[2017 Super Rugby] The FINAL: Lions vs. Crusaders (05/08/2017)

[Five Meters Out]

The red card was in line with rulings throughout the year. The Lions player gets a 10 for enthusiasm and a 0 for anticipating consequences. He needed to be more cautious.
It then becomes another game spoilt by a Red Card for reckless play (not premeditated thuggery).
I say change the rules so there are no on field Red Cards. In an instance such as this one on Saturday, the Ref would indicate (this could be verbally to the TMO) that he thinks the offence warrants reviewing following the game. This way there is some penalty (the Yellow), but it is not so severe as to muck up the game as a fair contest.

 

[Zapphod]

mr Beeblebrox - im confused. your all for smith saying it wasnt really his fault and havili is at fault for jumping and putting himself in danger, but then , you say dont ban jumping, just penalise the person that makes contact with the jumper in the air.

huh?

Yeah, that wasn't overly clear, sorry about that, I meant to say penalise the jumper if he makes contact with another player while in the air.

In almost every case we have seen this year the person penalised (carded) is usually the poor bugger on the ground trying to get out of the way (I think it is instinctive to swerve, turn your back on someone coming at you head high with his knees), the one committing the unsafe act is in my opinion the jumper.

Basically I am saying if you want to jump then by all means go ahead but make sure it is safe for you to do so rather than just rushing in, the onus on safety falls to the person intiating the act rather than the guy on the end of it.

Hope that is clearer.

The red card was in line with rulings throughout the year. The Lions player gets a 10 for enthusiasm and a 0 for anticipating consequences. He needed to be more cautious.
It then becomes another game spoilt by a Red Card for reckless play (not premeditated thuggery).
I say change the rules so there are no on field Red Cards. In an instance such as this one on Saturday, the Ref would indicate (this could be verbally to the TMO) that he thinks the offence warrants reviewing following the game. This way there is some penalty (the Yellow), but it is not so severe as to muck up the game as a fair contest.

The problem is that there are instances where a red card is justified and to my way of thinking all instances where cards are given out should be considered a citing anyway.

Smith was effectively carded because he tried to get out of the way, had he collided with Havili while both jumping for the ball would this have been the result?

 

[nzlizard]

The problem I have with no on field reds is the team who has a player injured beyond the point of being able to carry on is replaced, yet the player who infringed is allowed to carry on, therefore giving his team an advantage with a sub still in reserve and the injured player being replaced earlier than anticipated and therefore leaving that team at a tactical disadvantage.

If the red card replacement was one that forced the infringing player from the field for the duration of the game regardless of what happen to the infringed player that could be better outcome.

EG world cup final, one team does 2 dangerous plays that take out Ben Smith and Beauden Barrett inside the 1st 30 minutes, those 2 players have to be replaced and therefore requiring the subs to appear earlier and remove the fresh legs options from being present at the 60 min mark. This could actually happen, so teams could actually target players and play like this to do what it takes to win the world cup and then face the consequences after the game.

If the players that did the dangerous play are forced to be replaced than it evens out the outcome, even if they don't result in the infringed player leaving the field, if they meet the threshold for the replacement criteria they still have to go, therefore leaving the infringing team at a numerical / tactical disadvantage but leaving 15 players on the field for each team.

I would be happier to see this outcome then red cards scrapped and no replacement for that call at all.

 

[mania]

Basically I am saying if you want to jump then by all means go ahead but make sure it is safe for you to do so rather than just rushing in, the onus on safety falls to the person intiating the act rather than the guy on the end of it.

Smith was effectively carded because he tried to get out of the way, had he collided with Havili while both jumping for the ball would this have been the result?

thanks zaphod. much clearer....for a rebuttal.
smith was carded, rightfully so imo, for putting havili in danger. havili wouldnt of planned to jump into kwagga, kwagga wouldve been in the ideal spot for jumping and catching the ball when youre at the apex of your jump. its all timing. this is a major skill and takes a lot of practice to perfect as i imagine any AFL'er will tell you. why penalise the jumper for all the skill theyve learnt to be able to go up and get that high ball, not to mention the amount of courage it takes to put your body on the line?
to me the issue here shouldnt be about the jumping but about the red card. imo the red card should be 10 mins at -1 players but then after that time the player can then be replaced. the initial instigator cant come back that game but he can be replaced after the team suffer a -1 for 10 mins.

in answer to your last question, had kwagga collided in the air....no unless kwagga had actually gotten the ball then he's just getting in the way. if kwagga had gone up and caught it then he justifiably went up to snaffle possession other wise he's just getting in the way.

a little note about the evolution of this rule. it started out that this rule only applied in the 22, when your defusing a bomb. before then we would go through 3-4 fullbacks a season because they'd take high ball, get their legs taken out and half the time they'd land bad and we'd lose a FB for a few weeks if not the season.
so the rule was created to preserve our fullbax.
now they've changed the rule that it can be anywhere on the field and it can be from a kick or a pass.

it takes a lot of balls to go up for the high ball in heavy traffic. long may it remain an integral part of the game

 

[InsaneAsylum]

well done Crusaders, well deserved and have been the team to beat all year!

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

what i don't like about the law is that it is enforced in a way that the player on the ground can get a lesser punishment by inaction than by making the tackle

in my mind, just being under the player is more dangerous to that player than wrapping the player up and bringing him safely to ground... if you allow that you will have a lot less jumpers being flipped by an opponent standing underneath them

 

[Larksea]

imo the red card should be 10 mins at -1 players but then after that time the player can then be replaced. the initial instigator cant come back that game but he can be replaced after the team suffer a -1 for 10 mins.

that's basically my suggestion from the previous page.

it basically punishes the player without ruining the contest too much. They will be down a man for 10min and a reserve for the rest of the game but it will still be 15 vs. 15 on the field for the most part.

it also makes a red cards impact on a game more consistent. Like a player who is carded within the first few minutes (like SBW was lol) means the team is down to 14 for the entire game like the AB's were... But the same infringement done in the final few minutes has very little impact on the game.

 

[mania]

that's basically my suggestion from the previous page.

yes Larksea, i must confess it isnt my idea, i stole it off another site, but fully agree.

esp the impact it has at the beginning vs the end of the game

 

[Zapphod]

yes Larksea, i must confess it isnt my idea, i stole it off another site, but fully agree.

esp the impact it has at the beginning vs the end of the game

How is this any different from a yellow card other than not allowing the transgressor back?

 

[The Jones Boy]

If it's an early red card then it saps your bench of an impact player, if it's a late red card yo cannot replace them because the game is in the final 10 minutes OR the bench is empty and there is no one to bring on.

I'm not sure I like the idea but i understand why people want to employ it.
A red in the first 25 minutes is vastly more damaging than a red in the last 25

 

[TRF_heineken]

Congrats Crusaders!

The Lions were their own worst enemy. They panicked, from that first try and from there onwards was on the backfoot.

The Crusaders did their homework on Elton Jantjies. Having Tamanivalu run at his channel struggling to keep the big man down gave the Saders a lot of front foot ball, and the Lions had to commit additional defenders to take the big winger down.

My biggest issue with Kwagga's red card, was why would the Lions revert to the tactic of kicking bombs and having your flankers, who aren't the best of jumpers, to chase the kick?? It's a tactic they hardly used at all this season. And it cost them the game. To play with 14 men for 45 minutes, in a final and to be 22-3 down at one stage, is a damn near impossible task to come back from. At one point, I thought they had enough in the tank to do it.

But alas, the panic set in again, as good as Faf De Klerk was when he came on, he made 2 fatal errors, because of panic. The one was that weird pass he gave inside their own 22 where he then caught the ball again that he passed. putting the Lions on the back foot when they had an overlap on the outside. and the other was where he knocked the ball on when the Lions were on the attack by not looking at the ball and rather where he's going to pass it... Amateur mistakes.

Anyway. Seems to me like the Lions are the new Sharks of Super Rugby, playing great rugby, manage to get a home final, and then throw it all away...

 

[smartcooky]

The red card was in line with rulings throughout the year. The Lions player gets a 10 for enthusiasm and a 0 for anticipating consequences. He needed to be more cautious.
It then becomes another game spoilt by a Red Card for reckless play (not premeditated thuggery).
I say change the rules so there are no on field Red Cards. In an instance such as this one on Saturday, the Ref would indicate (this could be verbally to the TMO) that he thinks the offence warrants reviewing following the game. This way there is some penalty (the Yellow), but it is not so severe as to muck up the game as a fair contest.

I have what I think would be a better idea, but it would need a little rearranging of things, especially Law 10.

Firstly, In Law 10, I would drop the term Dangerous Play and introduce two new defined terms

Law 10.4 Reckless Play - when a player does something in the course of normal game play in a reckless or negligent manner, which endangers an opponent, such as tackling a player high, early, or late or in the air as well as shoulder changes, neck rolls etc.

Law 10.5 Violent Play - when a player commits a serious act of Foul Play such as punching, bag-snatching, stamping, eye-gouging, head butting etc - you know what I mean, the kind of stuff that Dylan Hartley gets suspended for.

I would then change the players suspension sanctions as follows:

► A Yellow card results in a player being temporarily suspended for 10 minutes. The player may come back on or be replaced after the suspension period expires.
► A red card results in a longer temporarily suspension period, say 20 minutes. The red carded player himself cannot return to the field, but he can be replaced with another player after the temporary suspension expires, and that replacement counts as one of the team's eight allowable replacements.
► The referee still have the option of sending off a player (no card is shown and no replacement allowed) if the player commits an act of Violent Play, or in the opinion of the referee, intentionally commits an act of Reckless Play.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I have what I think would be a better idea, but it would need a little rearranging of things, especially Law 10.

Firstly, In Law 10, I would drop the term Dangerous Play and introduce two new defined terms

Law 10.4 Reckless Play - when a player does something in the course of normal game play in a reckless or negligent manner, which endangers an opponent, such as tackling a player high, early, or late or in the air as well as shoulder changes, neck rolls etc.

Law 10.5 Violent Play - when a player commits a serious act of Foul Play such as punching, bag-snatching, stamping, eye-gouging, head butting etc - you know what I mean, the kind of stuff that Dylan Hartley gets suspended for.

I would then change the players suspension sanctions as follows:

► A Yellow card results in a player being temporarily suspended for 10 minutes. The player may come back on or be replaced after the suspension period expires.
► A red card results in a longer temporarily suspension period, say 20 minutes. The red carded player himself cannot return to the field, but he can be replaced with another player after the temporary suspension expires, and that replacement counts as one of the team's eight allowable replacements.
► The referee still have the option of sending off a player (no card is shown and no replacement allowed) if the player commits an act of Violent Play, or in the opinion of the referee, intentionally commits an act of Reckless Play.

This.

Nick Mallett is one of the biggest supporters of the sanction to change that the player can't return to the field, but that the team doesn't get punished for a player's error.

Don't you think that we are at that stage where intent also needs to play a role in penalising?? Sure you point out to violent and reckless play, but we have to also look on intentional acts, and unintentional acts. Especially with the situations we've seen with playing the ball in the air and contesting it.

 

[smartcooky]

Don't you think that we are at that stage where intent also needs to play a role in penalising?? Sure you point out to violent and reckless play, but we have to also look on intentional acts, and unintentional acts. Especially with the situations we've seen with playing the ball in the air and contesting it.

I think you have missed a minor, but important point (or perhaps I didn't explain it very well)

Reckless play is effectively unintentional, so my Law 10.4 RECKLESS PLAY would contain the following clauses from the current 10.4
(e) early and late tackles, high tackles, swinging arm and stiff arm tackles,
(f) tackles without the ball
(g) charging onto a ruck
(h) shoulder charging
(i) tackling a player in the air or whose feet are off the ground
(j) tip tackles
(k) dangerous acts in a scrum, ruck or maul
All of these infringements are things which could be unintentional or done because of poor technique, carelessness or mistiming.

Violent Play is things that that are intentional, so my Law 10.5 VIOLENT PLAY (the existing 10.5 through 10.7 would be renumbered) would include the following from 10.4
(a) Punching, striking, head butting,
(b) Stamping or trampling.
(c) Kicking and opponent
(d) Tripping.
All of these things are, by definition, intentional., but I would also include a clause where any of the provisons of 10.4 would be Violent play if done intentionally.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think you have missed a minor, but important point (or perhaps I didn't explain it very well)

Reckless play is effectively unintentional, so my Law 10.4 RECKLESS PLAY would contain the following clauses from the current 10.4
(e) early and late tackles, high tackles, swinging arm and stiff arm tackles,
(f) tackles without the ball
(g) charging onto a ruck
(h) shoulder charging
(i) tackling a player in the air or whose feet are off the ground
(j) tip tackles
(k) dangerous acts in a scrum, ruck or maul
All of these infringements are things which could be unintentional or done because of poor technique, carelessness or mistiming.

Violent Play is things that that are intentional, so my Law 10.5 VIOLENT PLAY (the existing 10.5 through 10.7 would be renumbered) would include the following from 10.4
(a) Punching, striking, head butting,
(b) Stamping or trampling.
(c) Kicking and opponent
(d) Tripping.
All of these things are, by definition, intentional., but I would also include a clause where any of the provisons of 10.4 would be Violent play if done intentionally.

No I get it. but you get the other incidents where there is a purely accidental collision (it happens), but the way the players are positioned and how they fall or end up with after the collision, as well as the area on the body where impact was made, also falls under the red card or at least a sanctioning threshold. Now the intention of the player being seen as the offender is currently seen as reckless/dangerous, even if it was purely accidental. It just seems a bit unfair that there is no current room to differentiate between offences of an intentional or unintentional act. Yet, the player and his team gets heavily penalised...

 

[smartcooky]

No I get it. but you get the other incidents where there is a purely accidental collision (it happens), but the way the players are positioned and how they fall or end up with after the collision, as well as the area on the body where impact was made, also falls under the red card or at least a sanctioning threshold. Now the intention of the player being seen as the offender is currently seen as reckless/dangerous, even if it was purely accidental. It just seems a bit unfair that there is no current room to differentiate between offences of an intentional or unintentional act. Yet, the player and his team gets heavily penalised...

No. Part of my proposal is that the red card is reduced to 15m or 20m and the player is replaced. A team will only end up permanently down to 14 players for a serious act of Violent Play (by definition intentional) or an intentional act of serious Reckless Play.

 

[ncurd]

I haven't seen this incident but from what I've read its completely in line with similar incidents in recent years.

Saying that I think the only factor I'd change in the laws is the positioning of the non-jumper before jumper leaps. If he has essentially not moved then the jumper regardless of any attempt to receive the ball has jumped into the non-jumper and in turn should be deemed has committing reckless play an a penalty sanction.

I think the reason we are seeing so much of this recently is there is zero-risk apart from injury to jumpers. Whereas the oppenent could be sent off and your side will still retain the ball. So a player will hapilly jump even if they know its likely they'll collide with a player on the ground. I think if you reverse possession and stop red cards to players standing their ground you'll pretty much elimnate the problem from a risk/reward instance.

However you likely won't remove jumping from the game all it requires is player to look at where they will likely land before jumping.

 

[Icemn]

why is it that when a SA player gets sent off the whole SA wants to change the rule because they were 'disadvantaged' but when a player form another nation gets 'red carded' they couldn't care less...

where was this suggestion by the SAFA's when SBW got the red vs the British and Irish Lions? please dont all speak at once now...

 

[saulan]

Smith banned for four weeks for the red card, that's insane. A punch gets you a week or two.
http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Supe...or-4-weeks-for-super-rugby-final-red-20170807

 

[Durbanite]

why is it that when a SA player gets sent off the whole SA wants to change the rule because they were 'disadvantaged' but when a player form another nation gets 'red carded' they couldn't care less...

where was this suggestion by the SAFA's when SBW got the red vs the British and Irish Lions? please dont all speak at once now...

Because changing the law will reverse the result of the match and give SA the psychological advantage in future matches? Pease, you're stirring a pot that isn't boiling here people are simply discussing ways fair contest can be encouraged instead of ruined and decided by ref/laws rather than skill. Calling people out for not suggesting a change for a match their team wasn't even in is asinine, and clearly others from different regions see the merit in encouraging fair contest anyway. It seems to me the other people in this thread have the best for the game in mind, whereas the only contribution you can make is trolling. Are you happy with the effect SBWs card had on the B&I Lions game? If so, fair dinkum, but if not, how would you fix the problem? Clearly some of the law changes proposed ITT could've reinvigorated the contest? I don't know about you but when I buy a ticket for a match or go down to the pub I want to see 15 of the best vs 15 of the best, there's no need imo to penalize an entire team when the player can still be cited and be removed without further role in the match and a replacement subbed in after 10mins but you seem to feel differently. Also (not that it really matters) it was a NZ poster who got the ball rolling on the law changes, but clearly you just came here to cause kak instead of debate so I'm sure you don't care