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

[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.

https://www.planetrugby.com/australia-dave-rennie-frustrated-at-end-of-20-minute-card-trial/

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/leicester-tigers-ace-jasper-wiese-7202450
Honestly players need to learn to stop hitting things high with their shoulder lol.

 

[BPM]

And fair play to Jasper Wiese for acting upon it.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I think the rules need to be harsher but not go back to what they were. There is too much of a gulf between a yellow and a red guven it can be millimeter or milliseconds that differentiate them.

My view is the behaviour is only going to stop if coaching of tackle technique changes. At the moment it’s not worth it for a coach to coach differently because if your team stops making the types of dominant tackles or clearing of jacklers that risk accidental foul play, then you lose, simple as that. Therefore the on field sanctions need to be harsher.

And People won’t complain about cards ruining the game if they become more normal and even across teams.

So, any contact by head, arm, or shoulder to head is a 20 minute red card.

Bring in the black card for deliberate offences.

More generally they should attempt to remove subjectivity too, eg unsuccessful intercept that results in a knock on is automatic yellow. For scrum advantage any player in the attacking team can hold the ball over their head within the next two phases to signal they don’t want the advantage, otherwise they’ve effectively decided to take it; same for penalty except they get 5 phases to decide. Every three penalties for same offence is a yellow. Every five penalties generally is a yellow.

I need to do more thinking on the solution for preventing dangerous clean outs in jacklers

 

[Kiwiwomble]

unsuccessful intercept that results in a knock on is automatic yellow.

can i ask why?...we already have a "punishment" for this...the scrum resulting from the knock on...we really want people in the bin just for trying to get an intercept and failing?...do we really think allowing the other team the chance to kick points straight away and then have 10 mins of player advantage for a "knock on"

as ive said before i agree with the idea of removing subjectivity...but would go the other way and just use the tool we already have.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

can i ask why?...we already have a "punishment" for this...the scrum resulting from the knock on...we really want people in the bin just for trying to get an intercept and failing?...do we really think allowing the other team the chance to kick points straight away and then have 10 mins of player advantage for a "knock on"

as ive said before i agree with the idea of removing subjectivity...but would go the other way and just use the tool we already have.

Yeah, not too bothered about the rule, just wanted to remove subjectivity . Perhaps automatic penalty is better. Yellow is too harsh on reflection but I think a scrum isn’t harsh enough for a deliberate knock down. Point being that there is too much subjectivity in trying to differentiate between a deliberate knock down, a “didn’t have a realistic chance of catching it” and a fumble where they did have a realistic chance

 

[Scotty]

Yeah, not too bothered about the rule, just wanted to remove subjectivity . Perhaps automatic penalty is better. Yellow is too harsh on reflection but I think a scrum isn’t harsh enough for a deliberate knock down. Point being that there is too much subjectivity in trying to differentiate between a deliberate knock down, a “didn’t have a realistic chance of catching it” and a fumble where they did have a realistic chance

There are quite a few rules that i dont want to be subjective but this one i think is done quite well. This one has to be a little subjective IMO.
Because if a player genuinly goes for it almost catches it and fumbles it then gets a pen against him it will stop players going for it.


Leading with 1 hand, hitting downwards yellow card, just not being close enough then yes pen but getting 2 hands on the ball the fumbling or it bouncing off 2 hands that should have caught it then Scrum(or bring in 'tap and go free kick' if you want to speed up the game)


Ive heard interviews with refs where they say the rules are written to give the refs the decision based on what they see and not rigid lawes. Its a fine line tbh.

 

[Reiser99]

Part of the problem with rules and laws in general is that there are always exceptions. The solution is to either have more and more laws to try and cover every possible scenario or accept that there will be some subjectivity and trust the judgement of the officials.

Tbh I think those who want less subjectivity and controversy are barking up the wrong tree. You will always have that with more or less rules. What the aim should be and what players want is consistency. That way while you may disagree with the ref, at least you know it's still fair for both sides.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Part of the problem with rules and laws in general is that there are always exceptions. The solution is to either have more and more laws to try and cover every possible scenario or accept that there will be some subjectivity and trust the judgement of the officials.

Tbh I think those who want less subjectivity and controversy are barking up the wrong tree. You will always have that with more or less rules. What the aim should be and what players want is consistency. That way while you may disagree with the ref, at least you know it's still fair for both sides.

or...and i know im in the minority...just let more things go

re the "deliberate knock down"...you're allowed to try and intercept....and there is already a punishment for if you stuff up and knock it on. all the subjectivity comes from us wanting to punish people more....so if we want to remove subjectivity then remove trying to establish if the player had a realistic chance to regathering, rather than introducing more rules and subjectivity...try and get the attacking team to pass it a micro second earlier

 

[Reiser99]

or...and i know im in the minority...just let more things go

re the "deliberate knock down"...you're allowed to try and intercept....and there is already a punishment for if you stuff up and knock it on. all the subjectivity comes from us wanting to punish people more....so if we want to remove subjectivity then remove trying to establish if the player had a realistic chance to regathering, rather than introducing more rules and subjectivity...try and get the attacking team to pass it a micro second earlier

So what do you do about those players who stick their hand out with no hope of ever regathering it and stop an attacking opportunity? Pass earlier, well then that just gives the defenders time to readjust and tackle. The whole point of carrying to the defensive line is to commit defenders. That becomes pointless if defenders can either wait as they know you will pass earlier or can just stick their hand out to stop an attack. It would spoil the game.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

So what do you do about those players who stick their hand out with no hope of ever regathering it and stop an attacking opportunity? Pass earlier, well then that just gives the defenders time to readjust and tackle. The whole point of carrying to the defensive line is to commit defenders. That becomes pointless if defenders can either wait as they know you will pass earlier or can just stick their hand out to stop an attack. It would spoil the game.

I honestly don’t care about those people and think penalties and cards are a bigger blight on the flow of the game that instances like that

 

[Reiser99]

I honestly don’t care about those people and think penalties and cards are a bigger blight on the flow of the game that instances like that

I think you'd change your mind quickly when the game constantly stops for scrums from cynical play where players just slap the ball down to stop an attack knowing they only give away a scrum.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I think you'd change your mind quickly when the game constantly stops for scrums from cynical play where players just slap the ball down to stop an attack knowing they only give away a scrum.

….they already do…that’s what’s the problem was…and i was a hooker so I’m cool with scrums, I consider them a much more acceptable part of rugby than penalties and cards…plus I believe attack teams will just get better, a more positive change than penalties

 

[Reiser99]

….they already do…that’s what’s the problem was…and i was a hooker so I’m cool with scrums, I consider them a much more acceptable part of rugby than penalties and cards…plus I believe attack teams will just get better, a more positive change than penalties

Well then maybe SH refs need to enforce the rules better if in Super Rugby players are always slapping the ball down and it's just a scrum. In the premiership the refs and TMO are getting better so time isn't wasted. Often the ref is accepting the TMO's judgement and only needs to review if it's not clear.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Well then maybe SH refs need to enforce the rules better if in Super Rugby players are always slapping the ball down and it's just a scrum. In the premiership the refs and TMO are getting better so time isn't wasted. Often the ref is accepting the TMO's judgement and only needs to review if it's not clear.

no, i mean they're already having brain explosions and knocking it down...and getting carded and penalised...which is having an impact on the game and not stopping them doing it...so its kind of "whats the point"

am i the only one that get tired of trying to explain this stuff to non rugby people?

"whats that for?"
"he knocked it on"
"isn't that a scrum? you said a scrum was for knocking it on"
"he was going for an intercept"
"he's not allowed to try and intercept it?
"...he is....but this time he knocked it on try to do it"
"hows that different?"
"the ref has made a decision on his intent and a judgment call on how likely he was to successfully intercept...."
".....im going to go get a beer and watch something else...."

 

[Scotty]

no, i mean they're already having brain explosions and knocking it down...and getting carded and penalised...which is having an impact on the game and not stopping them doing it...so its kind of "whats the point"

am i the only one that get tired of trying to explain this stuff to non rugby people?

"whats that for?"
"he knocked it on"
"isn't that a scrum? you said a scrum was for knocking it on"
"he was going for an intercept"
"he's not allowed to try and intercept it?
"...he is....but this time he knocked it on try to do it"
"hows that different?"
"the ref has made a decision on his intent and a judgment call on how likely he was to successfully intercept...."
".....im going to go get a beer and watch something else...."

Similar to the reason ive always said football would always be bigger than rugby.


I small group of kids can throw down 4 jumpers to make the goals and play football without knowing the rules... the same isnt for rugby.

Yet on the deliberate knock on i still think youd constantly get players flying out the line with 1 hand knowing there is no punishment for knocking it on even if it stops try that would be scored.

'Pass it earlier then' well no because theyd go for the tackle also swinging the arm aiming for the pass incoming.

So pass it earlier... then the space is closed up.

 

[Derpus]

no, i mean they're already having brain explosions and knocking it down...and getting carded and penalised...which is having an impact on the game and not stopping them doing it...so its kind of "whats the point"

am i the only one that get tired of trying to explain this stuff to non rugby people?

"whats that for?"
"he knocked it on"
"isn't that a scrum? you said a scrum was for knocking it on"
"he was going for an intercept"
"he's not allowed to try and intercept it?
"...he is....but this time he knocked it on try to do it"
"hows that different?"
"the ref has made a decision on his intent and a judgment call on how likely he was to successfully intercept...."
".....im going to go get a beer and watch something else...."

Yeah the intentional knock-down rule is one of the worst. They don't seem to have an issue with failed intercepts in the NRL...

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

no, i mean they're already having brain explosions and knocking it down...and getting carded and penalised...which is having an impact on the game and not stopping them doing it...so its kind of "whats the point"

am i the only one that get tired of trying to explain this stuff to non rugby people?

"whats that for?"
"he knocked it on"
"isn't that a scrum? you said a scrum was for knocking it on"
"he was going for an intercept"
"he's not allowed to try and intercept it?
"...he is....but this time he knocked it on try to do it"
"hows that different?"
"the ref has made a decision on his intent and a judgment call on how likely he was to successfully intercept...."
".....im going to go get a beer and watch something else...."

Who are you explaining rugby to?

Watching rugby with my dad who was 58 the first time he saw a match.

Dad: “whys that a penalty instead of a scrum?”
Me: “if a defender isn’t in a reasonable position to catch the ball it’s a penalty. Can also be a yellow card”
Dad: “gotcha, what makes it a yellow card”
Me: “if they think it’s cynical”
Dad : “is a yellow card like in soccer”
Me: “it’s more like hockey, off for two minutes in sevens (which we were watching). It’s ten in 15s”

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Yeah the intentional knock-down rule is one of the worst. They don't seem to have an issue with failed intercepts in the NRL...

There’s also an artificial gap the size of the Tasman between the attacking line and defense on every play. Don’t really need to worry about the defender being in your grill on the pass.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Who are you explaining rugby to?

Watching rugby with my dad who was 58 the first time he saw a match.

Dad: “whys that a penalty instead of a scrum?”
Me: “if a defender isn’t in a reasonable position to catch the ball it’s a penalty. Can also be a yellow card”
Dad: “gotcha, what makes it a yellow card”
Me: “if they think it’s cynical”
Dad : “is a yellow card like in soccer”
Me: “it’s more like hockey, off for two minutes in sevens (which we were watching). It’s ten in 15s”

currently lots of aussies, but previously in the UK with football friends, League and AFL are much more free flowing

Similar to the reason ive always said football would always be bigger than rugby.


I small group of kids can throw down 4 jumpers to make the goals and play football without knowing the rules... the same isnt for rugby.

Yet on the deliberate knock on i still think youd constantly get players flying out the line with 1 hand knowing there is no punishment for knocking it on even if it stops try that would be scored.

'Pass it earlier then' well no because theyd go for the tackle also swinging the arm aiming for the pass incoming.

So pass it earlier... then the space is closed up.

and i think when they fly up and miss...theyre buggered and the attacking team is in, or if the attacking team has a dominant scrum then they can launch form that...no one will be thanking that guy then

the thing that gets me...when we played at school at lunch we did just stick to the real basics like you described for football, pass backwards, get over the line for a try etc, no one got shitty when it got knocked down...attacking team gets the ball and play on...we just seem obsessed with the idea that rules and punishments for breaking those rules will open a game up and make it exciting rather than...just opening it up


edit: id probably be less worried if we stuck to "knocked up v knocked down"...but seeing guys that have knocked it up into the air, run and even dove after it to try and regather get carded because the ref decided they didn;t have a realistic chance...it just seems like were looking for reasons to give cards

 

[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