What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

I think I'd rather wait and see them play properly, rather than have any degree of tip-toeing around each other 'just in case'!?

(Although I feel for the clubs and the financial situation, of course)

Presumably if there is a requirement to change rules to allow players to play, there is still a risk and therefore they shouldn't be playing ?

Some games are being played in NZ with a new law allowing a replacement onto the pitch 20 minutes after a red carded player has left. Hope not many people think this is a good idea.

And Unions slide towards being rugby league continues.....

Quote:

dick g
Some games are being played in NZ with a new law allowing a replacement onto the pitch 20 minutes after a red carded player has left. Hope not many people think this is a good idea.

I saw this...its madness. Red card is to penalise the player and team for foul play, in an attempt to upkeep discipline. This just makes a mockery of it.

Quote:

GeordieFalcon

Quote:

dick g
Some games are being played in NZ with a new law allowing a replacement onto the pitch 20 minutes after a red carded player has left. Hope not many people think this is a good idea.

I saw this...its madness. Red card is to penalise the player and team for foul play, in an attempt to upkeep discipline. This just makes a mockery of it.

I suppose the thinking is not to overly punish a player for the type of "accidental" rugby collision which happens to make contact with the neck or head and results in an "unfortunate" red card. (The sort of collision we used to see regularly not long ago and didn't even consider to be foul play).

The problem is it swings the balance the other way and doesn't properly punish the quite deliberate act of foul play. At least not until the disciplinary committee review the red card in the days that follow.

Maybe they should have a distinction between deliberate and "accidental" foul play so you either get a red and off for the rest of the game or a purple or pink or some other colour for the latter?

To my mind if you don't send someone off for the duration for deliberate foul play there lies rugby anarchy.

If something deserves a red card, then it deserves a red card, and for the level below that, there's a yellow card. I don't think there needs to be any more contrived layers put into a disciplinary system that is already applied inconsistently.


SimonG19: "The problem is it swings the balance the other way and doesn't properly punish the quite deliberate act of foul play. At least not until the disciplinary committee review the red card in the days that follow."

The issue with that is that the team offended against doesn't benefit as much as they should. And if the offence results in the offender's team winning that game, then he (and frankly, his club) might take the risk and not care that much that he is suspended for two games later. Especially if the club expected to win those two games, or indeed lose those games, whatever team they put out.

Apparently the thinking in NZ is that the paying public want to see a fair contest. The logic here is that fair means both sides having the same number of players as often as possible. It should be noted that Kiwi Super Rugby fails consistently to attract decent crowds.

There is a risk that the game in NZ and Aus becomes an RU/RL hybrid. Or vanishes.

Quote:

Leipziger
If something deserves a red card, then it deserves a red card, and for the level below that, there's a yellow card. I don't think there needs to be any more contrived layers put into a disciplinary system that is already applied inconsistently.

SimonG19: "The problem is it swings the balance the other way and doesn't properly punish the quite deliberate act of foul play. At least not until the disciplinary committee review the red card in the days that follow."

The issue with that is that the team offended against doesn't benefit as much as they should. And if the offence results in the offender's team winning that game, then he (and frankly, his club) might take the risk and not care that much that he is suspended for two games later. Especially if the club expected to win those two games, or indeed lose those games, whatever team they put out.

Not doubting that at all Leipziger just trying to understand the possible logic.

Sure Simon, I agree with your original point. Sorry, I seem to be in a contradictory mood on this website recently :-/

Quote:

dick g
Apparently the thinking in NZ is that the paying public want to see a fair contest. The logic here is that fair means both sides having the same number of players as often as possible. It should be noted that Kiwi Super Rugby fails consistently to attract decent crowds.
There is a risk that the game in NZ and Aus becomes an RU/RL hybrid. Or vanishes.

There was a bit of a drive among football media about this a few years ago, "We want to see 11v11!". All well and good, but surely none of us want to see serious foul play go unpunished (or practically unpunished by a red-carded player being replaced with a substitute, as some commentators suggested)? If there's no deterrent to serious foul play then there'll be so much of it, the game will be wrecked.

No problem at all Leipziger. I get used to most people disagreeing with me anyway. (Particularly those from Barnet!).

Early on in the season I remember Cips being sent off when he literally stood his ground and then the attacking player ran straight into him, heads unfortunately collided. It was at the beginning of the game and had a detrimental effect regarding its entertainment value after that. One could argue the rights or wrongs of the red card but there was obviously no intention of foul play. I would suggest that it did not deserve the same treatment as a player intentionally trying to rip an opponents head off, ( or other malicious foul acts). Perhaps an intermediate card would be a good idea - Its harsh when something like the Cips scenario happens in the first half hour and then spoils the game from a spectators point of view thereafter.

On an historical note, the first card to be introduced back in the long distant day was a White Triangle. And as I recall, the first English pro to be sent off was our Gareth Archer in a game in London. I was there. It might have been against London Irish.

hay dick where you their when the first white triangle was shown sorry could not resist it

And it still causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble........

Quote:

trummy200
Early on in the season I remember Cips being sent off when he literally stood his ground and then the attacking player ran straight into him, heads unfortunately collided. It was at the beginning of the game and had a detrimental effect regarding its entertainment value after that. One could argue the rights or wrongs of the red card but there was obviously no intention of foul play. I would suggest that it did not deserve the same treatment as a player intentionally trying to rip an opponents head off, ( or other malicious foul acts). Perhaps an intermediate card would be a good idea - Its harsh when something like the Cips scenario happens in the first half hour and then spoils the game from a spectators point of view thereafter.

Surely that's what the TMO is there for though, to reduce the risk of wrong decisions being made? As for the timing, serious foul play is serious foul play whether it's in the 1st or 80th minute.

Someone in TRP is suggesting that thought should be given to abolishing the conversion and make a try worth 7 points to speed up the game. Cobblers. Making a conversion is part of the skill-set of our game.

the suggestion was only if the try was scored behind the goal posts as 9 out of 10 are scored. I think I missed most of the 1 in 10 but I join you dick and say Cobblers

The way that hey are messing around with the laws and structure of the game, why not just make it Rugby League and few if any of us would go!

Quote:

limpopo
The way that hey are messing around with the laws and structure of the game, why not just make it Rugby League and few if any of us would go!

This is exactly what the Aussies want. RU Light.