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

[Derpus]

You also can't swing that hard when you are standing on ice. The punches landed in ice hockey are relatively weak compared to what the guy would throw if they planted on the ground. It's just not as dangerous.

A big issue I have is how we talk about cards. Cards aren't ruining the game. The player who decides to make the illegal action ruins the game.

Why do we want to change the game for people who apparently don't like the game anyway?

Sure they are. And plenty of people who love rugby hate the number of cards that they've started dishing out over the last decade (including me). This isn't all about people who like League having a swing.

Do we have any evidence that suggests that 'cracking down' on high shots is actually having a positive impact on concussion outcomes? after all, most concussions are to the defender and the vast majority of high shot cards these days are pure accidents.

Is there any evidence to suggest that disincentives after a game are any less likely to alter player behaviour than haphazard in-game disincentives?

The whole 'issue a shitload of cards to change player behaviour' stinks of liability mitigation. To run a claim in negligence in the UK/Aus you have to establish that there is a realised risk a person/org with a duty of care should have been aware of and that the organisation didn't take reasonable steps to address that risk. They aren't trying to protect players or improve the game - they are just angling for a plausible defense in any potential lawsuit.

And we aren't 'changing the game' to suit league fans, which I assume is what you are implying. Actually, the volume of cards is relatively new to the game. If anything, we are actively changing the game to suit no-one.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I dont think cards necessarily ruin a game - but they certainly can. And is the above in bold really the case?

Do we have any evidence that suggests that 'cracking down' on high shots is actually having a positive impact on concussion outcomes? after all, most concussions are to the defender and the vast majority of high shot cards these days are pure accidents.

The whole 'issue a shitload of cards to change player behaviour' stinks of liability mitigation. To run a claim in negligence in the UK/Aus you have to establish that there is a risk a person/org with a duty of care should have been aware of and that the organisation didn't take reasonable steps to address that risk.

They aren't trying to protect players or improve the game - they are just angling for a plausible defense in any potential lawsuit.

People say that cards ruin games cause it reduces the games down to 15 v 14 or whatever numbers happen. My point is that cars aren't an independent sentient body, they are given out by referees due to actions of players. It is the players who cause cards to come out. So if cards are ruining games, blame the players.

And please, sending offs have been part of the game since law 45 of the 1888 rules. It has nothing to do with liability mitigation.

 

[Derpus]

People say that cards ruin games cause it reduces the games down to 15 v 14 or whatever numbers happen. My point is that cars aren't an independent sentient body, they are given out by referees due to actions of players. It is the players who cause cards to come out. So if cards are ruining games, blame the players.

And please, sending offs have been part of the game since law 45 of the 1888 rules. It has nothing to do with liability mitigation.

The rate cards are being handed out has obviously dramatically accelerated. Even yellow cards were rare before the turn of the century.

I don't really get your other point or how it addresses anything I have had to say. Yes, the players actions are what's being punished, but WR have created an environment where it is almost impossible for a full team of players to get through a game without doing something card worthy - intended or otherwise.

To use an extreme example, imagine if it was a yellow card offence to step on the field markings? obviously, it's the players fault for stepping on the markings but the rule make it absurdly difficult not to infringe.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

The rate cards are being handed out has obviously dramatically accelerated. Even yellow cards were rare before the turn of the century.

I don't really get your other point or how it addresses anything I have had to say. Yes, the players actions are what's being punished, but WR have created an environment where it is almost impossible for a full team of players to get through a game without doing something card worthy - intended or otherwise.

To use an extreme example, imagine if it was a yellow card offence to step on the field markings? obviously, it's the players fault for stepping on the markings but the rule make it absurdly difficult not to infringe.

So your response is to make a slippery slope argument.

1. Are you serious?
2. Please tell me you aren't serious?
3. How much have you "invested" in Bitcoin?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

People say that cards ruin games cause it reduces the games down to 15 v 14 or whatever numbers happen. My point is that cars aren't an independent sentient body, they are given out by referees due to actions of players. It is the players who cause cards to come out. So if cards are ruining games, blame the players.

And please, sending offs have been part of the game since law 45 of the 1888 rules. It has nothing to do with liability mitigation.

come on, you never use to get cards for things like repeated minor infringements or accidents, until the last 15 years you pretty much had to clothesline, punch or bite someone ear to get a card

looking at RWC red cards

87 - 2
91 - 2
95 - 4
99 - 4
07 - 2
11 - 2
15 - 1
19 - 8!...thats more than several of the other combined

 

[Derpus]

So your response is to make a slippery slope argument.

1. Are you serious?
2. Please tell me you aren't serious?
3. How much have you "invested" in Bitcoin?

It is not a slippery slope argument - it is merely the ability to understand that the (ever increasing) criteria for which a card can be awarded has a correlative effect on the number of cards handed out (and that this has the capacity to negatively impact the quality of entertainment on show).

Something clearly beyond you. To assist: a slippery slope argument is where I suggest that one action must inevitably result in some other more extreme/unintended action/consequence. My analogy was merely illustrative of the point that we have made it very difficult for players to get through a game without receiving a card.

 

[Reiser99]

I'd like to respond on more detail but I'm on my way to the airport at 6 a.m.

One big point though is that head contact rules are in response to clear long term health issues suffered by players from repeated head knocks. Now while you may disagree how WR are going about trying to address this and whether it's reducing concussions, opposing the rules because it makes the game less entertaining is not a valid reason. Player's health is not more important than fan's entertainment.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I'd like to respond on more detail but I'm on my way to the airport at 6 a.m.

One big point though is that head contact rules are in response to clear long term health issues suffered by players from repeated head knocks. Now while you may disagree how WR are going about trying to address this and whether it's reducing concussions, opposing the rules because it makes the game less entertaining is not a valid reason. Player's health is not more important than fan's entertainment.

im happy to not talk about head contact, my real issue is the cards that are given for other things, and i think there would be less debate if we weren't equating other "offenses" to head knocks

 

[Derpus]

I'd like to respond on more detail but I'm on my way to the airport at 6 a.m.

One big point though is that head contact rules are in response to clear long term health issues suffered by players from repeated head knocks. Now while you may disagree how WR are going about trying to address this and whether it's reducing concussions, opposing the rules because it makes the game less entertaining is not a valid reason. Player's health is not more important than fan's entertainment.

Agreed - if there is clear evidence that issuing a high number of cards reduces the number of concussions or head injuries sustained by players then I don't think we'll see anything change even if arguably a similar result could be achieved with more severe post-match penalties.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Post match penalties won't work. And we see more concussions now than we used to - a lot more, it's pretty rare to go through a test match or super rugby game without seeing one. Why? Coaching.

Coaches will coach players to be aggressive and have two men in the tackle. Coaches will also coach players to go hard at the line and win the collision. Coaches won't select players who aren't as good at these things. Therefore the after match incentive doesn't work. The incentive needs to be on the coaches. More cards creates this incentive. Not less. At the moment there are not enough, not even if reds are for the whole game. They need to make the threahold for cards lower but introduce an orange card or a black card because at the moment the difference between a yellow and something they deem worse than a yellow is too much, given the millimeters or milliseconds determining whether one occurs vs the other.

Makes more cards and fans wont complain because either cards will just become an accepted part of the game, or coaching will change drastically to the point (non yellow) cards will be rare again. Either way I think we'll see less cards due to head or shoulder contact with oppositions head.

In saying all that, tackle height trials have shown an increased prevalence of concussion because defenders are getting concussed from contact between their head and opposition hips and knees.

So who knows

 

[Derpus]

So you think we actually need even more cards? Not convinced eh.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

and this is where we will disagree, we may have already on another thread, in the years i played and in the years ive managed clubs since, ive never met or heard anyone opening talk about deliberately collapsing a scrum, hell we have strict protocols for someone to call out if they feel theyre in a dangerous position and it may collapse

yes, lots of old tricks for making things difficult for the other scrum, angles and binds, hell, plenty of people back in the 90's would admit to throwing an uppercut....but never collapsing, everyone knows its next level dangerous

It certainly happened when I was playing as did deliberately lifting. It's always been part of the game, even if everyone denies doing it, and I've certainly read about professionals taking it down when they haven't got the engagement right so they can reset. Maybe these days it's more often that players are getting into positions where they increase the likelihood of a collapse more than outright intent.

But to an extent, it doesn't really matter. We can agree that we see way too many collapsed scrums and that it's next level dangerous. If the number of collapses we see is unavoidable (which I don't believe for a minute) then it's fundamentally broken and we might as well go RL style. However implemented a collapsed scrum should be made as unacceptable, and rare, as head contact or playing the main in the air.

Or are we waiting for a top class international to get maimed before doing anything?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

It certainly happened when I was playing as did deliberately lifting. It's always been part of the game, even if everyone denies doing it, and I've certainly read about professionals taking it down when they haven't got the engagement right so they can reset. Maybe these days it's more often that players are getting into positions where they increase the likelihood of a collapse more than outright intent.

But to an extent, it doesn't really matter. We can agree that we see way too many collapsed scrums and that it's next level dangerous. If the number of collapses we see is unavoidable (which I don't believe for a minute) then it's fundamentally broken and we might as well go RL style. However implemented a collapsed scrum should be made as unacceptable, and rare, as head contact or playing the main in the air.

Or are we waiting for a top class international to get maimed before doing anything?

slightly hyperbolic here...but if youre right and people are doing it deliberately all the time...then they only have themselves to blame...no excuse for not knowing the risk

personally with the people i talk too a lot of the time they are unavoidable when you have 16 blokes that sizes...i dont think cards are changing anything which tells me its most often not deliberate.

Give a free kick, take most of the pack out of it as they wont have retreated and play on, anyone deliberately collapsing it will soon stop when they lose 30 meters to a quick halfback...but dont punish those that just aren't strong enough by turning a knock on into a kickable opportunity which we're seeing all the time now

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I don't watch rugby league, but I'd add that my YouTube feed is filled with weekly vids of NRL managers whinging about referees in post match conferences. I'm not saying anyone has suggested that rugby league is exempt from referee complaints. My point is managers (self preservation) and media (clickbait) have a vested interest in moaning about refs. If it wasn't red cards it'd be something else.

I absolutely blame players and coaches for the number of red cards and poor tackle technique. For yellows I think the sport has massively cracked down on repeat infringement that slows down the attacking side. I think yellows in those circumstances are a great addition both in changing the dynamic of the next 10 mins, in terms of punishing repeat infringement and in terms of deterring infringements that reduce attacking play. Ice Hockey has power plays (one out of 5? players sent off temporarily). Rugby could look at rebranding yellows in a similar way.

 

[Derpus]

I don't watch rugby league, but I'd add that my YouTube feed is filled with weekly vids of NRL managers whinging about referees in post match conferences. I'm not saying anyone has suggested that rugby league is exempt from referee complaints. My point is managers (self preservation) and media (clickbait) have a vested interest in moaning about refs. If it wasn't red cards it'd be something else.

I absolutely blame players and coaches for the number of red cards and poor tackle technique. For yellows I think the sport has massively cracked down on repeat infringement that slows down the attacking side. I think yellows in those circumstances are a great addition both in changing the dynamic of the next 10 mins, in terms of punishing repeat infringement and in terms of deterring infringements that reduce attacking play. Ice Hockey has power plays (one out of 5? players sent off temporarily). Rugby could look at rebranding yellows in a similar way.

Sure people will always argue about refereeing decisions. Difference is a sinbin is much rarer than a card. Almost all games these days involve multiple cards. You might get one sinbin per round of NRL.

Its just...better. Ultimately, what rugby can do to stop cards ruining the game is to stop dishing them out like candy.

And if they don't then they'll continue to see the same negative trajectory (except In England, i guess, where they love that ****).

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I'd argue if they don't dish them out then you'll get more sterile, defensively dominant games with massive coached infringements by defending sides. Keep onside, don't slow down the ball and wrap in the tackle and the cards will calm down.

 

[Zootalaws]

A fabulous principle on which to base a judicial or regulatory body . . .

Absolutely. If you spend more time and effort in unearthing a possible infringement and then the decision you make is subsequently dissected to the point it's found to be erroneous in the first place, the process is probably failing its objective - to make the game more egalitarian and the playing-field, level.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I'm with Rennie on this one and can see someone going home from the RWC purely because a red was issued when it shouldnt have been or because a ref bottles it and issues a yellow. Disappointed the 20min red has been binned and I'm very pro player safety. I'd have made it an orange card for 20mins and you can't come back on. With a straight red being the same as ever but only for outrageous misconduct.

Australia: Dave Rennie frustrated at end of 20-minute-card trial

Australia coach Dave Rennie has voiced his unhappiness with the decision to drop the global trial of the 20-minute red card sanction.

www.planetrugby.com

I find this confusing. Now the 20 min red trial is back from the dead?

SANZAAR retain 20-minute red card for the Rugby Championship

The 20-minute red card is going nowhere for the Rugby Championship – They had the trial last year, and this is in use in Super Rugby

www.rugbyworld.com

I agree with it for things that look unintentional but the press release that came with it was pretty dire talking about prioritising 15 on 15 with seemingly no mention of concussion or player welfare or tackle technique. If it had been sold as part of a package to improve tackle technique and player welfare then fine, but this just smacks of burying a concussed head in the sand.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I find this confusing. Now the 20 min red trial is back from the dead?

SANZAAR retain 20-minute red card for the Rugby Championship

The 20-minute red card is going nowhere for the Rugby Championship – They had the trial last year, and this is in use in Super Rugby

www.rugbyworld.com

I agree with it for things that look unintentional but the press release that came with it was pretty dire talking about prioritising 15 on 15 with seemingly no mention of concussion or player welfare or tackle technique. If it had been sold as part of a package to improve tackle technique and player welfare then fine, but this just smacks of burying a concussed head in the sand.

that's what it has always been about

 

[Derpus]

I find this confusing. Now the 20 min red trial is back from the dead?

SANZAAR retain 20-minute red card for the Rugby Championship

The 20-minute red card is going nowhere for the Rugby Championship – They had the trial last year, and this is in use in Super Rugby

www.rugbyworld.com

I agree with it for things that look unintentional but the press release that came with it was pretty dire talking about prioritising 15 on 15 with seemingly no mention of concussion or player welfare or tackle technique. If it had been sold as part of a package to improve tackle technique and player welfare then fine, but this just smacks of burying a concussed head in the sand.

I think its a WR compromise. NZ and RA have competition from NRL so they'll allow us our little deviance so the sport remains competitive here whilst keeping full red cards more broadly.