General Rugby Discussion II

sydthebeat

Dog Botherer wrote: »

more like Tyrel HIGH-max amirite lads

waaahhhhh-heyyyy !!!!!

:D:D:D

Burkie1203

Burkie1203 wrote: »

But BOD or any other parent should not have to explain that to their children. That's the problem here.

These are the very best players in the world, in one of the biggest international competitions, with supposedly the best match officials backed up by multiple TV camera angles to support their decision making. Too often the decisions are wrong.

Too often referees take the easy way out for fear of being accused of "ruining the game" by loud mouth pundits who just want to be controversial.

Yes, decisions can be wrong. You can even have seemingly similar incidents in the same match have varying penalties awarded. Look at Ireland vs NZ in 2016 at the Aviva. Sexton does a swinging arm to Barrett's neck/jaw as he scores. It wasn't even considered as a penalty (maybe because he scored?) In the same match, Fekitoa takes out Zebo with a swinging arm, it's a yellow card, and many argued it should be a straight red. If my kid questioned why this is, I'd simply say that the ref is always trying to make the correct decision, but he can be wrong.

I don't think for a second that the yellow card was the easy way out on the weekend. A red was the easy way out, as it would have no bearing on the game, and if there was to be a subsequent ban, it would have been out of his hands.

sydthebeat

rugbys gone to sh!te


there, i said it

swiwi_

Basil3 wrote: »

It was the easiest red card in the world to give, as it had absolutely zero bearing on the match whether he gave a yellow or a red.

For this reason, any AB's supporter would prefer he gave a red, so then we don't have to listen to the same old crap about them being treated differently by refs. It's a shame, because it has completely taken away from an impressive performance.

I got a message from a workmate after the match with a tweet from BOD about how he's supposed to explain to his kid that a forearm to the head only deserves 10 mins. He may have been a great rugby player, but he's obviously a pathetic parent. I don't agree with his the use of his child to try to make a point about player welfare. It's very easy to tell a child that refs don't always make correct decisions, and direct head contact should be a straight red.

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Son- "dad can I play rugby"
Dad - "Son when they start protecting players heads properly you can"

That's not a pathetic parent. Its a human being concerned about a sports lack of ability to get basic safety laws implemented consistently by Match referees despite the availability of multiple TV camera angles.

Personally, I think you are a pathetic person for getting very personal about a former player wanting player welfare to be put first.

How do I show these posts to my kids and explain why they only got yellow cards

Bazzo

Dog Botherer wrote: »

more like Tyrel HIGH-max amirite lads

It'll be Tyrel mitigation-max by the time the disciplinary hearing rolls round :pac:

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

How do I show these posts to my kids and explain why they only got yellow cards

If you have kids, then get rid of them. You don't want to have these awkward conversations.

If you don't have kids, keep it that way.

molloyjh

Basil3 wrote: »

Yes, decisions can be wrong. You can even have seemingly similar incidents in the same match have varying penalties awarded. Look at Ireland vs NZ in 2016 at the Aviva. Sexton does a swinging arm to Barrett's neck/jaw as he scores. It wasn't even considered as a penalty (maybe because he scored?) In the same match, Fekitoa takes out Zebo with a swinging arm, it's a yellow card, and many argued it should be a straight red. If my kid questioned why this is, I'd simply say that the ref is always trying to make the correct decision, but he can be wrong.

I don't think for a second that the yellow card was the easy way out on the weekend. A red was the easy way out, as it would have no bearing on the game, and if there was to be a subsequent ban, it would have been out of his hands.

I think saying that referees can get things wrong covers 95+% of incidents. They are human after all. However there are cases where thats just not good enough. For me this is one. And I kind of get where Drico is coming from here (he obviously isn't saying that he has no idea what to say to his son in this case, that would be taking the tweet too literally).

So missing a swinging arm to the head in open play can be explained. "He just didn't see it son". Thats fine. It can happen. However if he's gone up to the TMO he is obviously aware of something happening and goes to get another look plus additional angles plus additional advice from the TMO. Sometimes its an awkward one to see or judge properly. Thats fine too. "It is a bit hard to tell from that angle son".

In this case, how do you explain it? He could see it. He knew it happened. He had the same view as everyone else. I didn't see the game so didn't hear if he mentioned any mitigating factors, but the decision is completely wrong. And he has no other explanation to fall back on other than his own judgement that it didn't warrant a red. And unless there's a mitigating factor that I'm missing that is wholly unacceptable.

As a parent watching the game, to see officials fail in their duty to protect players on straight forward calls like that is clearly, all day long not a good look for the game. If he can't get that call right having gone upstairs there have to be serious questions asked.

I'm not one to have a go at refs. Its a tough job. But every ref at this level has got to get decisions like that one right. Its part of the minimum amount that we should expect from them.

razorblunt

In fairness that's pretty awful pearl clutching by BOD.
Bringing his kid into it doesn't make his point any stronger it just makes him look like an idiot.

aloooof

molloyjh wrote: »

"He just didn't see it son".

"It is a bit hard to tell from that angle son".

Is anyone else reading these in an English accent with a mildly passive-aggressive "son" at the end?

molloyjh

aloooof wrote: »

Is anyone else reading these in an English accent with a mildly passive-aggressive "son" at the end?

AbusesToilets

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Can't remember who was commentating when I watched it. It was on Sky and they sometimes have the kiwi commentary and sometimes the Aussie. What I remember hearing and what I heard/read was that most people thought it could have been a yellow as there was a bit of a drop in the ball carrier's height. Same with the Swinton one on Whitelock.

The way I see it, I would rather watch 15 v 15. Obviously there has to be sanctions for dirty play or reckless play that endangers another player. Those were dynamic situations, they were trying to make a big tackle and got it slightly wrong. Yellow card would have been a suitable punishment. The Lomax incident at the weekend was a straight red.

The theory that any re-action to having issued a red card to the ABs a couple of weeks ago had any bearing on his decision making just doesn't hold water for me. If that is true, he should look for a new line of work.

These are the sort of incidents that make me wish rugby had a black card system. Where the ref has the discretion to remove a player for dangerous, but unintentional play, but allow for the player to be replaced.

aloooof

AbusesToilets wrote: »

These are the sort of incidents that make me wish rugby had a black card system. Where the ref has the discretion to remove a player for dangerous, but unintentional play, but allow for the player to be replaced.

I disagree, tbh. The black card is for cynical play, not for dangerous play. There has to be a bigger penalty for dangerous play (whether it's intentional or not).

That bigger penalty is ultimately what will make teams change their behaviour to something safer e.g. lowering their tackle height.

Yeah_Right

AbusesToilets wrote: »

These are the sort of incidents that make me wish rugby had a black card system. Where the ref has the discretion to remove a player for dangerous, but unintentional play, but allow for the player to be replaced.

NZ did something like this for Super Rugby this year. A Red card was for 20 minutes and then the player could be replaced. Don't think it was actually used (from memory) as the only reds were in the last 20. Also not sure how it worked in the case of 2 yellows.

AbusesToilets

aloooof wrote: »

I disagree, tbh. The black card is for cynical play, not for dangerous play. There has to be a bigger penalty for dangerous play (whether it's intentional or not).

That bigger penalty is ultimately what will make teams change their behaviour to something safer e.g. lowering their tackle height.

I'd disagree. There's been no shortage of incidents of players getting sent off for accidental dangerous play. Jarad Payne for Ulster, Stander vs SA.

The argument for encouraging players to be safer in their actions is the right idea, but in a game as physical as the professional game is now, it's not always possible to players to get it right everytime. A fractional miscalculation going for a tackle, and a team is down a man. It's asking a lot. I'd rather keep the penalty on the player, but have an option to not ruin a game.

eclipsechaser

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Can't remember who was commentating when I watched it. It was on Sky and they sometimes have the kiwi commentary and sometimes the Aussie. What I remember hearing and what I heard/read was that most people thought it could have been a yellow as there was a bit of a drop in the ball carrier's height. Same with the Swinton one on Whitelock.

Just watched it back.

On seeing the replay: "That'll be just a penalty".

After red card: "Well, I just can't agree with that".

On the Aussie red card: "And I can't agree with either. On player welfare, both players were okay."

I can't hear the HT analysis but it was former players all disagreeing with the red card.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'd disagree. There's been shortage of incidents of players getting sent off for accidental dangerous play. Jarad Payne for Ulster, Stander vs SA.

The argument for encouraging players to be safer in their actions is the right idea, but in a game as physical as the professional game is now, it's not always possible to players to get it right everytime. A fractional miscalculation going for a tackle, and a team is down a man. It's asking a lot. I'd rather keep the penalty on the player, but have an option to not ruin a game.

There has to be a substantial penalty for dangerous play , accidental or not.

In the Youth game there are no Red/Yellow cards until Under 15 - Below that level there is "enforced substitution" if a particularly egregious incident occurs.

This is done to avoid Safety issues of teams playing with unequal numbers and makes sense.

At Pro-level , I really don't think that a 15 or 20 minute bin followed by a forced replacement is enough of a sanction to be honest.

A red/yellow card in my view is not just a sanction against the offending team , it is "compensation" of sorts for the non-offending team.

Where's the compensation if the offending team get to bring on a sub of likely equal ability?

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

These are the sort of incidents that make me wish rugby had a black card system. Where the ref has the discretion to remove a player for dangerous, but unintentional play, but allow for the player to be replaced.

I dont believe much from how GAA manages its games in terms of officials should really be followed.

aloooof wrote: »

I disagree, tbh. The black card is for cynical play, not for dangerous play. There has to be a bigger penalty for dangerous play (whether it's intentional or not).

That bigger penalty is ultimately what will make teams change their behaviour to something safer e.g. lowering their tackle height.

Totally. Dangerous play has to have a more serious penalty both for the player and the team.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'd disagree. There's been no shortage of incidents of players getting sent off for accidental dangerous play. Jarad Payne for Ulster, Stander vs SA.

The argument for encouraging players to be safer in their actions is the right idea, but in a game as physical as the professional game is now, it's not always possible to players to get it right everytime. A fractional miscalculation going for a tackle, and a team is down a man. It's asking a lot. I'd rather keep the penalty on the player, but have an option to not ruin a game.

When incidents happen they dont ruin a game. as quin dub says the penalty for dangerous play has to be substantial regardless of intentions of who carried it out.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There has to be a substantial penalty for dangerous play , accidental or not.

In the Youth game there are no Red/Yellow cards until Under 15 - Below that level there is "enforced substitution" if a particularly egregious incident occurs.

This is done to avoid Safety issues of teams playing with unequal numbers and makes sense.

At Pro-level , I really don't think that a 15 or 20 minute bin followed by a forced replacement is enough of a sanction to be honest.

A red/yellow card in my view is not just a sanction against the offending team , it is "compensation" of sorts for the non-offending team.

Where's the compensation if the offending team get to bring on a sub of likely equal ability?

There is at u14 but thats nit picking but i agree at pro level that its far from enough of a sanction to just replace a red carded player after 20 minutes.

aloooof

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There has to be a substantial penalty for dangerous play , accidental or not.

...

A red/yellow card in my view is not just a sanction against the offending team , it is "compensation" of sorts for the non-offending team.

Where's the compensation if the offending team get to bring on a sub of likely equal ability?

Completely agree, tbh. You're also opening yourself up to an incident where the offending player is replaced but also the player on the receiving end has to go off injured. That hardly seems equitable.

aloooof

eclipsechaser wrote: »

Just watched it back.

On seeing the replay: "That'll be just a penalty".

After red card: "Well, I just can't agree with that".

On the Aussie red card: "And I can't agree with either. On player welfare, both players were okay."

I can't hear the HT analysis but it was former players all disagreeing with the red card.

Full disclosure, I've only see the Aussie red card once on a Twitter scroll, but the issue I'd have with that is they're judging it based on the outcome and not the action.

The implication is that if one or other player wasn't ok, the card may have been justified. By definition, that's saying the ref should be inconsistent based on the outcome.

Yeah_Right

eclipsechaser wrote: »

Just watched it back.

On seeing the replay: "That'll be just a penalty".

After red card: "Well, I just can't agree with that".

On the Aussie red card: "And I can't agree with either. On player welfare, both players were okay."

I can't hear the HT analysis but it was former players all disagreeing with the red card.

Who were the commentators/pundits?

I think a system where tackles like that were 20 minutes with a man down and they were replaced would be good. Something that was clearly intentional and dangerous, the player is off no substitution. I just don't like games being ruined because a player makes a mistake in a fast moving situation and gets his timing or height slightly wrong.

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There has to be a substantial penalty for dangerous play , accidental or not.

In the Youth game there are no Red/Yellow cards until Under 15 - Below that level there is "enforced substitution" if a particularly egregious incident occurs.

This is done to avoid Safety issues of teams playing with unequal numbers and makes sense.

At Pro-level , I really don't think that a 15 or 20 minute bin followed by a forced replacement is enough of a sanction to be honest.

A red/yellow card in my view is not just a sanction against the offending team , it is "compensation" of sorts for the non-offending team.

Where's the compensation if the offending team get to bring on a sub of likely equal ability?

Losing a starting player is not a punishment? It's unlikely that the replacement player is to the same level, how often do we see that in teams?

When you have situations that are often subjective in their interpretations, and inconsistent with respect to how laws are applied, I think it's quite unfair to have such a harsh penalty. Stander got sent off for hitting Lambie, yet Le Roux got to come back on for taking out TOH. Both receiving players ended up going off injured.

The game wants the harshest punishment for actions that can occur in split second. It's too inconsiderate imo, and doesn't take into account the realities of large men smashing into each other at high speed.

What is the down side to allowing a replacement in a situation where a ref deems it a case of accidental dangerous play?

Burkie1203

AbusesToilets wrote: »

When you have situations that are often subjective in their interpretations, and inconsistent with respect to how laws are applied, I think it's quite unfair to have such a harsh penalty. Stander got sent off for hitting Lambie, yet Le Roux got to come back on for taking out TOH. Both receiving players ended up going off injured.

Stander was rightly red carded in that game.

WLR got banned subsequently. The ref got it wrong. Not World Rugby.

Burkie1203

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What is the down side to allowing a replacement in a situation where a ref deems it a case of accidental dangerous play?

The downside is it becomes subjective. Too much of what we see varies wildly as it is.

But a player on the other team could be leaving the pitch on a stretcher. Accident or not.

The Lost Sheep

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Who were the commentators/pundits?

I think a system where tackles like that were 20 minutes with a man down and they were replaced would be good. Something that was clearly intentional and dangerous, the player is off no substitution. I just don't like games being ruined because a player makes a mistake in a fast moving situation and gets his timing or height slightly wrong.

But it doesnt always ruin games and that a game is affected so what? You have to penalise foul play even if accidental. That a game is changed because a team is down to 14 then so what?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Losing a starting player is not a punishment? It's unlikely that the replacement player is to the same level, how often do we see that in teams?

When you have situations that are often subjective in their interpretations, and inconsistent with respect to how laws are applied, I think it's quite unfair to have such a harsh penalty. Stander got sent off for hitting Lambie, yet Le Roux got to come back on for taking out TOH. Both receiving players ended up going off injured.

The game wants the harshest punishment for actions that can occur in split second. It's too inconsiderate imo, and doesn't take into account the realities of large men smashing into each other at high speed.

What is the down side to allowing a replacement in a situation where a ref deems it a case of accidental dangerous play?

are officials trying to ensure a spectacle or a safe, fair and equitable application of the laws?
Im very much in the second category. I dont see any reason to allow a player come on for a red card offence.
If you dilute the consequences to the offender, you are by actually encouraging foul play

Yeah_Right

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But it doesnt always ruin games and that a game is affected so what? You have to penalise foul play even if accidental. That a game is changed because a team is down to 14 then so what?

are officials trying to ensure a spectacle or a safe, fair and equitable application of the laws?
Im very much in the second category. I dont see any reason to allow a player come on for a red card offence.
If you dilute the consequences to the offender, you are by actually encouraging foul play

I get it. You're a ref and refs and laws are perfect and can never be criticized.

If games at the pro level get ruined because teams are reduced to 14 or 13 players for getting their technique or timing slightly wrong (which was the case in those 2 tackles) then fans will vote with their wallets. That has consequences right through the sport.

To be clear, I think Lomax should have got a red.What do you think?

The Lost Sheep

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I get it. You're a ref and refs and laws are perfect and can never be criticized.

If games at the pro level get ruined because teams are reduced to 14 or 13 players for getting their technique or timing slightly wrong (which was the case in those 2 tackles) then fans will vote with their wallets. That has consequences right through the sport.

To be clear, I think Lomax should have got a red.What do you think?

Get over yourself. Yes i am a ref. But that cant define every discussion i have on laws/the game.

Games are not ruined because of red cards happening because of foul play.

That was a clear red for lomax.

salmocab

Lowering the punishment for a red card would just increase the likelihood of someone offending.

AbusesToilets

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Get over yourself. Yes i am a ref. But that cant define every discussion i have on laws/the game.

Games are not ruined because of red cards happening because of foul play.

That was a clear red for lomax.

Ah, they absolutely are ruined as contest most of the time. It's very rare that a 14 man team will win out.

Burkie1203 wrote: »

The downside is it becomes subjective. Too much of what we see varies wildly as it is.

But a player on the other team could be leaving the pitch on a stretcher. Accident or not.

Everything the ref does is subjective. Rucks are a nightmare of inconsistencies, and a blight on the game. I think there's room to give refs some discretion with respect to this.

AbusesToilets

salmocab wrote: »

Lowering the punishment for a red card would just increase the likelihood of someone offending.

How so? A player would still be leaving the pitch, a team would have to juggle their line up to accommodate replacement. It also means losing a sub for someone potentially. Lots of knock on consequences.

It's not like a coach is going to instruct his players to out looking to hurt someone with a dangerous shot, not are players likely to be wanting to do so either.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

How so? A player would still be leaving the pitch, a team would have to juggle their line up to accommodate replacement. It also means losing a sub for someone potentially. Lots of knock on consequences.

It's not like a coach is going to instruct his players to out looking to hurt someone with a dangerous shot, not are players likely to be wanting to do so either.

The real punishment is going down to 14. Having a replacement come on isnt good enough. For many positions there isnt that much of juggling.

It isnt good enough of a punishment for a team. We are talking about professional rugby. The only grade where a red card is replaced is at under 13 so 12 year old kids.