General Rugby Discussion

aimee1

sydneybound wrote: »

A 24 year old ref is having a desperate night at Franklin Gardens.

He's just red carded Nathan Hughes and potentially ruined a good game for a yellow card at most offence. By the way George North has had another bad concussion tonight after scoring two tries.

North to be stood down for the season maybe?

CatFromHue

Knee straight to the head, that's a bad one!

Buer

Have to wonder what the covering player was at. Didn't even try to avoid North.

matthew8

That was a red card for Hughes I believe. I guess players have to be very careful these days that card completely changed the game from Wasps being in a strong position to being hammered despite Wade scoring a hat trick. Hopefully the 2 can keep up the good attacking play away to Europe's best 2 sides.

CatFromHue

matthew8 wrote: »

That was a red card for Hughes I believe. I guess players have to be very careful these days that card completely changed the game from Wasps being in a strong position to being hammered despite Wade scoring a hat trick. Hopefully the 2 can keep up the good attacking play away to Europe's best 2 sides.

Kind of glad he got a red for that. The ball was well placed when he ran into him, if you can even say ran.

matthew8

CatFromHue wrote: »

Kind of glad he got a red for that. The ball was well placed when he ran into him, if you can even say ran.

I'm glad too, ignorance shouldn't be an excuse when a player does something so dangerous. Many say a red for that ruins the game but it's just unacceptable. Interesting to see if the English citing commission make Wasps go to Toulon without one of their stars.

errlloyd

I think red too, but there is absolute war over it online. What age was the ref?

Hagz

The video doesn't show enough to tell me whether it's red or not. Certainly looks quite careless but needs more context.

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

I think red too, but there is absolute war over it online. What age was the ref?

24.

errlloyd

Rugby Banter page fb

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1075035555843623

CatFromHue

Hagz wrote: »

The video doesn't show enough to tell me whether it's red or not. Certainly looks quite careless but needs more context.

It's clear enough for me tbh.

Hughes has no need to do what he does, the ball is down, and it's so careless I'm thinking was it on purpose.

aimee1

CatFromHue wrote: »

It's clear enough for me tbh.

Hughes has no need to do what he does, the ball is down, and it's so careless I'm thinking was it on purpose.

i think he tried to kick the ball

CatFromHue

errlloyd wrote: »

Rugby Banter page fb

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1075035555843623

It doesn't look any better there.

I don't think Hughes can have any complaints.

matthew8

Can't believe the consensus is that it shouldn't be a red. Doesn't matter if it's not deliberate it's extremely dangerous play. Well done the inexperienced referee for not bottling it.

CatFromHue

aimee1 wrote: »

i think he tried to kick the ball

The ball was placed a good bit before he kicked him and seemingly you're not meant to kick the ball in that situation either.

Buer

At worst it's deliberate (I don't think it was). At best, it was pretty reckless and he can't argue with the red card. You can't swing a leg like that around a guys head, especially when the ball isn't even loose.

Hagz

I'm on the fence about whether its red or yellow but I definitely don't think it was on purpose. Hughes isn't that sort of player and his reaction indicates that it was an accident on his part.

The Lost Sheep

Definite red.
The situation was avoidable by the defender. Did he intend to. No.. but that doesn't matter.
Fair play to the referee for giving it. He asked his AR, TMO correct Qs and gave correct decision.

For those who said things like ruining a game. Not a hope. And who cares. Should red cards not be given when deserved?

awec

All the talk on facebook is people waffling about it being an accident. Irrelevant. It was dangerous play no matter what and IMO a certain red card.

It looks very dodgy to me. I am not convinced that what Hughes does is entirely natural in that situation.

entangled

Yeah, thought watching it first maybe he'd scrape by with a yellow, but the ref makes the point that you can't kick the ball out of the try scorer's hands (didn't know that) so the player has no excuse for having his feet/legs around there in the first place. Well refereed I think.

Hagz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

For those who said things like ruining a game. Not a hope. And who cares. Should red cards not be given when deserved?

Well I'm of the opinion that reds should be reserved for situations of malice or extreme recklessness because of the effect red cards have in the sport of rugby. If there's any shred of doubt I'd always prefer the officials to give yellow instead. But I'm well aware that that is not a popular opinion.

errlloyd

I don't think your definition is wrong Hagz, I'd says it was pretty extremely reckless though?

CatFromHue

Hagz wrote: »

Well I'm of the opinion that reds should be reserved for situations of malice or extreme recklessness because of the effect red cards have in the sport of rugby. If there's any shred of doubt I'd always prefer the officials to give yellow instead. But I'm well aware that that is not a popular opinion.

Is what happened not extreme recklessness or malice, I mean he did knee/kick a guy on the head

The Lost Sheep

Hagz wrote: »

Well I'm of the opinion that reds should be reserved for situations of malice or extreme recklessness because of the effect red cards have in the sport of rugby. If there's any shred of doubt I'd always prefer the officials to give yellow instead. But I'm well aware that that is not a popular opinion.

I completely disagree with that. It was reckless. He didn't need to do what he did.
It was dangerous play. There wasn't any way it wasn't a red. It was stupid and needless. Is what happened here not extreme recklessness?

Hagz

No I don't think it was extremely reckless, clearly on my own with that though.

I've always felt that 9 times out of 10 the red card is disproportionate to the crime in rugby. Unless the offending team has racked up a huge lead or unless there's only a quarter of the game to go, the red card will very likely result in a loss. Should the Wasps have been punished with a defeat because of that moment of recklessness from Nathan Hughes? I've always championed for a system whereby the player is not allowed return but after 10 minutes a substitution can be brought on.

Morf

Hagz wrote: »

No I don't think it was extremely reckless, clearly on my own with that though.

I've always felt that 9 times out of 10 the red card is disproportionate to the crime in rugby. Unless the offending team has racked up a huge lead or unless there's only a quarter of the game to go, the red card will very likely result in a loss. Should the Wasps have been punished with a defeat because of that moment of recklessness from Nathan Hughes? I've always championed for a system whereby the player is not allowed return but after 10 minutes a substitution can be brought on.

There needs to be a deterrent to the kinds of reckless or violent behaviour suggested. I don't think what you're advocating is enough of one. It shouldn't be just a personal punishment ie suspension/fine. There should be a team punishment to put the onus on the team as a unit to maintain the safety of the opposing team (and their own during lineouts for example) within the laws of the game.

cunnifferous

Worry for George North's health at this stage. You see it with boxers that the more they knocked out the easier it is the subsequent time for them to be knocked out. Seems like the brain is getting more damaged and can sustain less impact each time.

total former

Just watched it there, that's a red card every time, hefty suspension too. Good refereeing.

The Lost Sheep

Hagz wrote: »

No I don't think it was extremely reckless, clearly on my own with that though.

I've always felt that 9 times out of 10 the red card is disproportionate to the crime in rugby. Unless the offending team has racked up a huge lead or unless there's only a quarter of the game to go, the red card will very likely result in a loss. Should the Wasps have been punished with a defeat because of that moment of recklessness from Nathan Hughes? I've always championed for a system whereby the player is not allowed return but after 10 minutes a substitution can be brought on.

And I totally disagree with that. A team who get a red card in a lot of cases deserve to be sufficiently punished and what you suggest isn't good enough. The consequences of what happens to a team in relation to result/outcome a game because a player decides to commit an offence outside of the laws of the game is irrelevant.
Wasps weren't punished with defeat because Hughes acted recklessly.
That system you propose is open to abuse and would be worse for the sport

Bridge93

Apparently England’s fourth choice scrum-half told number five to pipe down last night
http://jrnl.ie/2018573

Dickson is a bit of twat but this is gas.