• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

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

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.
Yes, that sounds sensible. It's a pretty big risk heading into the RWC though if some nations are more likely to play in a way that results in a red card.
 
I can't believe after the law suit that WR are allowing this. I get rugby is a sport to be watched but at what cost?

Why is it always the SH messing with the laws to try and make things 'more entertaining' yet they always pale in comparison to the NH entertainment factor up here. Player welfare is more important that getting 15 vs 15.
 
I think the 20 minute red card is a nonsense. There is no onus on players to not deliberately commit foul play because they know it's not going to cost the team that much.
As is being said, there is no prioritising of player welfare over alleged enjoyment of the game.
There has also been enough games where a player has been red carded and it has not spoilt the game as a contest. So that argument is fairly moot in my opinion.
 
I'm just waiting for a SH team to winge because in the world cup because they lose a match due the it being officiated properly.
 
Has there been any instances of players deliberatly fouling? Seems bans would still follow a red with this new law? I did always think if this law came in then it would be a 3rd card for worse evens thats like a current red. But i really dont think it takes that much incentive away? Still getting a red, losing for a player for 20 min and getting bans is an incentive.

I will say ive never seen this rule and how it works in practice but ive got nothing against it on paper.
 
Has there been any instances of players deliberatly fouling? Seems bans would still follow a red with this new law? I did always think if this law came in then it would be a 3rd card for worse evens thats like a current red. But i really dont think it takes that much incentive away? Still getting a red, losing for a player for 20 min and getting bans is an incentive.

I will say ive never seen this rule and how it works in practice but ive got nothing against it on paper.
It's the principle though. They are deliberately lessoning the sanctions for foul play including head contact. That is not right in principle.
 
I can't believe after the law suit that WR are allowing this. I get rugby is a sport to be watched but at what cost?

Why is it always the SH messing with the laws to try and make things 'more entertaining' yet they always pale in comparison to the NH entertainment factor up here. Player welfare is more important that getting 15 vs 15.
Exactly my thoughts. It's tone deaf at the absolute best, outright negligent at the worst.
 
Idk how much it will affect player behavior cause it's not like super rugby gives reds for high tackles anyway.

What I have a bigger issue is the Southern Hemisphere trying to gaslight us into thinking that the game is becoming less popular despite the growth in South America, Europe, and Africa.

Just trying to hold the game hostage cause other people are starting to like the sport.
 
Idk how much it will affect player behavior cause it's not like super rugby gives reds for high tackles anyway.

What I have a bigger issue is the Southern Hemisphere trying to gaslight us into thinking that the game is becoming less popular despite the growth in South America, Europe, and Africa.

Just trying to hold the game hostage cause other people are starting to like the sport.
Or trying to pretend that the problems with popularity in the SH are inherent to the game itself and not the SH cultures. Personally if they wanted to change things I would have preferred:
Yellow - Cynical play
Orange - Serious offenses but accidental or for repetition of cynical after a yellow. 20 mins and then player must be replaced
Red - Outright dangerous and foul play, same usual red card punishment.

Things like head on head collisions and simply making an unfortunate mistake to fall more into the orange category and just crass stupidity or recklessness to still be a red. Mitigation guildelines to be tweaked so a red can be mitigated to an orange but not a yellow. It's extra complexity and not sure it will add anything to the game but better than just making a red 20 mins and enforced change imo.

Whilst at it I'd like refs to start a 22 warning countdown. Reduce the arbitrariness of giving a yellow. When a team commits a cynical offense in the 22 that isn't card worthy the ref will say first 22 offense, 2nd 22, 3rd and warning, yellow, orange and repeating oranges until they behave or the other team score.
 
Idk how much it will affect player behavior cause it's not like super rugby gives reds for high tackles anyway.

What I have a bigger issue is the Southern Hemisphere trying to gaslight us into thinking that the game is becoming less popular despite the growth in South America, Europe, and Africa.

Just trying to hold the game hostage cause other people are starting to like the sport.
come on man...it is 100% becoming less popular in NZ and Aus as a spectator sport, crowd attendances bare this out.....you pointing to completely different markets is just ignorant of what is actually being argued in NZ and Aus, and how much super rugby do you actually watch? i see lots of cards, several a week on occasion...im not going to argue in favour of the 20min card as im not worried, i just want to see more rugby and less penalties and less cards...preferably by players not offending....but dont just make **** up as a counter argument

Or trying to pretend that the problems with popularity in the SH are inherent to the game itself and not the SH cultures.

what do you mean by cultures?
 
Last edited:
I can't believe after the law suit that WR are allowing this. I get rugby is a sport to be watched but at what cost?

Why is it always the SH messing with the laws to try and make things 'more entertaining' yet they always pale in comparison to the NH entertainment factor up here. Player welfare is more important that getting 15 vs 15.
'pale in comparison to the entertainment factor' calm down buddy some people don't like 10 consecutive minutes of scrums.

If there was a halfway decent league comp up north you'd be struggling too.
 
I think the 20 minute red card is a nonsense. There is no onus on players to not deliberately commit foul play because they know it's not going to cost the team that much.
As is being said, there is no prioritising of player welfare over alleged enjoyment of the game.
There has also been enough games where a player has been red carded and it has not spoilt the game as a contest. So that argument is fairly moot in my opinion.
A tired argument. There's no evidence of red cards actually improving player safety. And besides, the player is still suspended for a minimum of three matches so it's still a massive discinsentive (though I would argue the suspension should be longer).
 
Citation needed.
Well, we could look at red cards for spear and then tip tackles - which didn't improve safety at all, as you can tell by all the spear and tip tackles you see in every match, and all the concussions and other injuries still being caused by these.
Or, we could look at the red cards for tackling a player in the air - which didn't improve safety at all, as you can tell by all the tackles of a player in the air that you see in every match, and all the concussions and other injuries still being caused by these.



Something I have been playing about with, mostly within my own brain, is the idea of ditching both yellow and red cards, and limiting the stoppages at the ground to litigate their use...
I'm thinking that, live, the ref gets to see no more than 4 replays, at full speed only, from at least 2 angles (that actually show the incident), and either shows an orange card, or doesn't.
If there's nothing clear and obvious, then play on; if it looks questionable, then show the card, and the game goes on.
If the card is shown, then the player leaves the pitch and the TMO looks at all the angles (and I mean all of them, not just the ones the broadcaster wants to show them) and decides on the degree of punishment; 10 minute sin-bin, 20 minutes and an enforced replacement, off and stay off. Decision can be put up on the big screen, &/ announced through the stadium speakers (on which, why on earth can Hockey have the ref's mic broadcast through the stadium speakers, but rugby can't manage it)
 
Last edited:
'pale in comparison to the entertainment factor' calm down buddy some people don't like 10 consecutive minutes of scrums.

If there was a halfway decent league comp up north you'd be struggling too.
I considered that maybe I should start watching league again (haven't for years) so I watched the kiwis Tonga match and while the atmosphere was awesome I have to say the game was incredibly dull. I didn't hate it but it was hard to stay engaged. And that what I remember about league. Just so one dimensional, monotony. Union in the other hand has so many dimensions and the momentum is incredibly dynamic. Yeah the subjectivity of the refereeing and the amount of rules and the endless penalties and cards detract from the game a lot, but it smack still be very exciting and engaging.
 
'pale in comparison to the entertainment factor' calm down buddy some people don't like 10 consecutive minutes of scrums.

If there was a halfway decent league comp up north you'd be struggling too.
If you don't like 10 consecutive scrums then you probably wear too much hair gel and belong after 8 somewhere
 
The best way to stop red cards spoiling the games, is not to get rid of them, or to introduce other cards (whether they be orange, brown or purple with sparkly pics of unicorns on them).

No, the best thing to do, is to get the players to observe the laws of the game, and play to them. They're professional athletes, get them to play with discipline.
 

Latest posts

Top