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

[I like to watch]

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.

Exactly!
An error should not now be the precedent for how all future cases should be treated.

 

[Scoey]

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.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that BH which may be our main point of difference. Most yellow card offences (cynical play, repeated infringements etc) should result in the team being punished but typical red card offences tend to be more individual and the sanction should have a greater impact on the individual. Sure the team should cop some punishment as the individual was also part of the team but I think 10 mins a man down is sufficient for that purpose. The individual plays no further part in the game and depending on the severity, may miss a few more games.

The exception to this is, as Pfitzy has pointed out, where a team deliberately sends out a sacrificial hitman but the likelihood of this is so small, I don't think the rule book should be written around this potential outcome.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Red Cards are supposed to be used for deliberate offences though.

 

[Braveheart81]

In an environment where World Rugby is trying to significantly reduce the amount of dangerous and foul play I'd be highly surprised if they were thinking that the punishment for a red card should be reduced, particularly to a level where it is only minimally worse than a yellow card.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

1: allow props to place a hand on the ground
2: change the maul law wording so that the player with the ball could not position himself behind a teammate (ie has to stay at the front of the maul)

 

[todd4]

In an environment where World Rugby is trying to significantly reduce the amount of dangerous and foul play I'd be highly surprised if they were thinking that the punishment for a red card should be reduced, particularly to a level where it is only minimally worse than a yellow card.

This comes down to the point I was trying to make. I think the individual who committed the offense should bear the brunt of the punishment. Ban him for 6 months if they want to make an example of him. I don't think any red card offenses have been premeditated, they usually result from heat of the moment brain farts and that individual should be punished for it.
I also don't think that top-level, well respected coaches would include premeditated thuggery in their game plans (and expect to get away with it) as suggested by Pfitzy.

 

[BDA]

2: change the maul law wording so that the player with the ball could not position himself behind a teammate (ie has to stay at the front of the maul)

But then how does the ball come out of the maul?

 

[Braveheart81]

Then it comes back to whether the team that the red card offence was committed against gets a sufficient advantage for the offence compared to the advantage the teams afterwards get.

When we're talking about 6 or 7 red cards in an entire season and one of those games was won by the team that received the red cards, is it really ruining games to the level that people are thinking?

 

[Viking]

Then it comes back to whether the team that the red card offence was committed against gets a sufficient advantage for the offence compared to the advantage the teams afterwards get.

When we're talking about 6 or 7 red cards in an entire season and one of those games was won by the team that received the red cards, is it really ruining games to the level that people are thinking?

This. I don't see any issues with Red cards as they are so rare anyway.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I always find it interesting how many players get red cards compared to how many are cited (theoretically at least if you are cited you should have got a red)

Seems referees are much less likely to want to make the decision while the match is happening.

 

[Brumby Runner]

OK, so let's see if I'm getting this right: you're playing the RWC final, and the opposition has a great flyhalf who can kick goals from 60m. You send your least valuable forward out there to knock him senseless, to the point where he can't continue. You soak up the pressure for 20 minutes, then put someone else on and win the thing.

Your least valuable forward gets banned for 4 months, but who gives a fuck? You won the RWC!



Red cards are there for acts of foul play - kicking, punching, knees, elbows, and other bullshit. If they were used more often, they wouldn't be needed quite so much eventually.

The problem is, refs are ruled by pussy fans thinking about "oh no it wrecks the game!"

STIFF. SHIT.

People throwing punches on rugby fields wreck games. People having their careers ended wrecks games. Put your fucking thinking caps on.

All good points 2Pfitzy. But do you think it's fair when TPN/Robbo or Kepu get RCed and Jacpot has to miss the rest of the game to make way for a replacement prop or hooker, or half back?

 

[Brumby Runner]

I always find it interesting how many players get red cards compared to how many are cited (theoretically at least if you are cited you should have got a red)

Seems referees are much less likely to want to make the decision while the match is happening.

On this point. How many games have been won by the team where a player(s) was/were cited (with or without a yellow card) and the player(s) were subsequently suspended? Hardly a 'fair outcome' if the offence really should have attracted a red card so that the non-offending side could have the advantage and be more likely to have won. Not picking on the Tahs, but the incident regarding Skelton and Latu played out to the Tahs' advantage compared with the sending off of Weeks for the Rebels.

People calling for consistency need also to consider the inconsistencies involved in the citing of offenders after a game as compared with the sending off of an offender during a game.

 

[boyo]

A second YC for the same player in the one match equals a RC.

So is a YC offence equivalent to a RC offence?

Difficult, isn't it?

 

[Strewthcobber]

A second YC for the same player in the one match equals a RC.

So is a YC offence equivalent to a RC offence?

Difficult, isn't it?

I've never heard a good reason why 2 yellows = red, especially if they're given after "team warnings", other than that's how soccer does it.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

A second YC for the same player in the one match equals a RC.

So is a YC offence equivalent to a RC offence?

Difficult, isn't it?

The yellow card is in fact an official warning before a send-off (red card).

 

[rugbysmartarse]

But then how does the ball come out of the maul?

Mauled out by a team mate peeling off

 

[Teh Other Dave]

The whole idea of the send-off is to remove a player who is ruining the game either through dangerous play or repeated infringements. Football field injuries can threaten a player's livelihood, whether they're playing Test rugby, or are an apprentice chippy in third grade. Repeated infringements are tantamount to either cheating or incompetence. If people are worried about a game being ruined due to a team only fielding 14, they should hold the infringing player accountable.

I make one exception, and that's in the dark arts of the front row, where I still reckon many refs miss the mechanics of the front row and invariably ping the weaker pack, or worse, referee on reputation.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I make one exception, and that's in the dark arts of the front row, where I still reckon many refs miss the mechanics of the front row and invariably ping the weaker pack, or worse, referee on reputation.

Front rowers (and forwards generally) should be benched for 10 minutes the moment one picks and drives for a fourth time when within 10 m of the tryline. Occasionally one of the fatties will get over the line after a succession of pick and drives but it is much more frequent that the ball simply gets turned over or a penalty against is awarded after three or four such phases.

Front rowers cannot be exempted from the YC or RC on the notion that the referees don't understand front row play. The bigger problem as I see it (and I've posted above but no-one has offered a response at all) is that a totally innocent player (usually a flanker) also has his game cut short by the necessity to replace the 'éssential' front rower (or half back) who has been sent off.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Yep, because adequately trained front rowers are a necessity. The coach and flanker can take it up with the binned/sent prop.

I'm not suggesting that FR players should actually be exempt, rather I'm bemoaning the fact that the scrum isn't refereed as well as I'd like, especially with teams whose key game plan planks involve scoring points and gaining field position from scrum penalties by applying shit binds, boring in, or pulling down.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I like the idea of a RCed player being replaced after a set time so that no other player in the team is so severely penalised by having to miss the remainder of the match.