The rugby

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The question for the authorities is why did 4 officials come to a decision that they now think was wrong and what can be done in the future.

Decisions do go wrong sometimes; especially when a new/revised rule is in place. They've done the right thing at review; I imagine this precedent will feed into the officials' brains at future matches.

The committee also "acknowledged that match officials are required to make decisions under pressure and in the heat of a live match environment".
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
One suggestion is that off-pitch officials should video review yellow cards while the player is off the pitch, and have the power to upgrade to red.

Not sure what I think about that. Seems sensible, would reduce the pressure on refs. But there's probably a glaring flaw with it that I haven't noticed.
 

T4tomo

Legendary Member
One suggestion is that off-pitch officials should video review yellow cards while the player is off the pitch, and have the power to upgrade to red.

Not sure what I think about that. Seems sensible, would reduce the pressure on refs. But there's probably a glaring flaw with it that I haven't noticed.

What about reviewing a red card within 10 minutes and sending them back on if yellow more appropriate!
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
What about reviewing a red card within 10 minutes and sending them back on if yellow more appropriate!

Adds up to the same thing, innit. Review a card and change its colour within 10 minutes.

The committee have decreed that your card should be changed to ... mauve.
 

T4tomo

Legendary Member
Adds up to the same thing, innit. Review a card and change its colour within 10 minutes.

The committee have decreed that your card should be changed to ... mauve.
Yes I was just been pedantic!! ^_^

I umpire a bit of Hockey, we have green (2 minute sin bin), yellow (5-10 min sin bin and red cards, so much choice.
Very satisfying if you green card someone, hear a bit of dissent as they trundle off and flash a yellow upgrade at them!

Sadly we don't get video reviews at my level for those WTF moments when you can really see whats gone on or what quite process what order things happened in.
 

rualexander

Legendary Member
What about the 20 minute red card system they have been using in the southern hemisphere for a few years?
Red carded player can be replaced by a different player after 20 minutes.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
What about the 20 minute red card system they have been using in the southern hemisphere for a few years?
Red carded player can be replaced by a different player after 20 minutes.

I've heard of that but I'm not really sold on it. I'm not sure what the advantage would be.
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
I've heard of that but I'm not really sold on it. I'm not sure what the advantage would be.

The advantage is that it means a team won't be left playing with 14 for 70 minutes if somebody gets a red card that early.

That player still can't come back, and being a player down for twice the yellow card time still means more of a disadvantage to the team than a yellow card would be, but not as much so as the current no replacement rule.
 

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
The advantage is that it means a team won't be left playing with 14 for 70 minutes if somebody gets a red card that early.

That player still can't come back, and being a player down for twice the yellow card time still means more of a disadvantage to the team than a yellow card would be, but not as much so as the current no replacement rule.

So either a watered down red card or a slightly souped up yellow. I'm assuming (edit: wrongly) that the ref would still have the sanction of proper red available. So this would need a whole new book of guidelines for what is yellow, what is weedy red (pink?) and what is red.

People shouldn't be able to get away with genuine red card offences just because the spectacle might be spoilt.

Edit: I think I was wrong. The ref does not have sanction of a proper red as well as a semi-red. It seems that the red card sanction is simply reduced overall, allowing replacements after 20 minutes. Not sure I like that.
 
Last edited:

geocycle

Legendary Member
The problem in top level rugby is if you lose a player early it is very hard not to lose through the shear physicality of the game. You have to have red cards for blatant foul player and deliberately attempting to injure someone. But we now have a raft of cards to help enforce the rules to protect players from injury in a more general sense. While these are indeed often needed, especially as players are adapting to new rules, you have to also think of the supporters and viewers who ultimately pay the bills and want to see a contest. Other solutions like the ability to upgrade an initial yellow should be considered to balance both the sport and welfare priorities.
 
People shouldn't be able to get away with genuine red card offences just because the spectacle might be spoilt.

I hear what you're saying. It's tricky!
Part of the problem here is conflating offences that give an advantage (or you hope to gain advantage), with "Safety" offences [can't think of a better term right now].
Then there's the perpetual problem with cards - a red-card in the last minute is a lot better than one in the 10th minute!
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
People shouldn't be able to get away with genuine red card offences just because the spectacle might be spoilt.

They aren't getting away with them. They will not be able to return in that game, and will normally face a ban (length depending on the severity of the offence) as well.

It just doesn't hurt the team quite as much as a red card early in the game currently does.
 
Location
España
It's an interesting one.
Rugby, as a sport is under huge pressure to minimise injuries, especially head injuries, and to be cynical, there are probably two approaches.
The first is to make changes to the game to improve safety.
The second is to be seen to make changes to improve safety.
The former benefits the players and presumably the sport, the latter benefits the organisation(s) in terms of legal liability.

I thought the red card was harsh live but I can understand why it was given. The player turned sideways so the referee pointed out that he had time to minimise the impact. There's a reasonable argument to be made that by turning as he did he made the situation worse.
Not for a second do I believe it was intentional but now in similar situations players will be more careful.

I'm not happy that it was rescinded, though. That sends a confusing message to referees for the future. "No ban but the card stands and we will look clarify the laws" would be fairer, I think.

The "no contact with the head" edict has made any team vulnerable, whether that be for a moment of madness, ineptitude or just sheer bad luck. Any team that isn't preparing for it (in terms of coaching players and devising plans for the temporary or permanent loss of a player) is going to suffer.
The focus here is to protect players. It is not on the entertainment value of the game. Insufficient player protection and the game won't last long, anyway.

A few random points.
The Irish player failed his HIA and could not return to the field. There's an unfairness there if the perpetrator was able to return.

In terms of cynicism and manipulating rules I believe Owen Farrell was encouraging the ref to send Johnny Sexton for a HIA. (That's not a criticism of Farrell nor England. That's what top competitors will do).

Most pundits would suggest that English discipline has been pretty poor during the tournament, perhaps to be expected with a new man in charge. There was an early red card in the Irish match last year too, though.

It is probably a good thing that this happened now (perhaps not so much for the English). It's controversial, has ignited a big debate with enough time to clarify everything before the World Cup.
 
Top Bottom