Red Cards
-
Obviously a big talking point at the moment.
INterestingly I have seen comments on here about how players will cop a tougher time with NH Refs.
But I see there were 5 red cards in the NH over the weekend too, will probably need a VPN to watch these.
Are they trialling the 20 min card in the NH, or are they still off for good?
Some seriously dumb attempts by players in recent weeks; have we always had these head contacts and no/less cards, or are defenders aiming higher, or are the attacking players going lower...?
Expect the card fests to continue in the TRans Tasman comp
Every red card from this weekend's Heineken Champions Cup
A few years ago, red cards were a rare sight. Flash forwards to this weekend and there have been five red cards dished out across eight...
-
Red is becoming more and more prevalent, definitely needs to be a category in between yellow and red and red remains for outright nasty behaviour or where there is clear intent to hurt someone
-
@Nevorian IMO, they need to find a better way to deal with offences, sure a punch, kick head butt etc deserve the full extent of the law, however, it still doesnt sit well with me as a paying fan watching a game where some dick knees someone in the head in the 15th minute, the 80 minute match should be all but ruined for all those watching, whether my team has 15 or 14.
-
The bigger issue for me is judiciary sentencing.
Some bloke whacks a guy in the head with his shoulder, at pace.
World Rugby says we're going to protect the head, so have a red card.
Judiciary says have a 50% reduction on the 6 week entry point because you've never been to the judiciary before.Regardless of whether it's 78 minutes, 20 minutes, or 2 minutes, you have to ask whether the punishment fits the crime.
-
@NTA kinda at the heart of it really isn't it.
People say the red card and not coming back should be the deterrent to thuggish behaviour, but for me, the bigger picture should be the multi week ban and a fine (relative to one's earnings from the game)
Right now the balance is wrong IMO.
-
More of the disincentive should be at the judiciary / tribunal than the actual game. AFL has got it right. A player is reported and then the mere threat of being suspended and then losing your spot in the team seems to be a pretty strong deterrent.
-
@taniwharugby honestly, I want the risk reward to be so clear that people don't attempt high cleanouts. Right now there is still reward if it goes ok. There shouldn't be... Everyone should know the act gets punished big time.
I'm an idealist
-
@nzzp I don't think that is unreasonable - red cards have basically removed the tip tackle from the game, or at least the action where guys try to pick up the ball carrier from below the hips.
Now we need to reward lower tackling and punish anything where they lead with the shoulder etc.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
I have seen comments on here about how players will cop a tougher time with NH Refs.
I thought the refereeing of foul play in the last NPC was ridiculously lenient (when compared to the rest of the world)
That didn't prepare the players or the fans very well for this SR crack down
-
@nzzp I don't think that is unreasonable - red cards have basically removed the tip tackle from the game, or at least the action where guys try to pick up the ball carrier from below the hips.
Now we need to reward lower tackling and punish anything where they lead with the shoulder etc.
There's ones that are completely unnecessary like Scott Barrett's, but then there's ones like the below (from the initial article) where it's a lot harder for the defender to avoid. I don't think you can really solve the problem while still allowing attackers to charge at the defenders like that.
-
@Anonymous hard to avoid? 18 drives up from not very low, clearly going high and then his teammate hits high for good measure.
-
@Anonymous hard to avoid? 18 drives up from not very low, clearly going high and then his teammate hits high for good measure.
Once upon a time you'd go as low as you can in that situation.
-
@Anonymous hard to avoid? 18 drives up from not very low, clearly going high and then his teammate hits high for good measure.
Yep
Both of the dirty fluffybunnies should have gone
-
Both had time to lower body height and mitigate it down to a yellow.
Lazy at best.
-
@Anonymous hard to avoid? 18 drives up from not very low, clearly going high and then his teammate hits high for good measure.
By hard to avoid, I'm meaning without either putting himself at more risk or giving up easy metres and quick ball there's no way to completely prevent it from ever happening. Yes, of course he could have avoided it by going lower or executing better but players are going to make mistakes or misjudgements when tackling. How many similar tackles are made but are fine because there's no head contact? If you're only penalised when it goes wrong, is that going to stop players from trying to get it right?
The current approach seems to incentivise better execution rather than tackling lower. And it doesn't seem like there as been much/any improvement in execution.
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
or giving up easy metres and quick ball
This is the straw man. It's the point! If you can't do something legally, it doesn't mean you can get away with doing it illegally, I don't think it's something that's hard to understand.
The alternative is saying it's ok to pull down lineout jumpers because you couldn't get the ball, ok to tackle players without the ball because otherwise they were going to do damage to your team, ok to deliberately knock a ball forward because otherwise it was going to an unmarked opposition player.
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
or giving up easy metres and quick ball
This is the straw man. It's the point! If you can't do something legally, it doesn't mean you can get away with doing it illegally, I don't think it's something that's hard to understand.
The alternative is saying it's ok to pull down lineout jumpers because you couldn't get the ball, ok to tackle players without the ball because otherwise they were going to do damage to your team, ok to deliberately knock a ball forward because otherwise it was going to an unmarked opposition player.
Upvote
-
@Bones yeah I was surprised the hooker got away with his tackle, for me he was always coming in too high, the other guy did start lower, even though he got it completely wrong too.
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
or giving up easy metres and quick ball
This is the straw man. It's the point! If you can't do something legally, it doesn't mean you can get away with doing it illegally, I don't think it's something that's hard to understand.
The alternative is saying it's ok to pull down lineout jumpers because you couldn't get the ball, ok to tackle players without the ball because otherwise they were going to do damage to your team, ok to deliberately knock a ball forward because otherwise it was going to an unmarked opposition player.
At some point players are going to have to accept that conceding points/metres/possession is the only outcome available at that point in the game, and fix it at a future point in the game.
-
@Anonymous said in Red Cards:
or giving up easy metres and quick ball
This is the straw man. It's the point! If you can't do something legally, it doesn't mean you can get away with doing it illegally, I don't think it's something that's hard to understand.
The alternative is saying it's ok to pull down lineout jumpers because you couldn't get the ball, ok to tackle players without the ball because otherwise they were going to do damage to your team, ok to deliberately knock a ball forward because otherwise it was going to an unmarked opposition player.
At some point players are going to have to accept that conceding points/metres/possession is the only outcome available at that point in the game, and fix it at a future point in the game.
... And get those meters themselves.
What I would be doing is aggressively penalizing people who voluntarily drop into contact or carry low. You get protection, you don't get to carry leading with your head
-
I guess frequent red cards is the new normal these days.
I never have a problem with the deliberate action ones, but think there’s a place for the NRL style on report. They’re stealing everything else from league at the moment so why not that too!
-
@Nepia the key for me, is that we have an even contest of 15 v 15 for as much of a match as possible, I dont want to see 15 v 13/14...even if it works in my teams favour.
Do rugby players get fined for cards, they do in NRL dont they?
Obviously in a comp like the NPC where some players earn $10k for thier season, so it needs to be relative.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@Nepia the key for me, is that we have an even contest of 15 v 15 for as much of a match as possible, I dont want to see 15 v 13/14...even if it works in my teams favour.
Might work for your team this week, but then there's next week and the week after....
Brownlie and Meads were the only red carded All Blacks in 100+ years. Now you've got rule changes that result in three red cards in a weekend and yet some test rugby administrators are dumb enough not to have woken up that the nature of the game has been fundamentally changed.
The 20 minutes with 14 players and then replacement is obviously required.
-
I think the best option is to go on report and the player is replaced instantly and not to return. That way it stays 15v15 and the offending teams reserves come on earlier. So, you don't have a yellow or red, simply any reported player is replaced.
To avoid the player purposely getting a yellow to save a game, some sort of minimum suspension and fine might make them think twice. You could also have some sort of point penalty such as 3 points for the opposing team if your player is put on report.
Clearly the current system is broken, and an entire rethink is required because it is currently ruining the rugby product.
Doesn't basketball have this sort of system with fouls, perhaps any cynical yellows are just an instant 3 points plus an attacking scrum or kick to touch. Two fouls or cynical play and you are replaced.
-
Also 4 weeks for Scott Barretts brain implosion seems a little short to me. That was one of the worst shoulder to heads I have seen in a long time.
-
Also 4 weeks for Scott Barretts brain implosion seems a little short to me. That was one of the worst shoulder to heads I have seen in a long time.
Very, very lucky. Should have been six for that.
-
@Kirwan it was 6...but got reduced to 4 cos.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@Kirwan it was 6...but got reduced to 4 cos.
It's like when my wife tells me it's on sale, the retail price is irrelevant, it's what you end up paying that is important.
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@Kirwan it was 6...but got reduced to 4 cos.
Not much of a disincentive is it. For that sort of clear thuggery, no reductions should be made. He had so much time to pull out of that.
Was genuinely upsetting to watch Hodgman writhing on the ground after that.
-
Also 4 weeks for Scott Barretts brain implosion seems a little short to me. That was one of the worst shoulder to heads I have seen in a long time.
Very, very lucky. Should have been six months for that.
FTFY
A few weeks off in the middle of the season to rest and recovery from any minor niggles while still getting paid isn't really a punishment.
-
@Anonymous which is why I feel there should be an appropriate financial impact too...I mean many of these players are married right, imagine them having to tell the wife he got a $50k fine for being a dumb arse
-
-
@taniwharugby said in Red Cards:
@Kirwan it was 6...but got reduced to 4 cos.
Not much of a disincentive is it. For that sort of clear thuggery, no reductions should be made. He had so much time to pull out of that.
Was genuinely upsetting to watch Hodgman writhing on the ground after that.
Not disagreeing with you about Barrett pulling out, but on a side note I wish they would also replay these things in 'real time' so we can get a better feel as to how much time players actually have.
-
@Crazy-Horse which is part of the problem, the ref and TMO are making decisions based on what they see, while under time pressure to get back to the game...sure they take thier time, but when you have the ref looking at it on a big screen while talking to a guy watching it on his computer/TV about it...
Leaving these kinds of decisions in the hands of the judiciary who are not constrained by time should be where they are heading.
-
Hodgman only got three weeks last year. He actually had to jump to shoulder the dude in the head. That's a complete dog act but only worth three weeks apparently.
-
Hodgman only got three weeks last year. He actually had to jump to shoulder the dude in the head. That's a complete dog act but only worth three weeks apparently.
Hodgman getting a red card last year doesn't make Scott Barrett's thuggery any better.
-
@Kirwan Agree. But it does show a history of outright dog acts getting too short a time on the sidelines.
-
@Kirwan Agree. But it does show a history of outright dog acts getting too short a time on the sidelines.
I think both that one above and Scott's should have been a hard six weeks at least.
Perhaps a team losing a competition point for every two red cards would encorage better technique or less risk taking?
-
@Kirwan Agree. But it does show a history of outright dog acts getting too short a time on the sidelines.
I think both that one above and Scott's should have been a hard six weeks at least.
Perhaps a team losing a competition point for every two red cards would encorage better technique or less risk taking?
Maybe they've already got it sorted behind the scenes? Barrett gets to be KTFO next year and carted off so he sees the error of his ways. Just like Hodgman
-
How Aumua wasn’t red carded still baffles me, TMO reviewed it and said there was nothing in it even though Evans had a clear black eye
