White Cards

Conchir

So, a new "white card" is being trialled in Super Rugby.

The new white card system is being trialled in this year's tournament in an effort to streamline and simplify the citing procedure. There are no changes to the issuing of the standard yellow and red cards, but the white card can now be used to indicate that further inspection may be required.

What do people think about this? It looks like it could certainly be helpful, to spectators and officials. Think it should be implemented fully?

Personally I think it looks like a good idea so far. So long as referees don't over use it just to be safe, etc.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/03/2380/a-look-at-the-first-ever-white-card-in-super-rugby

@mods: did I do that ok, with the whole article business?

danthefan

I don't really see the point. If there's an incident worth a citing it'll happen whether there's a white card or not.

phog

danthefan wrote: »

I don't really see the point. If there's an incident worth a citing it'll happen whether there's a white card or not.

Unless the citing commissioner can tell the ref that it merited a card and the ref still has time to card the player during the game and give the opposition some advantage rather than pass the advantage to another team the following week/s.

Edited to add, it looks like in the link the ref showed a yellow and a white card so my example is not likely unless he stpes in and says it should have been a red card.

CatFromHue

danthefan wrote: »

I don't really see the point. If there's an incident worth a citing it'll happen whether there's a white card or not.

Rougerie gouging McCaw at the RWC wasn't cited even though McCaw said to the ref he'd been gouged.

I think the white card rule has been brought in to stop this happening again.

Conchir

CatFromHue wrote: »

Rougerie gouging McCaw at the RWC wasn't cited even though McCaw said to the ref he'd been gouged.

I think the white card rule has been brought in to stop this happening again.

That's what I read into it. It's not a cop-out on the refs part, or the IRB making rules for the sake of it. Hopefully just to help cut down on incidents like this one.

MungBean

Conchir wrote: »

That's what I read into it. It's not a cop-out on the refs part, or the IRB making rules for the sake of it. Hopefully just to help cut down on incidents like this one.

Why the need for a card though ? All they need to do is ask the ref after the game "anything you think we should take a look at?". Ref : "McCaw claims he was gouged around the eleventy fifth minute".

Instead we now have a cop out for the ref for possible red card instances where 99% of the time it will probably be used in conjunction with a yellow and used in a way to suggest the ref doesnt know if it was a red card offence. If anything it will bring us backwards in dealing with dangerous tackles as straight reds will probably decrease in favour of a yellow and the ref passing the book.

I dont understand why the citing commissioners need the ref to pin point instances in games that they are already watching closely and can easily have a chat after the match with the ref about anything he wants to highlight.

So on the plus side we have a rather round about way of asking the ref if he thinks something needs to be looked at. And on the negative side it makes the dangerous tackle thing even more vague and offers the ref an opportunity to avoid making the decision.

MungBean

To add.

A yellow card was given, and whether or not it should have been a straight red card was to be determined with the showing of the white card. Strauss accepted a guilty plea within the stipulated four-hour time period, thus guaranteeing him a lesser sentence than if it went to a full judiciary.

This is the problem, the ref avoids making the decision. He leaves it to the citing commissioner to determine whether it should have been a red which is pointless regards the colour of the card because the ref has already decided it was a yellow.

Citing commissioner gets on the case in the following hours, player admits guilt and gets a lesser sentence.

Player avoids a red and gets a reduced ban as opposed to getting a red and a ban matching the severity of the incident. Doesnt sound like it will do anything to me other than lessen the bans and number of red cards, cant see that having much of a positive impact on the game.

totallegend

CatFromHue wrote: »

Rougerie gouging McCaw at the RWC wasn't cited even though McCaw said to the ref he'd been gouged.

I think the white card rule has been brought in to stop this happening again.

I don't see how, the ref can't really brandish a white card on the say-so of a player if he hasn't seen the incident. Even then, NZ could have referred the incident to the citing commissioner after the game.

Overall, I'm not sure what difference this will make.

dub_skav

Have seen it in use in a number of super rugby matches. Seems like a bit of a cop out. In some instances it is used after some handbags where they weren't sure what happened - citing commissioner would have looked at that anyway. On others the ref and the assistant have a quick chat of the what sanction do you recommend variety and can't really decide so say white card.
Pretty pointless what I've seen of it

CatFromHue

totallegend wrote: »

I don't see how, the ref can't really brandish a white card on the say-so of a player if he hasn't seen the incident. Even then, NZ could have referred the incident to the citing commissioner after the game.

Overall, I'm not sure what difference this will make.

I can't remember the full ins and out of what happened in the RWC but Rougerie wasn't cited even though the video was quite clear in what he did. I think did the footage not become clear until a NZ TV program highlighted it after the citing window?

I haven't seen them in use yet so in practice I'm not sure what they're like. In theory they're a good addition to the game. Lots of things are good in theory though.

Kayless

99% of incidents are caught I suppose this white card thing will take care of that other 1%

MungBean

Kayless wrote: »

99% of incidents are caught I suppose this white card thing will take care of that other 1%

That 1% isnt picked up on by the ref or the citing commissioner so this wont affect it.

If refs are aware of incidents possibly being a red card/ bannable offence and have up to this point not mentioned them (which the white card now enables them to do) then you have to question if anyone in the organisation ever gave a damn about these incidents anyway.

I dont believe for one second that this white card enables the ref to do something which previously he couldnt. I'm not a ref but I assume if a ref had an issue they would relay that to the touch judges during the match and ask if they seen anything. I also assume the citing commissioner would be listening to the ref during the match and talk to them after the match and any concern expressed by the ref would be investigated anyway.

So the white card wont highlight something the citing commissioner misses (its double handling as far as that goes) it only allows the ref to give a safe yellow rather than a red. Its the IRB once again sorting out the refs and limiting the backlash on them rather than trying to stamp out dangerous tackles or foul play.

CatFromHue

MungBean wrote: »

I dont believe for one second that this white card enables the ref to do something which previously he couldnt. I'm not a ref but I assume if a ref had an issue they would relay that to the touch judges during the match and ask if they seen anything. I also assume the citing commissioner would be listening to the ref during the match and talk to them after the match and any concern expressed by the ref would be investigated anyway.

Depends on what McCaw says to the ref in the clip below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68BmgqUi6gY

Shelflife

My fear as was outlined above is that the refs will use it as a cop out from a red card.

i have seen it in super league where refs put an incident on report rather then make the hard choice of the red or yellow card.

its fine for an incident like the mccaw one where the ref doesnt see any infringement but marks it by showing a white card to mark the time and make it easier for the citing officer to see the incident.

using it to review an incident where the ref has issued a yellow that might have merited a red is imo a misuse of the system

daveharnett

CatFromHue wrote: »

Rougerie gouging McCaw at the RWC wasn't cited even though McCaw said to the ref he'd been gouged.

I think the white card rule has been brought in to stop this happening again.

The citing commissioner couldn't find any evidence of foul play with the angles available to him at the time. Don't see how a white card would make any difference.

I'm really resistant to the whole idea. TMOs and citing commissioners are already detrimental to the immediacy of the game, this would be worse with no clear benefit in return.

CatFromHue

MungBean wrote: »

Instead we now have a cop out for the ref for possible red card instances where 99% of the time it will probably be used in conjunction with a yellow and used in a way to suggest the ref doesnt know if it was a red card offence. If anything it will bring us backwards in dealing with dangerous tackles as straight reds will probably decrease in favour of a yellow and the ref passing the book.

It looks like you are spot on.

I can't link the vid or the article but it's up on rugbydump, linked below, where a fella should have been given a red (or would have in the northern hemisphere) but only got a yellow and a white card.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/03/2380/a-look-at-the-first-ever-white-card-in-super-rugby

leonard7

sam warburton shouldve got a yellow and white at the semis of the WC then...?

JustinDee

Being 'on report' works (it is taken from rugby league). If you are on report, you will make sure you don't get flagged again for the rest of your time on-field.
More effective than a talking-to.

TheVoodoo

Completely agree, I hope it gets through the trial and ends up fully implemented.

Shelflife

Its certainly more essective then a talking to, but ive seen it too many times esp in the uk where players that should have gotten at least a yellow are put on report.

In too many cases the refs have used the report function to opt out of making the hard decisions.

CatFromHue

The White Cards do seem to have replaced the reds altogether now.

In the Chiefs Blues games there were 4 yellow cards given (2 for dangerous tackles and 2 for fighting) but all were given in conjunction with a white one. At least one of them was a red card.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUV7fgLEbCg

1.06 for the first white card.

1.35 for the second.

2.55 for the third.

Podge_irl

Is a white card with a yellow not utterly redundant. Surely the citing officer will check all the yellow card offences anyway?

2nd and 3rd clear reds.

Bottlejob

Flincher

And the first.

Taco Corp

White cards are just a get out of jail card for the ref and a joke. They don't want the ref to be seen as "ruining" the game (as was the criticism of Rolland) by handing out red cards for the tip tackle (or anything else for that matter). Given that everyone is used to yellow cards at this stage, the white card is just passing the responsibility to faceless off field parties.

Would have some sympathy for the Chiefs player in the third incident, that sort of cynical play by the Bulls 19 needs to be dealt with as well. Having said that, deserved a red

WeeBushy

Any incident that deserves a white card will be picked up regardless. I think its a poor idea.