Sandpit Fan
Nev Cottrell (35)
Why should a distinction be made between the two? How can rules be enforced at lower levels if they are effectively ignored at the highest level of the game?
Sent using Tapatalk
On Reds Cards ................................
- Thread starter fatprop
- Start date
- Status
Why should a distinction be made between the two? How can rules be enforced at lower levels if they are effectively ignored at the highest level of the game?
Sent using Tapatalk
rugbyskier
Ted Thorn (20)
The implication of this would be a green light for foul play, just because it's a 'big game'. If referees were reluctant to give red cards due to fear of ruining the spectacle then those players with dubious moral compasses would be more likely to take the wrong decision because the chance of getting away with it would be greater. Not that the Warburton case was like that, I don't think there was malice in his tackle.
Cardiffblue
Jim Lenehan (48)
Don't agree. Works in RL and AFL. Where there is a video replay (in all top level games) then much better sanctions can be dished out by match review panel following citing. Where there is no match review panel the curent system holds. Would actually clean up a lot of the crap that the ref misses. Foul play would be reviewed and approporate sancins imposed. Bread amn would still miss the final for instance but the semi would not have been ruined
rugbyskier
Ted Thorn (20)
The arguments have been 'don't go for redcards in big games as they ruin them' and, in the absence of alternatives, that would be a green light for foul play which would really ruin the spectacle. I agree that alternative sanctions such as suspensions following video match reviews could work in those circumstances. Something would be needed, otherwise red cards should remain as a deterrent to foul play.
Budgie
Chris McKivat (8)
By allowing the semi final NOT to be ruined, and then banning someone from the final via the Match Review System, aren't you running the risk of ruining the Final, particularly if a key player like your Breadman will be missing from the Final due to his "illegal" actions in the Semi Final.
Cardiffblue
Jim Lenehan (48)
Not at all. there would be 15 players on the field. The sanction works elsewhere. In fact the numbers of players under review would go up
Budgie
Chris McKivat (8)
And talking of dangerous acts of not bringing a lifted player safely to the ground, what can you do when the person who has not brought the lifted player safely to ground is on the same team as the lifted player?
I am thinking of the SAF game vs cant remember. I recall Schalk Burger lifted by one of his team mates to take a kick off. He was about 2 metres in the air, when his lifter lost control of him and he came crashing to earth with one hell of a thump. Only his cat like reflexes managed to save him from landing on his head.
Can the referee Red Card the lifting player?
I am thinking of the SAF game vs cant remember. I recall Schalk Burger lifted by one of his team mates to take a kick off. He was about 2 metres in the air, when his lifter lost control of him and he came crashing to earth with one hell of a thump. Only his cat like reflexes managed to save him from landing on his head.
Can the referee Red Card the lifting player?
Cardiffblue
Jim Lenehan (48)
was discussing this very incident today at work. Couldn;t remember who was involved
In lineouts players are lifted to such dizzy heights, lock arms and one of them comes down sideways. Also teams have become deft at unbalancing jumpers in a way that rarely gets sanctioned. There is far more danger there than in Breadman's tackle
Mr Doug
Dick Tooth (41)
Sorry guys, I haven't read all the posts, mainly, because I feel "some of you are coming in from the wrong side of the ruck"! Rugby has moved on from the William Webb Ellis days, in that it is professional, it attracts millions (maybe billions) of dollars in sponsorship, and thirdly, we have the curse of Sports Betting! So, for many years, I have held the belief that in all team sports, whenever a player is sent off, he or she should be replaced. Fans don't pay big dollars for stadium seats (or pay TV), to watch 15 play 14, 11 play 10, or 13 play 12!
Some may argue about "intent", or if the Assistant Referees, or TMO should be involved in the legitimacy of the decision to 'red card' a player, but in the mean time, let's get on with the match. I know this will bring out the detracters, saying that a red card is worthy of a serious penalty...ok, so if for instance it's a rugby test, suspend the player for 3 tests, or 5 Super (or the equivalent) matches, or 10 club matches. Add to that a $15,000 fine, or if the player is about to retire, make it $50,000!
Some years ago, my club was playing in the Gold Coast District First Grade Grand Final. We had a ref who was incapable of controlling the match, sending five off, resulting in 12 players from my club playing 13 from the opposition club at full time! Need I say we lost?
The decision to send off the Wesh captain may have "affected the final result (and possibly the credibility), of the 2011 RWC". Having listened to some talk-back radio since the match, I haven't heard one caller say they supported that send off!
Some may argue about "intent", or if the Assistant Referees, or TMO should be involved in the legitimacy of the decision to 'red card' a player, but in the mean time, let's get on with the match. I know this will bring out the detracters, saying that a red card is worthy of a serious penalty...ok, so if for instance it's a rugby test, suspend the player for 3 tests, or 5 Super (or the equivalent) matches, or 10 club matches. Add to that a $15,000 fine, or if the player is about to retire, make it $50,000!
Some years ago, my club was playing in the Gold Coast District First Grade Grand Final. We had a ref who was incapable of controlling the match, sending five off, resulting in 12 players from my club playing 13 from the opposition club at full time! Need I say we lost?
The decision to send off the Wesh captain may have "affected the final result (and possibly the credibility), of the 2011 RWC". Having listened to some talk-back radio since the match, I haven't heard one caller say they supported that send off!
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Simply because I believe context should be taken into account when determining how to apply the Laws. It happens in life and it occurs all throughout the game of rugby.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/forum/threads/9265-RWC-2011-Bitch-moan-and-discuss-Referees-and-Law-Discussions?p=293285&viewfull=1#post293285
From Jay
From Lee Grant
These are from a closed thread (RWC 2011 - Bitch, moan and discuss - Referees and Law Discussions) so I can't do the usual "reply with quote" thing to bring the quotes forward to this thread. Click on the link above to go to the thread, but the discussion was limited to these three contributions.
I am sure that someone more technically savvy than me will be able to find the video of the incident (about 70 minutes in SAF v FIJ), and post the clip here. It did look very dangerous at the time, and if it was an opponent would have certainly resulted in a Red Card.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
I think a slight change to the laws in this area would be good. In some instances straight red should stay, eye gouging, punch with the fist, head butt etc. But in instances where it's a possible red or yellow card offence then the laws should be changed in three ways.
1st the ref should be oblidged to consult his touch judges, doesn't matter if they haven't seen anything, at the very least it gives the ref a minute of two to think things over himself.
2nd the role of the TMO should be expanded so that they can review serious incidents like this that happen in the field of play. Just please don't have the TMO expanded for other stuff like knock ons, scrums, foward passes in the middle of the field etc or we're going down American Football lines. Just the review of a possible red card incident. Also for this to work the standard of TMOs would have to improve vastly, say what you want about the quality of refs in the RWC but they shine in comparisson to the TMOs.
3rd a provisional yellow card would be shown to the player involved and he and his captain would be advised that he's under review for a possible red card. Then the TMO or a panel of refs have 9 mins to decide if it's a red card or not and get back to the referee. Once the decision comes through the the yellow carded player would either return after the sin bin is up or he would receive a red card.
People would still argue about if it was a red card or not just like for some TMO try decisions we'll still argue. But at least the officials will have done their best to give the decision as much thought as possible.
I don't think things like intent (as it's very hard to prove) or injury to the player tackled should be brought into the decision. We've all seen horiffic injuries resulting from the most inocuous of tackle that were fair. The reason for a possible red card from this tackle isn't because it always results in injury or that it even often result in injury. It's because if an injury it's likely to be career/quality of life/life threatening. That in my book warrants a red card or a least the consideration of giving one.
1st the ref should be oblidged to consult his touch judges, doesn't matter if they haven't seen anything, at the very least it gives the ref a minute of two to think things over himself.
2nd the role of the TMO should be expanded so that they can review serious incidents like this that happen in the field of play. Just please don't have the TMO expanded for other stuff like knock ons, scrums, foward passes in the middle of the field etc or we're going down American Football lines. Just the review of a possible red card incident. Also for this to work the standard of TMOs would have to improve vastly, say what you want about the quality of refs in the RWC but they shine in comparisson to the TMOs.
3rd a provisional yellow card would be shown to the player involved and he and his captain would be advised that he's under review for a possible red card. Then the TMO or a panel of refs have 9 mins to decide if it's a red card or not and get back to the referee. Once the decision comes through the the yellow carded player would either return after the sin bin is up or he would receive a red card.
People would still argue about if it was a red card or not just like for some TMO try decisions we'll still argue. But at least the officials will have done their best to give the decision as much thought as possible.
I don't think things like intent (as it's very hard to prove) or injury to the player tackled should be brought into the decision. We've all seen horiffic injuries resulting from the most inocuous of tackle that were fair. The reason for a possible red card from this tackle isn't because it always results in injury or that it even often result in injury. It's because if an injury it's likely to be career/quality of life/life threatening. That in my book warrants a red card or a least the consideration of giving one.
B
Big Ask
Guest
It's not just that, carelessness or ineptitude still causes injury and there's very few people who would "intend" to cause a serious injury to an opponent. If the harshness of the sanction is there to prevent injury (which seems to be the reason for it) then saying "I didn't mean it" shouldn't come into it.
It was a horribly inept tackle and deserved a red. I don't for one second think Warburton intended to drop him on his head, but it's the tackler's responsibility to bring him down safely.
We should have made our kicks
It's not just that, carelessness or ineptitude still causes injury and there's very few people who would "intend" to cause a serious injury to an opponent. If the harshness of the sanction is there to prevent injury (which seems to be the reason for it) then saying "I didn't mean it" shouldn't come into it.
It was a horribly inept tackle and deserved a red. I don't for one second think Warburton intended to drop him on his head, but it's the tackler's responsibility to bring him down safely.
We should have made our kicks
I disagree, intent isn't too hard to work out.
An elbow, a stomping, a kick, a head butt, a trip, a stiff arm tackle etc are all pretty obvious - they are all done with some intent to injure, after that it gets murky and if murky (face it if the attacker moves the wrong way they do end up adding to the the intended motion of the tackler), give 10 minutes and let the judiciary decide during the week.
- Status