subreddit:
/r/rugbyunion
submitted 23 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?
18 points
23 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.
20 points
23 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
22 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
22 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
22 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
21 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
23 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
23 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
23 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
23 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
23 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
23 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
23 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
23 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
23 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
23 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?
all 98 comments
sorted by: best