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

[TRF_heineken]

Let me know when a modern day team plays with 14 men for at least 40 mins, beats a tier 1 team.

Just because the AB's never gets red cards, doesn't mean this hasn't happened yet...

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Also this :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/42963703

Club rugby I know, but proof that a side can be dominant even a man down

 

[All Black]

Thanks gents for that. And wow thats an incredible feat.

I guess my point I was tryin to make is that, you're almost certain to lose if you are playing with 14. Actually I'll use my team for an example, I probably should've did this before.

I don't think the All Blacks has lost to a team with 14 players in it for over 40 mins in recent times.

 

[All Black]

Also this :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/42963703

Club rugby I know, but proof that a side can be dominant even a man down

Yeah and thats fantastic but you get a red card against say the All Blacks and you have to play with 14 men for over 40 mins. Its almost an instant loss. You see what Im saying?

 

[All Black]

Just because the AB's never gets red cards, doesn't mean this hasn't happened yet...

Disagree with the never. You know why.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Yeah and thats fantastic but you get a red card against say the All Blacks and you have to play with 14 men for over 40 mins. Its almost an instant loss. You see what Im saying?

Yeah I see what you mean. But it's almost an instant loss playing them anyway

 

[All Black]

Yeah I see what you mean. But it's almost an instant loss playing them anyway

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.

 

[TRF_heineken]

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.

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...

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Thanks gents for that. And wow thats an incredible feat.

I guess my point I was tryin to make is that, you're almost certain to lose if you are playing with 14. Actually I'll use my team for an example, I probably should've did this before.

I don't think the All Blacks has lost to a team with 14 players in it for over 40 mins in recent times.

I can't see anyone beating NZ down a man, nor Ireland who have made an art of taking advantage of a man advantage as seen when the first half yellow card periods were the difference last Saturday. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, to beat the best side and the second best in the world you have to be near flawless from 1-15 and an individual can lose the game by getting charged down, throwing an intercept as well as dangerous play whether intentional, reckless or accidental.

While I agree with the addition of a new card I think it's important we continue to do the utmost to protect the head and neck area so while the contentious incidents from the NZ tests in the last two weeks would be the new card I still think Daly, SBW and Stander's cards should result in a man down for the duration of the match.

I think a better way to do it is to presume that the offense should result in a normal sending off unless the player couldn't reasonably be expected to avoid the incident. So Fall being pushed and watching the ball would see it downgraded, Cane making the first hit and Grosso falling would see it for Ofa, basically following what the citing commission has said but introducing a new card for it to stop controversy arising from on field ref decisions. The new card would be more the exception than the norm though.

 

[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...

Wow that is a low amount. Im surprised.

Well now Im proud too lol.

Yep I remember the Bismarck one and I agree. The red card is too harsh. They need to look at changing some of that.

Thanks for the info about the red cards. We are the good guys

 

[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.

 

[die_mole]

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.