The customer is always right?
-
@Bovidae said in The customer is always right?:
@Crucial said in The customer is always right?:
Of as much concern is the carding of players for mid air collisions. The guidelines place absolutely no onus on the jumper to not put themselves into a dangerous position.
And that's the problem. The player that jumps highest has all the rights in the eyes of the refs. You could make the absurd argument that Ben Smith could have been yellow-carded when he was concussed as DMac was taken out in mid-air, which is why he fell awkwardly.
Players really only have 2 choices: jump as high and aggressively as possible in order to catch the ball, so at worst the ref considers it a fair competition for the ball, or don't jump and wrap the player when he lands. Any half-hearted attempt to jump will likely result in a YC.
When that happened I actually thought that if it had happened in the NH it would result in a card.
-
I still think the tackling is an even bigger issue, the difference between a yellow card, and not, is only 10 mins of playing time, but send a player off early in a game for what should be a yellow but due to new environment could be 70 mins of playing time, plus ban say another 320 mins for a low end ban, andthe game your watching is ruined as a contest.
With such a massive discrepancy between max and min sanctions it is obvious the refs need more discretion to help make the game safer and protect the paying customers.
-
-
@Stargazer For a start if nobody watches the game because red cards are over used then the players won't be playing professional rugby for very long because it's actually a business.
Second, the punishment needs to be flexible enough to result in the removal of dangerous behaviour without ruining the contest. It needs to be balanced and at the moment it's not because the current rules are to black and white imho.
-
@Cudnel said in The customer is always right?:
@Stargazer For a start if nobody watches the game because red cards are over used then the players won't be playing professional rugby for very long because it's actually a business.
Second, the punishment needs to be flexible enough to result in the removal of dangerous behaviour without ruining the contest. It needs to be balanced and at the moment it's not because the current rules are to black and white imho.
It's the role of the team to play attractive and winning rugby to keep the spectators happy. They can do that by fielding the best possible team, without players who give away too many penalties or are sent off too often. That's where the responsibility to keep paying customers happy comes in, not in refereeing or the judicial process.
It's not the cards/penalties/sanctions that ruin the game, but the player(s) who do the offending.
-
@Stargazer although, a ref, like a player can make a howler of an error that can impact the outcome of a match too...
-
@Stargazer Good call, but I think the game can be made better, and less prone to problem refereeing decisions having too big an influence on games just by giving refs more flexibility under the laws. The lawmakers should narrow the gap between the min and max sanctions.
From what I can see the refs have only seem to have a min or max choice if they want to impose a sanction, and these have radically different impacts. I think the game needs something in the middle to make it better for everyone.
-
@taniwharugby I agree with that, but that's a performance issue and the responsible organisation (SANZAAR, for example) can sanction that by not awarding certain games to underperforming refs. Didn't they do that last year? I vaguely remember a ref missing out on officiating an important game (quarter finals?) ...
There's also the responsibility of organisations to provide ongoing training and education to officials.
-
@Stargazer dunno, all very much cloak and dagger stuff, rarely do they come out and say this guy got dropped cos he sucked last week....but I do recall someone maybe getting to be AR instead of main ref?
-
@Cudnel said in The customer is always right?:
@Stargazer Good call, but I think the game can be made better, and less prone to problem refereeing decisions having too big an influence on games just by giving refs more flexibility under the laws. The lawmakers should narrow the gap between the min and max sanctions.
From what I can see the refs have only seem to have a min or max choice if they want to impose a sanction, and these have radically different impacts. I think the game needs something in the middle to make it better for everyone.
It's more that fact that a very subjective borderline decision is expected of the ref and depending on which way he goes the gulf in outcome (for game and player) is very big.
It's an all or nothing call made during the heat of the game.
I don't see a problem with using an on report type system for these incidents -
@Crucial Fair enough, an on report approach would be a another reasonable option, along with a double yellow, that would help referees do their job well.
As I said there really should be some sensible sanction between sitting in the naughty chair for 10 mins and the nuclear option given there are so many factors at play during incidents in a rugby game.
-
@Cudnel said in The customer is always right?:
@Crucial Fair enough, an on report approach would be a another reasonable option, along with a double yellow, that would help referees do their job well.
As I said there really should be some sensible sanction between sitting in the naughty chair for 10 mins and the nuclear option given there are so many factors at play during incidents in a rugby game.
Are you calling 'double yellow' the concept where the team loses the offending player for the game but can replace them after 10 minutes?
The problem with that is the inequity from game to game. An early offence has a big impact but an offence in the last 30 probably the same as a straight YC as the player was probably going to be replaced anyway.
You often see a replacement come on after the 10 for a YCd player later in the game. -
@Crucial I think any intermediate sanction such as on report, or double yellow etc. would need thinking through.
Perhaps a double yellow, if lawmakers thought that was sensible, could send the offender off, and their replacement mightn't be able to come on for 15 or 20 mins?
There'll be always be arguments about what's best, but something like the above would improve the game I reckon.
-
@Crucial You make a good point about the timing of an offence and impact of double yellow.
But it seems to me the suggestion is that double yellow would be in lieu of red in cases which weren't clear cut.
So to draw the comparison, a red at say 65 minutes isn't much worse than yellow in impact, so not much lost by double yellow in such instance. However, red after 10 has a major impact, and can end a contest. Whereas a double yellow in such a borderline case mitigates the impact, but as you intimate is a materially bigger penalty than single yellow at such an early stage.
Must say, I'm warming to double yellow concept. -
@pakman said in The customer is always right?:
@Crucial You make a good point about the timing of an offence and impact of double yellow.
But it seems to me the suggestion is that double yellow would be in lieu of red in cases which weren't clear cut.
So to draw the comparison, a red at say 65 minutes isn't much worse than yellow in impact, so not much lost by double yellow in such instance. However, red after 10 has a major impact, and can end a contest. Whereas a double yellow in such a borderline case mitigates the impact, but as you intimate is a materially bigger penalty than single yellow at such an early stage.
Must say, I'm warming to double yellow concept.You're neglecting the fact that a Red means an automatic ticket in the judicial lottery. A YC has to pass someone declaring that the ref was lenient then that doubt also enters the judicial process because you can point to the man on the spot thinking it wasn't that bad.
-
@Crucial You raise a relevant wrinkle. For me a double yellow wouldn't lead to automatic judiciary. If someone then cites so be it.
If we look at Luatua and Fekitoa against Ireland I think a double yellow would have been perfectly adequate. Sloppy/clumsy play without malicious intent. For me further punishment excessively harsh.
Cane versus Ireland for me a most would be yellow as Henshaw spun into head contact.
And I do think if a player jumps recklessly for ball, catches it in contact and lands on head then if the authorities want to improve safety there is a strong argument for yellow carding the 'victim'.
One last thing. Given the general disgruntlement with carding, the relevant authorities (SANZAR?), rather than hiding 'guidelines' which are in effect rules in practice, ought to publicise such guidelines so they can be subject to proper scrutiny in the court of public opinion.
It appears that refs have been given guidance for what is yellow and what is red in, say, a jump situation. And refs risk sanction if they don't comply. Such arbitrary guidelines often fall down in live situations -- one simply can't legislate for all possibilities.
As suggested above in thread IMHO the double yellow would represent a good compromise in the grey areas.
