Sin-Bin rule and draw

[lasonhy]

In the Super Rugby, there was a draw game.

Reds 25-25 blues

19 03 2016

I believe that this game had to be Reds' win.
The reason is that there was a Blues player (18 Sione Mafileo) in sinbin at the end of game.
If sinbin time finished before the end of game, the sinbin player was penalised enough. But, if there were still sinbin time at the end of game, the sinbin player were still being penalised. So in this case, a win must be awarded to Reds. :huh:

 

[Which Tyler]

I disagree, to win, you have to score more points than the opponent. In games where the result is paramount (knock out rugby) then we already go through to extra time or penalty shoot-outs. In league / round robin formats, then a draw is a perfectly acceptable result, and no reason to change anything to create a winning side who didn't manage to score more points.

 

[ncurd]

More importantly if you fail to beat teams who are down a man, you don't really deserve a 'win'.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

If i recall correctly, in the 90s there was a mini world cup for u19s or u21s, and one of the tie break criterion for the knock out stages was # of yellow/red cards. I recall it because a guy from my club got yellow carded early in the game and he said he spent the rest of the game terrified they'd lose because of that.

I dont mind it for play off games, but i prefer actual draws in group stages.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I follow your point OP. I agree that it's stupid that offenses of the same severity should carry different punishment based on when they occur. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of a red card - identical offenses could result in playing a man short for 79 minutes or just 1. Saying that, I can't think of a better answer and don't agree with assuming that a team would have lost if the sun bin period had run its course.

 

[Leinster Fan]

Well anything is better than this....

Deciding a semi-final based on which teams flankers are better place-kickers is kind of self-explanatory in terms of ridiculousness.

I don't agree that a game should be decided if a team still has a player yellow carded though. There is a need of a system in knockouts, but the vast majority of them are decided by extra time. Regular season games ending as a draw is fine though.

 

[Which Tyler]

Is that the only time it's ever gone to penalties? If so, then hardly a frequent enough event t be worth changing.
If you have to though, then how about a game of 7s from whoever's left standing? (After extra time, obviously)

The other suggestions I've seen are that you'll agree extra time, and each team looses a player every 2nd minute; extra time with a golden score; replay tomorrow with no players playing both matches.

 

[Leinster Fan]

As far as I know it's the only top tier game that it happens but I assume that it's happened at lower levels. They did change the rules so that it was only backs that took kicks or something similar.
I think they're reluctant to keep playing in any form after 100 minutes because they're worried about high injury rates if they keep playing past that point.

 

[FNS]

The penalty shoot out is fun when you get to 2nd rows and 1st row xD poor guys

 

[die_mole]

The penalty shoot out is fun when you get to 2nd rows and 1st row xD poor guys

Seriously if a team can't win in 100 minutes I think I've earned the right to watch professional athletes fail miserably at something.

I reffed Virginia u13 championship game and it went to penalty kicks. The only problem is that these kids weren't strong enough to reach the posts. We ended up having to move up the kick.

 

[RedruthRFC]

The penalty shoot out is fun when you get to 2nd rows and 1st row xD poor guys

The trick is to bring John Eales and Zinzan off the bench at the right time!

 

[RedruthRFC]

More importantly if you fail to beat teams who are down a man, you don't really deserve a 'win'.

This (and most other posts) ignores the fact that the team with a full compliment on the field haven't been handed the same advantage as a result of their opponent's indiscretion as they would have been if the offence had taken place before there was 70 minutes on the clock, making the sanction inconsistent. I suppose you could offer then "wronged" team's captain the option of continuing the game until the yellow card period is up, but this would get messy if there were further yellow cards during the extended period of play.

When yellow cards first came along, commentators were fond of saying that a yellow card costs the team receiving it an average of seven points. I always thought that this was misleading. This seems high, but is skewed by the fact that the offence that lead to the yellow card could have led directly to a penalty, penalty try or field position that leads to a scoring opportunity - you wouldn't expect a side that concedes a red card after 10 minutes to ship 49 points by default! However, you could make a case for awarding points to the wronged party when the timing of a yellow card means that they won't be awarded the same advantage as they would have been for the first 70 minutes of the match.

As I say, if there is a problem, it is with red cards, not yellows, where by the punishment received / advantage awarded to the opposition is arbitrary based upon the time that the offence occurs. Until this is addressed (and I don't see how it can be), I don't see that it would be fair to try to correct for the inherent unfairness of yellow cards after 70 minutes. There would be great comedy value in saying that a red card means that the offending team should be without a player for a full 80 minutes, meaning that a team that receives a red card on half time would have to stand down an additional player for the second half so that 80 minutes of "min time" are served for the offence! A 75th minute red card would create 5 minutes of great entertainment (unless you support the side that received it)!

 

[Which Tyler]

Which ignores that the purpose of the sanction isn't to reward the sinned-against team, or to punish the sinning team, but to punish the sinning player.

This is the point of disciplin on the rugby pitch, it is the point of disciplin post-match within rugby, it is the point of disciplin in any sport, and in the legal system of virtually every nation state.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Which ignores that the purpose of the sanction isn't to reward the sinned-against team, or to punish the sinning team, but to punish the sinning player.

This is the point of disciplin on the rugby pitch, it is the point of disciplin post-match within rugby, it is the point of disciplin in any sport, and in the legal system of virtually every nation state.

I considered this and decided that I didn't know the answer and couldn't infer one by applying logic. If it is the sanction is intended to discipline the offending player, then it fails as the sanction varies based upon the timing of the offence. If sanctions in rugby aren't intended to hand an advantage to the wronged party, why do we have penalty kicks? In a team game, how can a sanction against a member of a team not be said to also be a sanction against that team?

 

[Which Tyler]

But it doesn't; the offender receives a card, whether there's 1 minute left or 1 minute played; the sanction is the same.
You equivolence here is that a fine for littering is a lesser fine for a wealthy person than it is for a homeless one; even if the fine is £50 for each of them.

 

[RedruthRFC]

But it doesn't; the offender receives a card, whether there's 1 minute left or 1 minute played; the sanction is the same.

Only if you consider a piece of paper being waved at the player to be the sanction, not this and (ordinarily) ten minutes off the field to be the sanction.

You equivolence here is that a fine for littering is a lesser fine for a wealthy person than it is for a homeless one; even if the fine is £50 for each of them.

I thought that means tested fines had been introduced in this country (albeit not for littering AFAIK). Either way, I don't see that the analogy is apt - each player has the same "means" - a stop clock 80 minutes on the field unless they do anything particularly egregious. On this basis, some players are being "fined" less than others.

 

[Which Tyler]

Only if you consider a piece of paper being waved at the player to be the sanction, not this and (ordinarily) ten minutes off the field to be the sanction.

Red cards carry an automatic citing.
Isn't it 3 yellows that also comes with an automatic citing?

 

[RedruthRFC]

Red cards carry an automatic citing.
Isn't it 3 yellows that also comes with an automatic citing?

AFAIK it depends on the organising committee, in NCA competition, only foul play yellow cards are recorded. I take your point that this is part of the sanction against the player (and in turn their team), but it doesn't mean that being (ordinarily) removed from the field for 10 minutes isn't.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Which ignores that the purpose of the sanction isn't to reward the sinned-against team, or to punish the sinning team, but to punish the sinning player.

Excuse me? Are you serious?

 

[smartcooky]

In the Super Rugby, there was a draw game.

Reds 25-25 blues

19 03 2016

I believe that this game had to be Reds' win.
The reason is that there was a Blues player (18 Sione Mafileo) in sinbin at the end of game.
If sinbin time finished before the end of game, the sinbin player was penalised enough. But, if there were still sinbin time at the end of game, the sinbin player were still being penalised. So in this case, a win must be awarded to Reds. :huh:

Are you sigesige's brother?