions to be made and the more decisions to be made the more room for different interpretations

i guess i find penalties and cards less entertaining than things like a knock down, id rather just give the scrum or even a free kick if they'd rather "do a move" close to the line and get on with it

The problem with that is that it can then be abused as long as people hit it up. For me there are 3 types of knock on's in this situation.

One where they genuinely have a chance to catch the ball mid pass straight away and drop it. Knock on simple.
Second where players hit it up and attempt to regather. For me they know the risk and that if they don't hit it up right they won't have a chance to regather. This is a risk the players take and should just be a penalty. If the pass would have led to a try then penalty try.
Third where they slap it down or just stick a hand out to disrupt the ball. Penalty and YC. If it would have led to a try then penalty try.

Edit: The only grey area is what constitutes a genuine attempt to catch the ball if they knock it up. Some hit it up so badly that they never would have regathered ever.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

On the subject of coming back from a yellow early, looking at the hockey rule, it seems to work because the sin bin is very short at 2 minutes and there doesn't seem to be many goals scored. Where as for rugby 10 minutes is a longer time and to have a player come back after a minute because the opposition take a quick tap and score immediately would be ridiculous.

Some one suggested twenty minutes for a red and ten for a yellow, how about halving them both so yellow is 5 mins? Is that long enough? If the idea is to separate dangerous and unfair play, then dangerous play would still have the same sin bin time with the addition of the playing not coming back and then the yellow sin bin would still leave the team a man down, but not completely handicap them for an eighth of the game.

in hockey we have minute majors which you can’t come back if the other team scores... I think that’s more anagoulous to a yellow than 2 min minor

Fk/scrum= technical infraction
Pk= 2 min minor
Yellow= major
Red= game misconduct

For intentional knock ons I think ruining attacking movements with cynical play ruins the game more than yellow cards.

Without yellows, I think we’d see a lot more professional fouls in general.

 

[Reiser99]

in hockey we have minute majors which you can’t come back if the other team scores... I think that’s more anagoulous to a yellow than 2 min minor

Fk/scrum= technical infraction
Pk= 2 min minor
Yellow= major
Red= game misconduct

For intentional knock ons I think ruining attacking movements with cynical play ruins the game more than yellow cards.

Without yellows, I think we’d see a lot more professional fouls in general.

Sorry for my poor knowledge of hockey, but what are the sanctions for a technical infraction, yellow and red? On the face of it, it seems similar to the 4 levels that smartcooky is proposing as he doesn't mention fk/scrum infractions, but they would still be there.

 

[smartcooky]

Almost.

We can all agree that red cards can kill a game like it did on Saturday. What Im saying just adds to that. It doesn't have to be the All Blacks. It can be any team. As soon as you lose a player for over a whole half, you are almost certain to lose to England, Ireland, South Africa. Red cards are a bit too extreme.

And some of the red cards are just ridiculous. Check this one out below.

Actually, I thought that was a fair call.

De Allenede was 5m away when he put his hands up for the charge down, then took three more strides before striking Sopoaga with a forearm to the throat. He had plenty of time to pull out of that, and he did not need to raise his forearm. He could have just fallen to the ground. He made no effort whatsoever to stop, and even if he just followed through with an ordinary tackle, it probably wouldn't even have been a penalty because the drop kick went over. What De Allende did there was intentional, reckless and dangerous - Red Card all day long.

 

[All Black]

Actually, I thought that was a fair call.

De Allenede was 5m away when he put his hands up for the charge down, then took three more strides before striking Sopoaga with a forearm to the throat. He had plenty of time to pull out of that, and he did not need to raise his forearm. He could have just fallen to the ground. He made no effort whatsoever to stop, and even if he just followed through with an ordinary tackle, it probably wouldn't even have been a penalty because the drop kick went over. What De Allende did there was intentional, reckless and dangerous - Red Card all day long.

A penalty for the raised elbow, yes...but a red card? I disagree. Despite what the laws say, too harsh IMO. If that was a crime, I'd say it was petty theft of $5 and for that, De Allende received the death penalty.

Red cards should only come out for the worst. What can WR do about red cards runing the game? Stop bringing it out for offences that were yesteryears 'slap on the wrist'.

 

[Reiser99]

A penalty for the raised elbow, yes...but a red card? I disagree. Despite what the laws say, too harsh IMO. If that was a crime, I'd say it was petty theft of $5 and for that, De Allende received the death penalty.

Red cards should only come out for the worst. What can WR do about red cards runing the game? Stop bringing it out for offences that were yesteryears 'slap on the wrist'.

So you're saying that a raised arm/elbow to the throat, with force and speed, especially late when he had time to pull out, is a minor offence and on deserves a slap on the wrist? Maybe get forearmed to the throat first and then say it's a minor offence. It's dangerous and made worse by the way he chose to continue his run at full speed.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

yeah, generally i end up on the more lenient side of these things, generally think things are getting our of hand with cards for this and that....but a deliberate forearm to the throat is pretty bad

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'd say the De Allende was a red. The only time I've taken 3 steps like that even at full tilt and not been able to adjust at all, I've already been halfway to the floor. He jumped, eyed up the player and saw an opportunity to have a cheap shot. It was almost certainly intended to be a shove to the chest but if you try for a cheap shot there is a chance it will go very wrong.

 

[All Black]

So you're saying that a raised arm/elbow to the throat...

Nah Im saying what Ive said, Ive put in basic english and so there shouldnt be a need to twist what I said by adding 'elbow to the throat'.

Yeah like I said before, and Ill repeat again for you - a penalty only for me.

 

[All Black]

What can WR do about Red Cards ruining games for the fans?
Well so far this thread has come up with more cards, more penalties and support of previous red cards.

Not from me however as I do believe the once rare occasion of a red card is now creating a lot more 14 players vs 15 games compared to yesteryear. Some of these offences are tiddlywinks IMO and thats where our game is headed.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i agree in general, accidents being carded etc....but the forearm is too far for me