If you could change the laws of rugby, what would you change?

[Pfitzy]

You refuse to think of the possibilities - coaches don't when glory is on the line.

 

[Scoey]

There's a big difference to thinking about them and acting them out.

 

[Omar Comin']

I'm with those that would change the red card to 20 minutes then replaced. There's no reason to make it virtually impossible for the team (whose teammate has let them down) to compete.

I think the suggestion that teams would then start sending out their worst player to badly injure the oppositions best is a bit ridiculous. Even if rugby teams were seriously that brutal (I don't think any would even consider it), it would be a poor tactic that wouldn't work 9 times out of 10. There are plenty of sports that don't have a send off rule and it doesn't seem to happen in them.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Happened in the 1996 or 1997 State of Origin.

 

[Scoey]

I'll be buggered! It has happened. I agree with Omar on something!

 

[Braveheart81]

If red cards were 20 minutes, they would still materially affect the outcome of games.

Are we sure that once fans were used to the 20 minute situation the calls wouldn't begin again that red cards ruin games?

 

[Scoey]

As I said earlier, I think 20 mins would have the same effect as the current red card sanction; ie killing the game.

Red Card = player plays no further part in the game but can be replaced after 10 mins.

Yellow Card = Status quo OR player removed from the game for 10 mins or until the opposition scores a try, whichever is lesser.

Just spit balling now.....

 

[Braveheart81]

Red cards are a rarity. There's been what, about half a dozen this season out of 100 odd games so far? I'd guess this is also more than there usually are in a season.

Maybe the underlying intention is that teams should generally lose the game if they have a player red carded?

 

[Scoey]

I would be deeply concerned if that was the underlying intent. Take Sam Warburton in the RWC v France. In terms of test cases, it is obviously at one end of the spectrum but if anyone thinks that losing a RWC semi is justified because your captain got a little over enthusiastic at the start of the biggest match of his career then I would be shocked.

 

[Pfitzy]

Its ironic that Warburton's card was the last "crackdown" on spear tackling for quite a while, despite the promises from the IRB/WR (World Rugby) that any past-horizontal tackle should be dealt with harshly.

Because of that exact incident, the refs went soft on it again for four years, and now its back. But still NO red cards for Latu, Skelton, or Horne, because reasons.

 

[I like to watch]

Red cards are a rarity. There's been what, about half a dozen this season out of 100 odd games so far? I'd guess this is also more than there usually are in a season.

Maybe the underlying intention is that teams should generally lose the game if they have a player red carded?

Not only are red cards rare,in most cases,the majority of spectators agree that the red card was warranted.
This is not Mungo,there is no need to change rules for things that are not issues.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Much lower level but similar to the Warburton example, Jordon Jackson-Hope was red carded in the first 10 minutes of the Schoolboy International between Aust Schoolboys and NZ Barbarians last year for an absolute dumbarse dangerous tackle. The Australian Schoolboy team really had little chance for victory after that.

Mind you had he not made the dangerous tackle and stayed on, the same player could have knocked the ball on with the tryline open, or he may have missed 4 simple penalty kicks for goal, causing his team to lose the match.

 

[Braveheart81]

I would be deeply concerned if that was the underlying intent. Take Sam Warburton in the RWC v France. In terms of test cases, it is obviously at one end of the spectrum but if anyone thinks that losing a RWC semi is justified because your captain got a little over enthusiastic at the start of the biggest match of his career then I would be shocked.

They almost won that game.

The premise could easily be however that the punishment needs to be harsh enough that a team committing that sort of offence is going to lose far more often than not.

It's always going to be incredibly emotive and upsetting for fans when there is a red card in a huge game. By the same token you can't have the attitude that dangerous play is less of a concern in these sort of games because players might be nervous and over enthusiastic.

If the punishment was only 10 minutes and then that player being replaced you could easily argue that the punishment is too lenient and isn't much worse than a yellow.

 

[Braveheart81]

Much lower level but similar to the Warburton example, Jordon Jackson-Hope was red carded in the first 10 minutes of the Schoolboy International between Aust Schoolboys and NZ Barbarians last year for an absolute dumbarse dangerous tackle. The Australian Schoolboy team really had little chance for victory after that.

Mind you had he not made the dangerous tackle and stayed on, the same player could have knocked the ball on with the tryline open, or he may have missed 4 simple penalty kicks for goal, causing his team to lose the match.

It was clearly a red card offence. I don't really see the way to improve that situation as being to reduce the severity of a red card. The way to improve it is for the player not to commit the red card offence.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

It was clearly a red card offence. I don't really see the way to improve that situation as being to reduce the severity of a red card. The way to improve it is for the player not to commit the red card offence.

As was Warburton's.

Consistency may be the key. Some Citing Commissioners seem to be a lot more vigilant than others.

 

[Braveheart81]

As was Warburton's.

Consistency may be the key. Some Citing Commissioners seem to be a lot more vigilant than others.

I agree on all counts.

Consistency in punishment needs to be found and hopefully increased consistency reduces the number of lifting tackles that warrant red cards.

 

[Scoey]

That's the thing. As was stated earlier, almost always, most folk will agree that Red cards are deserved. The discussion is probably more centred around whether the impact of the punishment is also deserved.

As the impact of the punishment varies depending on at what point in the game the card is issued, it's hard to have a debate on this.

 

[Braveheart81]

As the impact of the punishment varies depending on at what point in the game the card is issued, it's hard to have a debate on this.

I agree. It's very difficult.

I guess in some ways, it needs to come back to a bit of a statistical review. How often should teams that have lost a player to a red card be winning the match still?

Given it's the harshest penalty available in the game you'd assume that it's meant to have a significant impact on the team that incurs the red card.

 

[Train Without a Station]

What doesn't help these kinds of discussions is the petulant NRL type complaints, such as, not meaning to target the Waratahs, but Gibson this week.

It's the classic NRL coach type argument, basically saying I know my player did wrong, but why did somebody else get off? in order to try and reduce the credibility of the process.

This sort of thing fucking shits me. Now I can completely understand if it was a single player who was harshly dealt, and that they were the anomaly in getting suspended.

But citing Fruen's tackle. How does it help anybody? Including the Waratahs? So Fruen got off. He was lucky. Good for him. But he's the anomaly, not the norm.

 

[Braveheart81]

There has seemingly been a shift in the SANZAR judiciary citings over the last couple of years.

This year every person that has been cited has been found guilty (Steyn on appeal).

In past years that wasn't the case and varying numbers of people were charged and then found not guilty.

I think it's becoming an issue where the citing commissioner is effectively deciding who should be suspended rather than deciding that the bar should be set slightly lower and that a judicial process should be what ultimately decides whether a player should be suspended or not.

There definitely seems to be inconsistency in the citing process which is partly due to the fact that the same person or group of people aren't reviewing all the incidents each weekend.