If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

The should it or should it not be a red card thread.

  • 21-03-2023 2:44pm
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭

    Instead of countless threads getting derailed by pages of debates on red cards. We can keep it all in one place. Also discussions about 20 minute reds can be handled here too.



  • Subscribers Posts: 40,896 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat

    20 minute red cards ?????

    hook it to my veins !!!!!!

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n

    As long as there are 8 to 12 week bans for the players. That’s ok.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭sprucemoose

    all talk of 20 min red cards/orange cards/payers going on report etc, is missing the point completely

    players need to make a better effort to tackle (or make impact) lower, simple as

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    They just won't do it though.

    I distinctly remember how we were taught to tackle as kids, the drill where you stand on opposite corners, wrap low, get your head on the right side, and man goes to ground.

    Absolutely nobody tackles like that now despite it being a textbook tackle then because it gives the ball carrier freedom to pop it up easily for an offload or it leaves it well presented for his team to ruck over and create quick ball.

    Now, defensive coaches coach players to accelerate into the collision and knock the carrier back, or to try and tackle on the ball to prevent the offload or quick ruck ball.

    Players and coaches are not going to do something they think helps their opponents, so absent a rule change from World Rugby this won't change.

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,967 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030

    Owen Doyle said it best.

    If you commit foul play that warrants a yellow, don't complain if it ends up being red. A rugby pitch is a chaotic place. The only way to avoid red is to not do anything (foul play) deserving yellow. And the game gets safer for everyone.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭sprucemoose

    i understand that a lower tackle gives the attacking team an advantage, which is exactly why the repercussions have to stay as they are as otherwise there is no incentive to lower the tackle height.

    and to your last point, again i understand but i would counter that coaches/players/everyone has to adapt. tackling in the air was the big problem a few years ago and after a season or two everyone adapted, its something you rarely see causing a problem now

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Yeah agreed, and I think it's something that absolutely the players are capable of changing, the incentives just aren't there right now to do it. If the disincentives get worse (where it feels like they've been slackening off of late due to SH pressure), then maybe that becomes a factor.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭sprucemoose

    i do think the SH are a problem tbh when it comes to this, it happens everywhere of course but there seems to be more of an old school mentality there.

    im a big enough fan of rugby league but at times their attitudes to head knocks (and physicality in general) leaves alot to be desired, especially in the NRL. i think this is partly why there is a more lax attitude in aus and nz (less so) as rugby is competing with the spectacle of the NRL and State of Origin. I wouldnt really be looking to the nrl as shining examples in this case though, the 'on-report' system is an absolute joke for one

  • Subscribers Posts: 40,896 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat

    ah yeah, 100%. it has to be introduced alongside a serve increase in the sanctions that are given after the fact.

    well, in my opinion the sanctions need to be increased regardless, or at least increases from the egregious and/or repetitive stuff. It actually appears that since the crackdown on head contact, the sanction applied to red cards have actually lowered rather than increased.

    ive explained on here previous why i would support the 20 minute red card, and i completely understanding id be in the minority on this, but for one more time this is why i support it.

    1. we have had 3 seasons of the 20 minute red card in super rugby, and there has been zero situations where a player has deliberately gone out to "do" the "star" player in the first few minutes to take a player out of the game. This "thin edge of the wedge" argument simply doesnt happen.
    2. Stats show that a yellow card costs a team on average between 4 and 7 points. In RWC 2019, in the 36 completed pool matches, 33 tries were conceded by teams down to 14 men. the stats for a 20 min red card is harder to find due to a small sample base, but you can extrapolate that a 20 min red card costs a team on average about 10 points. There is no professional team that will deliberately go out with a -10 handicap against any team, by deliberately sending a player out to take out another player.
    3. Currently not all red cards are equal. A red card after 5 minutes is nowhere as equal an in-game sanction as a red card in the last 5 minutes. its the singular ONLY sanction in game that inequitable. Red cards impact games, that is undeniable.
    4. 20 minute red cards can actually increase player safety by referees no longer being at risk of "ruining the game" and being loathe to give an early card. Refs may find it easier to go tighter to the law book when making decisions.
    5. Last but very not least, the current red card rule obviously is not changing players behaviour to the required / desired standard. Head contact is still happening, and the frequency doesnt appear to be reducing. Is players behaviour changing? I fully accept that that judicial system farce is a factor in this, but obviously this all has to happen with an increase in sanctions.

    I dont buy the "a red card ruins games" argument. You can have a cracking game of 14 v 15, backs the wall, yada yada, and it can be very entertaining, but by no objective measure could it be considered equitable. I dont like the fact that wales won the 2021 6 nations, with 3 red cards playing a part in that (though 2 were on or about 60 minutes) and im sure welsh fans dont like the constant asterisk that appointed to that win by opposition fans as well.

    i also fully accept that the biggest argument against this is situations when a player has to leave the field due to injury. Had England won last Saturday and brought Marchant after 60 mins we'd all be seething, but if ireland weren't good enough to beat a team down to 14 for 20 mins... etc etc.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭sprucemoose

    i think thats a fair explanation but in response:

    points 1 & 2 - i understand this may be the case but i dont know if it is directly transferrable to the international game for example. with all due respect to super rugby, i dont think it is on the same level as the rwc in terms of pressure/competitiveness. and i dont think actually full on 'taking out' a player with malice is the problem, it is the increased possibility of making a potentially high/dangerous hit due to lesser repercussions. and obviously it wasnt even for a full season but the 20 min card trial in the urc/rainbow a few years ago was a joke

    point 4 - potentially true but it really shouldnt matter to the referee.

    point 5 - would reducing 'punishment' not exacerbate the problem even more so? if there is even less of a risk then i would imagine players would take more chances than they are now seeing as the potential downside isnt that severe

  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,014 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney

    If you want to discourage high tackling you have to start with getting rid of the incentive to do so. And you also have to do something to discourage ball carriers from going in so low that it becomes increasingly difficult to manage.

  • Subscribers Posts: 40,896 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I'm not talking about reducing "punishment" at all. Ive actually referenced twice above that the punishments should significantly increase to the offending player.

    If the "potential downside" is a long ban, reduced salary due to suspensions, and no ability to collect test match fees, THEN you'd see the frequency of reckless hits reduce.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,051 ✭✭✭Augme

    As long as you have the Stewart incident deemed as a "clear and obvious example of dangerous play and a red card" while James Ryan's charge into a exposed players head in a ruck as not even being worthy of a penalty you know there is a serious problem with the laws. Those two incidents should not have completely opposite outcomes. In my mind it's clear World Rugby don't really know what they are ultimately trying to achieve and the longer that continues the worse it is.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭sprucemoose

    that is fair, both should really have been red

    i was talking about in-game. id agree about harsher sanctions after the game too but i dont think in-game punishments should reduce

  • Subscribers Posts: 40,896 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat

    they are trying something like that at amateur level in france:

    i dont know how the trial was received, with covid and everything, but it looks like a deliberate changing of the laws to encourage off loads by not allowing a ball targeting tackle. how youd ref that in the tight exchanges ive no idea though.

  • Subscribers Posts: 40,896 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat

    do you accept that the in-game sanction is unequal though, depending on when the incident happens?

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond

    I dont think we will never agree on this as i fundamentally see no reason to have them in place and certainly dont want them anywhere near the amateur game.

    Yes players can get a red for mistimed hits which are more accidental than deliberate actions of foul play but thats just unfortunate. i dont see real reason to allow teams return to full contingent in a quarter of the game length.

    All red cards are not equal and this change doesnt make things more equal. it makes things worse IMO as a team where a player who commits absolute thuggery gets back to 15 in 20 minutes and the opposition who may lose a player to injury from such thuggery are not given enough advantage.

    Red cards do impact games because theyre meant to especially in cases of serious foul play.

    the current red card law isnt changing players behaviour enough so how is lessening the cost to a team going to improve it?

    A 20-minute red card merely papers over the cracks. It is totally wrong

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭sprucemoose

    absolutely but thats a different question. i would imagine red cards are reserved for incidents that are generally serious enough to warrant ignoring (most of) the context in which they happened - i.e a player gets sent off for a headbutt regardless of whether they were provoked or not

    i think its fair enough to classify head contact in this way - even when there is no malice it is still serious, hence why intent etc, is taken out of the equation and very little mitigation is allowed (although this seems to be less true recently).

    so when it happens is irrelevant as its a dangerous incident rather than a technical one, the sanction should remain the same whether its the first or last minute. for a 'technical' (for want of a better word) incident like offside etc, context matters and so whether it deserves a yellow card is more down to the interpretation of the referee

    completely agree, lessening the in-game sanctions wont help anything

  • Subscribers Posts: 40,896 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat

    the current red card law isnt changing players behaviour enough so how is lessening the cost to a team going to improve it?

    and therein lies the rub.

    the current laws are not changing PLAYER behaviour even though its the TEAM that is punished most for it.

    i am suggesting a change so that the PLAYER is the one more severely punished for that PLAYERS actions, and not the TEAM they play for.

    i know im in the vast minority on this, but i dont see the current situation as being in any way acceptable, in the climate of vastly increased frequency of re cards to say, 10 years ago.... the the post game sanctions are the very same.

    the current status quo does not put the player as the focus of the sanction, therefore we are not seeing the desired change in behaviour.

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof

    i am suggesting a change so that the PLAYER is the one more severely punished for that PLAYERS actions, and not the TEAM they play for

    This overlooks the outcome for the opposition tho. They’re part of the equation too, and deserve some reward for being infringed upon.

    For example, if Stewart comes back on after 20 mins, but Keenan is gone for the rest of the game, that doesn’t seem equitable to me.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭sprucemoose

    thats a massive stretch tbh, thats just how teamsports work.

    i use hands in the ruck the team gets penalised

    i punch someone the team gets penalised

    i make contact with someones head the team should get penalised

    i do agree that fines/bans should be harsher also but i dont think its either or. but as much as its an individual thing to an extent, i think coaches have a lot to answer for on this too. i find ronan o gara generally is on the right side of thinking when he talks about how he coaches but on off the ball he has basically said he'll continue to encourage players to go 'high' (relative, not actually high) which to me is completely wrong. i actually find it baffling since la rochelle basically lost their first H cup final because of a red card

    exactly and this is partly why the 'on report' system in the NRL that is suggested regularly for union, is an absolute joke

  • Subscribers Posts: 40,896 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat

    there is never a suggestion that the player who is red carded comes back on. thats a fundamental misunderstanding of the law trial

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond

    The team is punished as is the player. the player is removed from the game until its conclusion and the player gets a ban and i think the current system is more than acceptable. Yes red cards are much more frequent now but that isnt a bad thing compared to the past. A 20 minute red doesnt for me do enough to change player behaviour. a player will see it as ok compared to the rest of game punishment.

    the team should be punished and the opposition gain an advantage for remainder of game be it in minute 7 or 77. Players are more severely punished. they are removed from the game and the next games(depending on what they did) and their team is punished for the rest of the game. i dont see why the team punishment should be lessened any bit.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭swiwi_

    It depends if you are born colour blind I suppose.

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,063 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof

    Fair point but it still doesn’t sit well with me that a team could go back to their full complement after a red card offence, while the infringed player is out for the rest of the game.

    As for the team vs individual element; you win as a team and lose as a team. Same as if your place kicker has an off day from the tee.

  • Registered Users Posts: 502 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey

    Might there be some merit in a system where a player yellow carded cannot return but can be replaced after 10 mins (red carded players stay off) ?. This impacts the misbehaving player without punishing their team other than allowing their opponents a temporary advantage.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,360 ✭✭✭Former Former Former

    None of it matters.

    Whatever system you put in place will become a heinous injustice for whatever team ends up on the wrong side of it.

    As long as results come before player safety - and they always, always will - we'll be subjected to this nonsense that we've heard over the Steward card. And these absolute muppets coming out saying "the game is ruined" and all this bollocks.

    I still cringe thinking about the IRFU dragging out the O'Brien citing hearing for SEVEN HOURS trying to get him off the most blatant punch you'll ever see.

    Everyone wants player welfare to be paramount, so long as it doesn't get in the way of winning.

    That's never going to change.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭sprucemoose

  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,014 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney

    The injured player is replaced immediately. It's essentially a double-yellow with a forced substitution.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,775 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34

    Of course it does, because it invariably comes with a ban for the individual, which is a threat to their place in all the teams they play for, because the next guy in their position won't hang about.

    On the specific issue of the Steward card, I think both O'Driscoll and D'Arcy summed up very well the case for the legitimacy of it being Red.

    In essence, Steward is in the defensive line, play is approaching him and one of two things will happen:

    1) The ball is received by an Ireland player and Steward has to tackle him.


    2) The ball is lost forward or fly hacked and Steward's job becomes one of gathering the ball, to maximise any advantage.

    For neither of those scenarios was Steward positioned to do his job, to shape for a tackle or to eyeball the ball and pounce on it. He was upright, he was dynamic and he wasn't pulling out of anything.

    Andy Dunne, when commenting on it, was 100% convinced that Steward went to stitch him. Intent isn't in the laws, but recklessness and duty of care are. I agree with this and so the Red sanction was correct.