The customer is always right?
-
@MajorRage I watched it again.
It really is boneheaded by Luatua. My best guess is that he wanted to take TNW out of the move by an 'accidental' block. Not only was it a professional foul (sure you'll find plenty of these if you watch tapes) but it was also really clumsy. No swinging arm -- rather just kept arms outstretched as he stood up and seemed not to occur to him that as as TNW much shorter could catch him in head.
No qualms if ref would have given discretionary red anyway, but for me not worthy of MANDATORY red. On the other hand would be an excellent use of 'double yellow'. -
@Bones To me tip tackles were better out than in. So no qualms with legislating against them via rule change.
By the same reasoning, if the consensus is that tackling ought to be penalised if above chest (which I don't agree with) then just change the rules. Don't try and get there by subterfuge via a failed mandatory red for accidental head impact experiment.
But if the decision is to stick with shoulder high, leave the refs with discretion. They're professionals and are unlikely to miss any significant number of genuinely dangerous and reckless tackles.
Or bring in 'double yellow'. -
@pakman Have you read the rules at all? There is no such thing as an automatic red! Here are some quotes:
In a change to law, World Rugby has redefined illegal (high) tackle categories and increased sanctions to deter high tackles via a law application guideline. This will apply at all levels of the game from 3 January 2017 introducing minimum on-field sanctions for reckless and accidental contact with the head, effectively lowering the acceptable height of the tackle.Reckless tackle A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling or twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders. Minimum sanction: Yellow card Maximum sanction: Red card Accidental tackle When making contact with another player during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game, if a player makes accidental contact with an opponent's head, either directly or where the contact starts below the line of the shoulders, the player may still be sanctioned. This includes situations where the ball-carrier slips into the tackle. Minimum sanction: Penalty
Latest News | World Rugby
The latest World Rugby news, including about the World Rankings, Tournaments, Player Welfare and the Laws of the Game
Law no. 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent including early or late and including the action known as the "stiff arm tackle" Entry point based on scale of seriousness of the player's conduct, which constitutes the offending Lower end - 2 weeks Mid-range - 6 weeks Top end - 10+ weeks Maximum sanction: 52 weeksLaw no. 10.4(e) Dangerous tackling of an Opponent including: (i) a tackle or attempted tackle above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders; (ii) grabbing and rolling/twisting around the head/neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders Entry point based on scale of seriousness of the player's conduct, which constitutes the offending Lower end - 2 weeks Mid-range - 6 weeks Top end - 10+ weeks A dangerous tackle which results in a strike to the head shall result in at least a mid-range entry point sanction. Maximum sanction: 52 weeks
-
This is interesting, too:
-
@Stargazer You are dead right. My bad. The rules don't mandate red. However, as your second post indicates there appears to have been 'informal' guidance concerning what is yellow and what is [mandatory] red. Can't seem to find anything for Super Rugby, but I'm pretty sure guidance has been given to refs.
-
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.
eg the Fekitoa YC on the weekend. According to the guidelines the YC is correct yet it was the 'victim' that created his own danger by leaping high into a converging group of players. The chance of him coming out of that leap safely was quite low. -
The problem with all the rules and videos of what is a minor "accident" and what is reckless "red" is the big subjective gap between these two.
In the current environment when the min sanction is a yellow and the max is a red, the refs will go for the red which ruins the game.
-
@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.
-
@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.
