Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Ok I'll try and keep this brief.First of all, using one game, where you have a biased viewpoint is not enough to make overall conclusions.
Secondly, they kept infringing because it currently takes a number of cynical penalties to be awarded a yellow card. Once there is a yellow card it takes another 4 or 5 for another one. If it didn't, and if they knew that it didn't, they wouldn't intentionally infringe because the chances of a yellow card would be extremely high. Teams learn quickly.
You speak as if the Reds lost the game easily. They drew the game. And they scored 3 tries to 1. In a game without penalty goals and quicker use of yellow cards for cynical play they would have won the game if the Brumbies had played the same way. Actually they probably would have won by more because the Brumbies would have lost players to the bin sooner.
You're just not thinking it through. It's the legitimate threat of 13 or 12 players that will stop the cynical infringements when the other team is hot on attack. It doesn't happen now because the threat doesn't really exist. As said, it takes a few penalties and a warning or two before a referee will issue a card. If it took one cynical infringement to be issued a card then teams wouldn't defend like the Brumbies did that night.
Firstly: at least I have given a game as evidence of why your plan is flawed. Can you give me an example where penalties goal attempts were consistently turned down and the result was open flowing rugby?
Secondly: please quote the law where a team must infringe '4 or 5' times before they earn a second yellow. I looked and I couldn't find it. If as I suspect there is no law that requires it, then your beef is not with the current laws but the application of them.
I don't speak as if the Reds win or lost. Never have I spoken about the result. The example was used to illustrate how rugby that is played without penalty goals is not necessarily open running rugby. It's likely to be very very ugly and if the same sort of game got dishes up for 8 rounds of the NRC then the comp won't see it to 2015.
Lastly, I think it is you that is not thinking it through. The legitimacy of the threat of losing a couple of players has nothing to do with any current laws, just the application of them. Removing penalty goals will do nothing to stop cynical play and promote positive rugby. Applying the current laws more aggressively may achieve the goal.
If they tinker with the laws any more than very subtle changes, they risk losing the core supporter base in the first season. In the first season to core supporter base is all that will really be turning up to watch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk