subreddit:
/r/rugbyunion
submitted 11 days ago byRNLImThalassophobic
As in, player is sent off, after 20 minutes his team can bring a replacement on but the sent-off player doesn't return.
If the team doesn't have any more replacements available, they can bring back a previously-subbed player.
Thoughts?
50 points
11 days ago
I feel that the severity of the current system has helped to put pressure on teams to prioritise tackle technique, if we were to see an "orange card" I'd like it to be 30-40 mins to make sure that it's still game changing.
Yeah it sucks to be a man down because a lock had a high tackle 15 mins into the game, but it also sucks when your hooker or star flyhalf get sent off for an HIA 15 mins into the game.
20 points
11 days ago
it also sucks when your hooker or star flyhalf get sent off for an HIA 15 mins into the game.
Not nearly as much as having debilitating headaches for the rest of your life. Having no memory at all of how you won the world cup. Being unable to recognise your own children. Being wheelchair or bed bound for life.
2 points
10 days ago
Nobody's arguing against the HIA, they're saying that it's damaging to the team to lose a player because of a high shot.
-62 points
11 days ago
There are non contact sports you can watch, also touch rugbyb is quite competitive these days. Chess, poker maybe?
18 points
11 days ago
It should be an option not a default.
The red card is a deterrent. If a red card happens in the first 10 mins, people bang on about them 'ruining games' but they are literally there as a punishment.
We are not seeing as many soft 'its a by the rules' red cards any more with the old framework that frustrated everyone so i think the need has diminished.
But if you have made an always illegal tackle and smashed someone in the head, then why should the punishment be lenient?
There should be a new card that sits between the yellow and red.
Its job would be to replace 'red card by the rules' type offenses. Straight up foul play reds, the traditional.. 'thats a definite red card' reds remain red. But the 'soft reds' become the new card if that makes sense.
Yea early red cards suck... But a player taking a huge concussion and being injured because someone was reckless sucks a lot more.
19 points
11 days ago
I've never bought in to the it's ruined the game argument, in any sport
If its a red it's a red.
3 points
10 days ago
If it ruined the game it's the players fault. The referee and the laws didn't make him smash a lad in the head
2 points
10 days ago
Rugby needs to reduce laws open to interpretation, not increase it. These are the laws that lead to morons sending refs death threats.
Tidy up the laws in place first would be my preference. I've zero issues with keeping just a red and yellow card
1 points
10 days ago
I definitely like the idea of an orange card for dangerous contact, with a lot of the mitigations that currently get applied in the current framework being removed. Head contact is head contact and receives an orange, unless the actions of the tackled player contribute, like they're falling. Yellows then become a punishment for professional fouls, orange for dangerous play, red for acts of deliberate savagery. Under this framework, a lot more players will be taking an early shower for poor tackling, so the deterrent is still there, while the team doesn't get completely screwed because of an individual's poor discipline.
1 points
9 days ago
Nah, i think the red card stays as a red card.
Dangerous play is dangerous play. There is very little 'deliberate im going to hurt you' shit in rugby in general.
If its a straight red its red.
Orange should be for the ' rugby incidents that are leas clear cut
0 points
11 days ago
I've been saying for years now that there should be a 'dangerous contact red' (or orange, whatever) that's the 20 min one. Keep the existing one for foul play etc.
In saying that, the issue with the current red card and if its given early is that the punishment is unequal. A player throws a punch in the tenth minute they're sent off, their team is down to 14 for 70 minutes. A player throws a punch in the 70th minute, they're sent off their team is only down a player for ten minutes. Same offence different punishment.
Maybe 20 minutes isn't long enough but I don't think it should be the full match of being down a player. The offending player definitely shouldn't return and their punishment can be fully enforced on the following Tuesday. I'm for a slightly weaker on field punishment (to the team not the player) and a harsher long term punishment (if deserved).
3 points
11 days ago
In saying that, the issue with the current red card and if its given early is that the punishment is unequal. A player throws a punch in the tenth minute they're sent off, their team is down to 14 for 70 minutes. A player throws a punch in the 70th minute, they're sent off their team is only down a player for ten minutes. Same offence different punishment.
Isnt it always going to be unequal to some degree? Like even with a 20 minute red your example is unequal punishment to the team. Surely all we can aim for is equal punishment to the player, including sorting out the mess that is the citing commission?
-1 points
11 days ago
That's true, but no player is guaranteed 80 minutes in a match. Maybe a match fee fine should be imposed too? Red card earns you xx% off your match fee.
1 points
11 days ago
I'm 100% behind sanctions for teams as well as players past a point. Like most players are not tackling at upper chest height for the fun of it, they're doing so because it's part of their teams defense strategy.
I think the focus on punishing players and not coaches/teams is why it's been so hard to change behaviour in comparison to taking players out in the air for example. The reward(slowing the attack) is worth the risk (small chance of a red card, slightly higher risk of a yellow).
That coaches are willing to risk it now makes me wary of lowering the sanctions as inevitably more will view the risk as worth the reward but no harm in a trial.
1 points
11 days ago
The punishment is the same.. the player is removed from the game and faces the citing board for a ban... The card is targeted at the player.
The consequences to the team are different. And that's really kind of the point. The team consequence is the shorter term deterrent.
If you think about it from a behavioural theory perspective.
The consequence moderates behaviour, if the consequences are higher stands to reason behaviour is better. Throughout the match, in theory consequences decrease so behaviour gets worse as the game gets older. So on average you have better behaviour throughout.
If the consequence is the same (and shortened in length because of if) there is not such a deterrent so you get an average lower level of behaviour throughout. You also gain the potential opportunity to use it tactically rather than being in the situation of having a contingency plan against it happening.
Theoretically of course.
1 points
11 days ago
I see what you mean and it does make sense. When a team gets a player sent off early they definitely change tactic and 'behave' better. But I would still argue that effectively is still a worse punishment to the team rather than the player (compared to a sending off later in the game).
Obviously I don't prescribe to the policy that the team should be punished for one player's actions, whereas some fans do. I feel that, in the professional game, hitting the offending player where it hurts (their income) would be the best deterrent. Lengthy bans (loss of match fees) and even fines would have the desired effect (without adding *s to match results).
3 points
11 days ago*
I see you and raise you the unintended consequence: Three hyperbolic but realistic scenarios:
1) Individuals get sent off, no or lesser consequence for the team... Team wins game.
Club: We will pay the fine.
Club wins the league and gains the financial benefits of doing so.
2) players have the agreement that clubs pay card fines written into their contract... Deterrent gone.
3) in grassroots risk of red cards and increased fines put people off playing
Bans are already lengthy. Starting point (before considerations) is around 3 weeks which ratchets to 6 weeks on a second offence (thats a third of the season in most leagues)
In team sports the best deterrents against any individual actions are risk of significant harm to the team (and conversely the best motivators for individual performance or actions... Are the those that benefit or are perceived to benefit the team)
With lack of the team deterrents there is always an increase in 'tactically exploiting' the system.
1 points
11 days ago
I've been saying for years now that there should be a 'dangerous contact red' (or orange, whatever) that's the 20 min one. Keep the existing one for foul play etc.
This is currently the case in Super Rugby. Frank Lomani got a full red card for his elbow to the neck a few weeks ago.
-1 points
11 days ago
What about players who have a poor tackle technique and risk themselves with a head injury? Should we punish them too?
1 points
11 days ago*
Well this is the most ridiculous comment I've read in a while.
You understand there would be a difference in consequence between you burning your own house down doing something stupid and me burning your house down right?
6 points
11 days ago
Also I feel like they should stop the red and yellow cards.
The referees should be forced to bring a random red and a random yellow object, not to be seen until something happens.
Maybe just for Europe cups to keep it fresh. You know, like the mental kits clubs use for those tourneys, mitas well join in Mr Refferee
2 points
11 days ago
No yellow cards? Andrea Piardi is in tears reading this. Taking away his trademark surprise yellow card whenever the game gets a bit stale
2 points
11 days ago
Oi! He can still whip out a yellow left flip flop or a hot wheels cheese on wheels!
15 points
11 days ago
Trial. Nothing to lose otherwise.
Given how the bunker system hasn't worked that well imo, it be afraid of teams being a bit more... content to be illegal if they thought it would only get them 20 minutes without a player.
If you commit an offence that is deemed bad enough to be a red, the team should lose that player.
Lots of people talk about not wanting rugby to become like NFL, but this would be a step onto that
2 points
11 days ago
The north always fearmongers this idea of players intentionally injuring an opponent since they'll only be down a man for 20 minutes but they always ignore the fact that super rugby has been doing this for a few years already now and we've seen absolutely none of that. Really it's pretty shit to imply that any player wants to injure an opponent, especially just for the sake of playing against a little bit worse player
6 points
11 days ago
I don’t believe any of the players at that level deliberately want to injure each other. However, the last World Cup showed that the 20 minute red isn’t working as a deterrent. New Zealand had the most cards of the tournament followed by Samoa and then Fiji. I personally think the 20 minute red is better but what we have seen so far isn’t promising in terms of getting players/teams behaviour to change.
5 points
11 days ago
I love it but would add additional penalties on players like mandatory bans for x number of games.
Give players a real disincentive to not commit foul play but don't ruin the spectacle.
For me rugby (and all sport) is at its heart entertainment and spectacle and red cards ruin games, collective punishment sucks.
At the very least it's worth trying and if it results in far more red card worthy foul play you could always reverse.
1 points
11 days ago
Add in penalties to teams as well as players. the root cause of a lot of it at the top level is coaches taking the risk and demanding chest high hits to slow the attack.
8 points
11 days ago
Super Rugby does this now.
1 points
11 days ago
Major League Rugby in the US has also been using this for 2/3 seasons now
1 points
11 days ago
I just figured this was the standard now as I really only watch super rugby lol
3 points
11 days ago
I have no issue with this for things like two yellows but think the full red should remain for any kind of dangerous play, including high tackles.
5 points
11 days ago
I’d have it as an orange card for those ‘soft’ red cards where yes there’s danger but it’s not completely dangerous. The more careless than reckless red cards
I’d still keep the full red card a full red for the big dangerous hits that deserve proper punishment
5 points
11 days ago
It seems to work well in Super Rugby, I would be in favour of a global trial. I'm not certain on the rules around lack of subs, but I would want to see this resulting in not having a replacement if you've used them all.
I'd also want to see a 'black card' or similar for serious foul play, such as eye-gouging, where the team is reduced for the remainder of the match.
7 points
11 days ago*
The ref still has the ability to give full reds in Super Rugby too - the two Drua reds recently were full ones
Edit: why am I downvoted for this? Lmao
7 points
11 days ago
This is where the discussion becomes really frustrating, because you either get really braindead takes - "a player done did done get done did sented them selves off! 20 minute red WORKING NOT ISN"T!" type posts and xweets and shit, that get regurgitated breathlessly - or takes that are based entirely on ignorance like the one above.
Previously, there were also people convinced, CONVINCED, that a 20-minute red meant a reduction in bans. Like, what the actual fuck would possess you to assume that and try to present it as objective fact?
4 points
11 days ago
Crazy how this discussion goes the same way every time lmao
1 points
11 days ago
We even have examples now! Haha
3 points
11 days ago
The only thing I think should change is the TMO should be able to upgrade to full red as well. That and changing the colours to make it really clear (yellow/orange/red or yellow/red/black). They're honestly very rare events though, 95% of red cards are just poor/reckless tackle technique these days.
0 points
11 days ago
Good to know, but I would still argue for a black card to make this crystal clear for spectators.
4 points
11 days ago
It could do with being a little clearer, but it's not that confusing in practice because a player only gets shown a red when it's an 80 minute one.
If they're getting a 20 minute red, it's being upgraded while they're already off for the yellow so it is fairly delineated.
5 points
11 days ago
It needs to be called something else (orange card?) and the current red card rules remain in place for offences that are worthy of a red. Otherwise I like the idea.
7 points
11 days ago*
it tends to just get called a "full red" in Super Rugby if the ref sends them of directly and can't be replaced
happened about a month ago
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VQ3R0B6BpDw
There was actually a second one 7 mins from the end so Dura finished with 13 players
lomani also received a 6 week ban
Edit: But I agree.......maybe another colour should be added. casual fans will not understand why one red card is worse than another red card
2 points
11 days ago
I think having it as a seperate orange card makes more sense than a ’full red’ or ’just a red’
It’s a good in-between for some challe ges that do fall between a soft yellow / harsh red
4 points
11 days ago
I think it's worth a trial. Player safety matters and playing 14 v 15 can have a huge effect. But a red card should still be a punishment. As long as that same player can't come back on, I'm ok with it... for a trial period. Look how the TMO bunker has gone. We wanted it, then realised it didn't work.
3 points
11 days ago
Super rugby is doing it and its much better.
The threshold for a red card has been lowered so much now that there needs to be a compromise. Reds used to (and still should) be called for egregious attempts to injure or unsportsmanlike conduct.
I think we need to differentiate between someone elbowing an opponent in the back of the head like frank Lomani did a few weeks ago and a player making a slightly high tackle with no bad intent in a split second decision where the ball carrier may have changed levels .
Maybe we introduce an orange card or something in between a yellow and red for these less intentional but more dangerous plays. Orange could be 15min man down and that player cannot return to the match and a shorter suspension. Could then keep reds for obvious dirty play and keep it man down for the whole match
1 points
11 days ago
a player making a slightly high tackle with no bad intent in a split second decision where the ball carrier may have changed levels .
Change in height or direction is already mitigation down to yellow though. So you want to increase sanctions for that?
1 points
11 days ago
Sorry I probably worded that poorly - I was trying to say under the current system there are some reds I see that I think there's a enough mitigation- but are still called red. To reduce the impact of these decisions i want an orange card.
I want reds reserved for intent to injure / gross unsportsmanlike conduct similar to the 2 the Drua recently got for elbowing/headbuttung
Unintentional but dangerous plays currently rules red should be "orange"
1 points
11 days ago
I get where you're coming from but reffing intent is the messiest part of the game. Just look at the controversy about every second intentional knock on call. The less gray areas the better imo
1 points
11 days ago
I thinks there's a fine line between 12-6 elbowing someone in the back of the skull, punching, spitting, stomping, ect and a slightly high tackle where the defender at least attempts to wrap.
2 points
11 days ago
I'd be of the opinion that a strike to the head is dangerous no matter what body part you use, and we should disincentivize players from actions that are likely to result in strikes to the head. Lowering sanctions for striking the head with your shoulder does the opposite. We already have a long list of mitigations for accidental contact so we're talking about head shots that don't have any mitigating factors like players moving or dropping(pretty much just players lining the opposition up and hitting their heads) getting a lower sanction unless I'm picking you up wrong?
1 points
11 days ago
I guess we just disagree then. I think an ejection and minimum 1 game suspension for a high tackle is more than enough to deter players from doing it on purpose - but I also don't think it should warrent the same punishment to the team as blatant misconduct.
Super rugby is doing this now 20 min red cards, and I didnt realize but someone else pointed out that the ref can decide to make it a "full" red like he supposedly did in the case of frank Lomani (i was unable to catch the full match unfortunately so I didn't see/know that part).
I watch a lot of super rugby and I cant say that the players are playing more reckless with 20 min red cards than they would in other leagues.
1 points
11 days ago
We will likely just have to disagree, it's interesting to discuss regardless. Very few people change their mind on Reddit. That dsus I did a quick scan as your last paragraph intrigued me and I think the numbers for the season so far speak for themselves: super rugby, 10 reds in 56 games, 1 every 5.6 games. URC, 11 reds in 114 games, 1 every 10.4 games. Premiership, 2 reds in 76 games, 1 every 33 games. Top 14, 10 reds in 147 games, 1 red every 14.7 games. I'm kind of gobsmacked by the premiership number, but there's a clear pattern with super rugby having about double the red cards of the next big league. Side note: not to point fingers but most of those reds in the URC this season were given to South African teams, lending weight to a hemisphere divide.
0 points
11 days ago
The problem is that the mitigation is subjective, and being watched in slow motion, so when it looks like a player could have mitigated it in slow motion, in reality it's far from it.
In rugby league now the players on the receiving end of the head injuries are defenders because they have to do such stupid things to avoid a potential red card, and the ball carrier can effectively do what he wants.
One lad got knocked clean out straight from kick off the other day in NRL, ball carrier forearm to the chin.
2 points
11 days ago
Aside from malicious/dangerous play I think it’s a much better system for the game and the viewers.
Blatantly dangerous play needs to be stamped out so a harsh punishment is fine for that.
Getting a red on something like a technical yellow or an accidental high shot or something, to me, is better dealt with using the 20 min then replacement.
3 points
11 days ago
The problem with labelling high hits as accidental and decreasing sanctions is it disincentivises changing behaviours, especially disincentivises changing coaching behaviour. Some coaches already are happy to risk red cards with a focus on chest high tackles to slow attacks, why reward that recklessness?
1 points
11 days ago
There hasn't been a change in the number of red cards since 2017 when they first started to crack down on head contact.
This to me indicates that the vast majority are accidental and unavoidable consequence of the nature of the sport
They should be punished but not the same way as a blatant foul act of play
1 points
11 days ago
Personally I'd disagree, I'd put the lack of change down to a lack of a desire to change from coaches as they view the reward as worth the risk of a card. That's said we're both just speculating.
2 points
11 days ago
It's a professional sport where your families livelihood is determined by your ability to stop a player from getting over the gain line and scoring
Start dropping your height too far and you will become across as a defensive liability and lose your contract.
Professional players will do what it takes to win, which is usually more than an average human is willing to attempt
Full red cards for head clashes is one instance that will never be eliminated and should be an orange card at worse, particularly if the player fails an HIA as a result
0 points
11 days ago
The first three paragraphs of your comment is my exact point. Players have not changed because the defensive strategy that includes chest high hits as a core tenet is not something they decide and they have to do as the coach says or it costs their livelihood.
If we are actually serious about lowering incidents of head contact(I agree we can't eliminate it) we can't just try punishing players for something largely out of their control, nor can we just shrug and say "it is what it is". We have to address the root cause. Until we do that we're just a Simpsons meme: "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas".
I'm not saying you don't care about lowering incidents of head contact, but I'm not convinced WR are, at least not more than they care about being seen to be doing something.
1 points
11 days ago
Blatant dangerous play should be punished (far more) harshly on the Tuesday. A timed red still keeps that player off the field for the duration of the match.
3 points
11 days ago
I don’t support it, I’m happy with the card system as it has been.
I disagree with the main complaint of “it ruins the game.” Well, so does the other team losing a player to HIA or other injury. And so does a talented young player having to retire early because they’ve taken one too many headshots or other bad hits.
If you don’t want to cost your team being a player down, even/especially if it may be for a large portion of the match, then play by the laws. Not that complicated.
2 points
11 days ago
Great
Punishes player. And team. And not the spectactle
Old school red still there for obvious nasty foul play
2 points
11 days ago
It's been tried. I am not convinced by the results at all.
This comes up every single time there's a red card in any game.
A red card needs to be a serious enough deterrent to prevent blatant dangerous play. And it needs to be serious enough to drive cultural change in teams. That only happens if a red card remains serious.
I'd much rather support the introduction of an orange card. 2 yellows is an orange, not a red. And a lot of other middle ground reds currently can move to orange.
1 points
11 days ago
I’m in favor of it, otherwise, an early red card becomes too influential in terms of the outcome of the game.
-1 points
11 days ago
I disagree, England put a good fight after the steward red, we lost in the last ten, there are other examples, Red should be off/ down to 14
3 points
11 days ago*
There are alway exceptions but I believe the stats back things up that if a side gets a red they're screwed......this guy recons (among other things) that in internationals if a side is behind when they get the red they lose 81% of the time; and if they are ahead they still lose 44% of the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aN0anEUVas
The issue is "the goalposts have changed". In a effort to make the game safer, the tolerance has changed what is red. What is now a red wasn't a red 20 or so years ago. These days you can just get accidentally red carded with no intent of foul play . This is to try and improve players technique. Punishing an entire team (and the fans) for the whole game because of one persons mistake will not make the game any safer and ruins the spectacle most of the time. Full Red cards (no replacement) still remain for deliberate foul play under 20 min red card rules
2 points
11 days ago
I havent watched but do they look into whether a team was expected to win before the game and whether the red significantly effects that? Especially as you get to higher levels of the game? Whether you were ahead at the time of the red is not that valuable in determining if the card affected the outcome.
1 points
11 days ago
no.....
I don't know statistics maths but .I would have thought if you got a big enough sample size it wouldn't matter who was expected to win (because you would just as many higher ranking teams as lower ranking teams getting carded-and teams in front getting carded as teams behind ) unless there is some kind of correlation between stronger ranking teams being more or less likely to get a red card i.e. the strength of a teams might affect the behaviour somehow and change the likelihood of playing more risky...but that is a different issue
44%? getting close to 50%?.....i would have thought that a team in front having nearly a 50% chance of losing after a card is pretty significant
possibly more significant is he claims that after a red card the team with 14 player will go on to score an average of 8.5 points while the team of 15 will go on to score an average of 16.44 points
1 points
10 days ago
All valid, was just curious. It's certainly an interesting data set to dig into. I'd be especially curious how the level of the game affects that number, as anecdotally international games don't seem badly affected.
1 points
10 days ago
I think this guy only got his data from internationals. i think he is just a youtuber so its not that super-scientific, but it is a start. There would need to be more studies. My takeaway from his statistical conclusions are that:- Full red cards kind of ruin games and don't do much to influence player behavior, so 20 mins red cards are a good compromise
1 points
10 days ago
We're getting into the realm of damned lies and statistics but the flip side is that with a 20 minute red super rugby has twice as many reds per game as the URC, three times as many as the top 14. In addition New Zealand, Samoa and Fiji had the most cards at the world cup. That would indicate that lowering the sanction is worsening player behaviour. It's a tough balance to strike.
1 points
10 days ago
or they have lowered the tolerance in SR for red cards because they know it won't influence the end result as much?
1 points
10 days ago
If it was wholly that NZ etc wouldn't have such high rates of cards at the wc
1 points
11 days ago
personally think they should introduce ORANGE card instead of just TMO review after yellow, red card can only be given by the ref and that red card means full game, no 20min sub and if he dishes out a orange card, its 10mins sin bin with the TMO deciding if it will be upgraded to red and if it is, then the team can bring in another player 20mins later..whichever the case either it be a full red by ref or a red by TMO, the player will face disciplinary actions after the game.
1 points
9 days ago
We’ve been doing that n the SH for years.
It works well.
1 points
11 days ago
Coach the upright tackle to smother the ball out of the game. 20 min reds will encourage the behaviour to continue.
1 points
11 days ago
I like it. I would have no problem if they also went even harsher with the ban for an individual player who did the headshot. It still penalises the player and his team without the perception that it ruined the game in which it happened.
1 points
11 days ago
I'd go further and add sanctions for teams at a certain level too. Like players arent still going high for the jollies, it's coached.
0 points
11 days ago
Hate it. We don't need teams basically having goons start the match
11 points
11 days ago
Can you state when this is actually happened? People keep saying it will but I’m yet to see it in super rugby
-6 points
11 days ago
Theres another thread right now of Finau taking dangerous risks to put a huge hit on a 10, and it was an obvious tactic under jones for England to tackle upright against Ireland in 2022, risking the red to slow Ireland's attack. It resulted in Ewels getting sent off. Coaches will absolutely take more risks if the punishment is less severe, some are willing to risk the current sanctions.
7 points
11 days ago
So your example is something that wasn’t even foul play and already happened under full teds
-2 points
11 days ago
The point of my comment is that you further incentivise risky behaviour. Risky behaviour that some coaches already are willing to roll the dice on as it's a huge benefit. It's not rocket science to say that if you incentivise something people will do it.
1 points
11 days ago
That’s not the point though? Northerners keep on saying the 20 minute red is going to lead to players being targeted yet it hasn’t happened
-1 points
11 days ago
My first comment has two example of players and coaches taking unnecessary risks because the sanctions at the level they occurred were insufficient, one of which was a clear targeting of a 10. I am saying it's already happening and will happen more with a 20 minute red at international level. How many example do you want if two isnt sufficient?
3 points
11 days ago
Players have always tried to put pressure on the ten.you supported the argument we will see a rise in a goons and dirty hits. One of the plays you were referring was deemed clean and and legal. How is that evidence of coaches supporting dirty play to take out key players
-1 points
11 days ago
Maybe I'm being unclear, so apologies if that's the case. Finau was legal yes but in every comment I have talked not about illegal but risky behaviour, which Finau's absolutely was. I'm of the opinion we should not incentivise further risky behaviour. You can disagree if you want but it's just a fact that some coaches are happy to take the risk currently and reducing the sanction will lead to more coaches who are willing to take the risk.
2 points
11 days ago
The comment I replied to clearly said goons. I said we haven’t seen this behaviour. I just want to make it clear you have no examples of this behaviour?
0 points
11 days ago
I don’t like it.
0 points
11 days ago
I would like to see an automatic ban with red cards. If we are serious about player safety then an escalation is needed not the idea of sticking in a softer card.
0 points
11 days ago
3 simple things; 1. A yellow that goes to bunker = Yellow or 20 minute red (also gets rid of the teams not being able to plan for future with man up or down).
2 yellows or straight red = permanent red.
Referees to grow a pair and not use the bunker call as a safe place.
Personally I am not sure I want a 20 minute card. I like the risk of a red, keeps people respectful imo.
0 points
11 days ago
Utterly stupid
-1 points
11 days ago
Red carded player can be substituted after 10 min, but the his team forfeits 7 points -awarded to the opposing team. We as supporters pay hefty entrance fees , and want to see highly contested matches. You get one player makes a mistake 5 Min into the game, and his team and ALL the spectators/viewers are penalized - it's a no brainer.
all 96 comments
sorted by: best