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

[Derpus]

Here's my controversial opinion:

No cards. Period. The system is too complicated to adjudicate consistently and effectively in the heat of the moment. It's simply impossible and is resulting in perverse outcomes.

All foul play is referred to a citation panel who review all incidents and decide if it meets the threshold for disciplinary action. Said action can be taken to independent review by the disciplined player.

Disciplinary action includes monetary fines (as a percentage of salary) as well as bans.

The ref can still remove a player from the game for serious foul play (throwing punches and the like). But for the vast majority of 'cardable offences' the punishments comes after the match.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

ive said it loads of time, i would love for a working group to come together and start from first principles and build the rules/laws back up from scratch and see where we end up, too many rules are just rules on top of rules

 

[Reiser99]

Here's my controversial opinion:

No cards. Period. The system is too complicated to adjudicate consistently and effectively in the heat of the moment. It's simply impossible and is resulting in perverse outcomes.

All foul play is referred to a citation panel who review all incidents and decide if it meets the threshold for disciplinary action. Said action can be taken to independent review by the disciplined player.

Disciplinary action includes monetary fines (as a percentage of salary) as well as bans.

The ref can still remove a player from the game for serious foul play (throwing punches and the like). But for the vast majority of 'cardable offences' the punishments comes after the match.

Playing devil's advocate, so a player intentionally leads with the shoulder in the first minute of a world cup final and concusses the oppositions fly half and he's out for the rest of the game. How is it fair that the offending player still gets to continue competing when the player he intentionally knocked unconscious can't? Yes he might miss games after, but that means little to the opposition who are now down one player from the match day squad after a minute in a world cup final.

What if another player targets the replacement fly half and he too gets knocked unconscious. Now you have 2 different players who might argue they were just reckless and not intentional, but now the opposition has lost 2 fly halves.

I know it's an extreme example and unlikely to happen, but I honestly don't think you would avoid controversy moving to just citings. All that would happen is people would argue more at the time and then more after.

Here's another example. Team A are 4 points behind, the clock is red and they are in Team B's 22. Team B continually infringe intentionally and cynically to stop Team A's attack. The ref keeps awarding penalties, but Team A can't kick as they will still lose. Team B knows they won't be punished for giving away multiple penalties because there are no cards now.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Playing devil's advocate, so a player intentionally leads with the shoulder in the first minute of a world cup final and concusses the oppositions fly half and he's out for the rest of the game. How is it fair that the offending player still gets to continue competing when the player he intentionally knocked unconscious can't? Yes he might miss games after, but that means little to the opposition who are now down one player from the match day squad after a minute in a world cup final.

What if another player targets the replacement fly half and he too gets knocked unconscious. Now you have 2 different players who might argue they were just reckless and not intentional, but now the opposition has lost 2 fly halves.

I know it's an extreme example and unlikely to happen, but I honestly don't think you would avoid controversy moving to just citings. All that would happen is people would argue more at the time and then more after.

Here's another example. Team A are 4 points behind, the clock is red and they are in Team B's 22. Team B continually infringe intentionally and cynically to stop Team A's attack. The ref keeps awarding penalties, but Team A can't kick as they will still lose. Team B knows they won't be punished for giving away multiple penalties because there are no cards now.

playing devils devils advocate...angels advocate?...anyway....the ref could still award a penalty try if the infringement clearly stopped the scoring of a try...but if its just a step offside or something...i'm kind of of the opinion that doesn't justify being down a player and loosing the game

same situation but the attacking team has a super dominant scrum, defending team gets decimated by purely just not being as strong...is it really fair that loses the game, they cant suddenly become stronger

 

[Reiser99]

playing devils devils advocate...angels advocate?...anyway....the ref could still award a penalty try if the infringement clearly stopped the scoring of a try...but if its just a step offside or something...i'm kind of of the opinion that doesn't justify being down a player and loosing the game

same situation but the attacking team has a super dominant scrum, defending team gets decimated by purely just not being as strong...is it really fair that loses the game, they cant suddenly become stronger

Yes they risk a potential penalty try, but let's assume it's not clear cut. Definitely at the moment when close to the line there are almost certain tries stopped by infringing players, but because there are defenders near by the ref can't say 100% that it would be a try. You and Derpus are both advocating simplifying the game and removing subjectivity. There would be a lot of subjectivity awarding a penalty try in a 5m scenario.

As for the point about the scrum, what has that got to do with anything? Scrum is a technical part of the game not an offense in itself. I personally want to see scrum laws changed, but honestly not sure what this has to do with what I wrote about players offending.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Yes they risk a potential penalty try, but let's assume it's not clear cut. Definitely at the moment when close to the line there are almost certain tries stopped by infringing players, but because there are defenders near by the ref can't say 100% that it would be a try. You and Derpus are both advocating simplifying the game and removing subjectivity. There would be a lot of subjectivity awarding a penalty try in a 5m scenario.

As for the point about the scrum, what has that got to do with anything? Scrum is a technical part of the game not an offense in itself. I personally want to see scrum laws changed, but honestly not sure what this has to do with what I wrote about players offending.

because a scrum collapsing is almost always penalised, that situation on your 5m line can cost you a player and a try under the current approach, so i was taking your example of a team holding onto a lead on their own goal line and saying...is that a fair way to lose a game?

 

[Reiser99]

because a scrum collapsing is almost always penalised, that situation on your 5m line can cost you a player and a try under the current approach, so i was taking your example of a team holding onto a lead on their own goal line and saying...is that a fair way to lose a game?

Ok, I still don't think that addresses what I wrote, but I understand what you are saying. I personally feel scrum laws need overhauling and I've said multiple times that if ball goes in and the scrum is stable then the most that can be given for a collapse is a free kick. This way stronger teams have less incentive to keep the ball in and weaker teams have more incentive to scrummage properly.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I saw this thread with smart cookys icon on it as the thread starter and figured the return of smart cooky must have been what brought the forum down. "Scott barrett was legal, I'm right you are all wankers, please stop bullying me, but it's ok that I call you all wankers because have you not read my signature?"

Then I realised the thread was started some time ago. Do miss the cooky monster though

 

[ncurd]

I saw this thread with smart cookys icon on it as the thread starter and figured the return of smart cooky must have been what brought the forum down. "Scott barrett was legal, I'm right you are all wankers, please stop bullying me, but it's ok that I call you all wankers because have you not read my signature?"

Then I realised the thread was started some time ago. Do miss the cooky monster though

Was this the thread which caused him to leave?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Was this the thread which caused him to leave?

Hmm not sure

 

[Rinkadink]

The ref can still remove a player from the game for serious foul play (throwing punches and the like)

Nah, let's do ice hockey style... let em swing with rules laid out and then cool off on sidelines before coming back out.

 

[ncurd]

Nah, let's do ice hockey style... let em swing with rules laid out and then cool off on sidelines before coming back out.

Thats only NHL and most of the fights are kinda staged. Fight in any other Ice Hockey Match and your getting ejected.

 

[die_mole]

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?

 

[ncurd]

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.

Yeah you both have agree to the fight before a punch is thrown, one guy doesn't lamp you then you lamp them back. Its usually 'won' by the guy who kept his balance. They are extremely rarely due to immediate reactions to an event as flashpoints and occurs minutes after the incident.

Sometimes two guys do it for 'fun'

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I personally feel scrum laws need overhauling and I've said multiple times that if ball goes in and the scrum is stable then the most that can be given for a collapse is a free kick.

I don't see it that way.

We saw a red for Swain at the weekend for negligible head contact - but that's the rule and he had to go. We've seen reds given out for inadvertently taking the player out in the air and them landing a degree the wrong way. No intent necessary but the rules are there and enforced.

I see collapsed scrums in a similar light. In fact, worse. The potential damage is immense, possibly paralysis or beyond and the collapse is often deliberate - not always, but often. As with those other examples there just has to be zero tolerance of scrums going down and major sanction when they do. That's really all that's needed to change behaviour. An initial rash of cards followed by coaches and players rethinking. I want to see competitive scrums but not the current blight of collapses.

 

[Eleutherarch]

I want to see competitive scrums but not the current blight of collapses.

Genuine question - how much input do the ARs have in policing scrums on the distal side? A good number of collapses seem to be instigated by subtle but significant infringements all but invisible to the ref.

 

[die_mole]

they call penalties on that side. You can often hear the "white, white, white" call coming on the broadcast from the AR. From experience, you are only really useful on scrums 15 or closer to the touch line. I think there are comps that have trialed having the AR come onto the field but that could be a mess.

 

[Zootalaws]

More rules, just what we need.

Maybe train the refs to be better judges of what deserves a card in the first place.

They're automatons to the rule book as it is - if any contact comes near the head, no matter how incidental and regardless of any amount of 'damage', it's a card.

The same with 'high' tackles - they're getting out the micrometer to decide whether a tackle was high, with zero regard for whether it was dangerous or likely to cause danger.

We've seen the same with cricket and tennis, where technology has de-skilled umpires

As a fan, I'm pretty bored with ten minute on and off-field adjudications for something that they can't decide with the eye. If it's so hard to work out, it probably didn't happen

 

[Eleutherarch]

If it's so hard to work out, it probably didn't happen

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

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I don't see it that way.

We saw a red for Swain at the weekend for negligible head contact - but that's the rule and he had to go. We've seen reds given out for inadvertently taking the player out in the air and them landing a degree the wrong way. No intent necessary but the rules are there and enforced.

I see collapsed scrums in a similar light. In fact, worse. The potential damage is immense, possibly paralysis or beyond and the collapse is often deliberate - not always, but often. As with those other examples there just has to be zero tolerance of scrums going down and major sanction when they do. That's really all that's needed to change behaviour. An initial rash of cards followed by coaches and players rethinking. I want to see competitive scrums but not the current blight of collapses.

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