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

[Durbanite]

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

Seems overly harsh to me, perhaps on further review they decided he could've avoided contact sooner or even deliberately put himself in a position he wasn't able to receive the ball in? Either way, I just don't see it. Maybe it's just a zero tolerance knda deal

 

[Zapphod]

Seems overly harsh to me, perhaps on further review they decided he could've avoided contact sooner or even deliberately put himself in a position he wasn't able to receive the ball in? Either way, I just don't see it. Maybe it's just a zero tolerance knda deal

I think it is extremely harsh, I hope he appeals.

 

[Zapphod]

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.

Two scenarios:
1. What happens now if a player jumping for a ball connects with the head of an opposition player knocking him down but lands on his feet?
2. What happens if a player jumping for a ball goes over top of one of his own players and lands badly?

What I feel is happening with rugby is the addition of more and more complex rules aimed at "safety" that really don't make the game safer and at the same time ruin its appeal.

 

[Zapphod]

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.

Two scenarios:
1. What happens now if a player jumping for a ball connects with the head of an opposition player knocking him down but lands on his feet?
2. What happens if a player jumping for a ball goes over top of one of his own players and lands badly?


crap double post, any way to delete this one?

 

[mania]

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

thats exactly what it is. whats the issue you have with it?

 

[Zapphod]

thats exactly what it is. whats the issue you have with it?

My issue is that it just adds another level of complexity to the game while doing nothing to solve the problem.

If the problem is the safety of players then what will this do to meet that goal especially since we all seem to agree that the majority of incidents are accidental.

Making the game more and more complex to the point that no one can understand it will not grow the game or make it safer all it will do is create results based on referee interpretation and get people switching off.

 

[Nubiwan]

It's not that complex really. If smith had competed in the air, he'd have stayed on the field, and we'd all have the contest we wanted. In the end, his challenge was simply poor. The ref applied the rule of law. It kind of sucked, but that's life. Yeah, he could have applied common sense, thought of the bigger picture, but I think many would have cried foul if he had. Particularly if Smith ended up scoring a winning try, for instance. Seen that happen.

Recall watching th BI lions, and the Sonny Bill incident. In my mind I was thinking, well, that's a red, and he should go. That i also wanted an even contest. That this was also a golden chance for the lions to get a victory in the series, they needed. Point is, if SBW had got 10 in the bin, and we had our contest and lost, then I might well have felt aggrieved. In the end, the BI lions played worse with more men, but that's not the issue.

10 minute bin and replacing the offender from the bench seems a good answer, but ultmately, the penalty for the offending side is reduced. I could envision managers, teams or players taking advantage of this change to inflict some real hurt on the opposition, knowing the worst can happen is a 10 minute binning, and a replacement. We'd have a host of dirty late tackles on the hour mark when players are being replaced anyway.

In the end, we all know a player in the air can't be tackled, and if you want to touch him, you have to be seen to compete for the ball. It's pretty simple really.

 

[ncurd]

SBW was a red any day of the week regardless of intent there was absolutely no reason within the games laws for him to have put himself in that position to be penalised. His only mitagating factor was he probably didn't intend to commit the blow to the head.

However we have seen plenty of occasions (and if this adjudged as mid-range this incident probably wasn't....can someone post a link to it?) where tackling the player in the air has resulted in a red card and the played comiiting the offence has actually not even intended to even touch the player in air and was merely waiting for the ball on the ground.
It causes a massive problem in my book as we are seeing player sent off the field pementantly and copping bans for 'bad-positioning' for trying to receive a kick.

As to the suggestion of sour grapes this isn't the first time its happened and it won't be the last and a lot of the time I think people rightly feel its a victim of the laws rather than intent to commit any foul play whatsoever. It should be noted this isn't a blame the ref situation I see most SAFFERs admitting its a red card offence at the moment. But a discussion on how the laws can improved should be had.

 

[Nubiwan]

A suggestion was put forward about refs using common sense when a player like smith is clearly trying to back out of his poor challenge for the ball. I tend to agree, but remind everyone that we already have a host of players looking innocent whilst standing offside, interfering with kick chasers, being stuck at the wrong side of a ruck etc., knowing full well they are doing so illegally. The "player in the air" law is there to protect players from severe injury. Changing it, for certain circumstances, might just introduce a new level of 'gamesmanship'.

 

[Nubiwan]

To all refs out there, or very knowledgeable rugby folk, If I am chasing a ball and accidentally run into my own man, who's in the air catching a kick, and he lands on his head as a result, then will I be sent off? If not, then why not?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

To all refs out there, or very knowledgeable rugby folk, If I am chasing a ball and accidentally run into my own man, who's in the air catching a kick, and he lands on his head as a result, then will I be sent off? If not, then why not?

Because the word "opponent" is in the law about tackling in air.


I don't get why people want to be more lenient on people who back away from challenges yet the opponent still lands in a dangerous position. You should be incentivised to make the best decision for your opponents safety.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, wrapping a player up whose in the air is a lot safer than just standing there.

 

[ncurd]

The problem is at the moment what we really insentiving is both players colliding mid-air in an attempt to gain the ball. Which is even more dangerous, the entire situation is problematic.

Get there fractionally after your oppenent though (even if you could of caught the ball) and you'll be deemed to be tackling the player in the air.

 

[Zapphod]

SBW was a red any day of the week regardless of intent there was absolutely no reason within the games laws for him to have put himself in that position to be penalised. His only mitagating factor was he probably didn't intend to commit the blow to the head.

However we have seen plenty of occasions (and if this adjudged as mid-range this incident probably wasn't....can someone post a link to it?) where tackling the player in the air has resulted in a red card and the played comiiting the offence has actually not even intended to even touch the player in air and was merely waiting for the ball on the ground.
It causes a massive problem in my book as we are seeing player sent off the field pementantly and copping bans for 'bad-positioning' for trying to receive a kick.

As to the suggestion of sour grapes this isn't the first time its happened and it won't be the last and a lot of the time I think people rightly feel its a victim of the laws rather than intent to commit any foul play whatsoever. It should be noted this isn't a blame the ref situation I see most SAFFERs admitting its a red card offence at the moment. But a discussion on how the laws can improved should be had.

I agree, SBW also has been carded before over his tackling.

Because the word "opponent" is in the law about tackling in air.


I don't get why people want to be more lenient on people who back away from challenges yet the opponent still lands in a dangerous position. You should be incentivised to make the best decision for your opponents safety.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, wrapping a player up whose in the air is a lot safer than just standing there.

You don't get why people would want to be lenient on an issue that is in probably 99% of cases unintentional?

In the end, we could get all draconian about it and execute the offender on the spot, it won't stop it happening but at least it will stop reoffending.

On a more serious note, we have an element of the game that is an issue to player safety and so far the response to it is a rule that detracts from the game in almost every case (I say almost but I don't recall any malicious attempts to take a player out in the air in the last couple of years), so my "leniency" is more about trying to solve the problem and improve safety rather than penalising a sport for actions that are not intentional.

Personally I think the key is to penalise the jumper (he is really the one taking the risks) unless he is deemed to have been taken out "recklessly, then by all means go to the red card for the tackler.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I agree, SBW also has been carded before over his tackling.



You don't get why people would want to be lenient on an issue that is in probably 99% of cases unintentional?

In the end, we could get all draconian about it and execute the offender on the spot, it won't stop it happening but at least it will stop reoffending.

On a more serious note, we have an element of the game that is an issue to player safety and so far the response to it is a rule that detracts from the game in almost every case (I say almost but I don't recall any malicious attempts to take a player out in the air in the last couple of years), so my "leniency" is more about trying to solve the problem and improve safety rather than penalising a sport for actions that are not intentional.

Personally I think the key is to penalise the jumper (he is really the one taking the risks) unless he is deemed to have been taken out "recklessly, then by all means go to the red card for the tackler.

You wanna make the game safer by rewarding dangerous behaviour?

 

[Zapphod]

You wanna make the game safer by rewarding dangerous behaviour?

We clearly disagree on who is committing the dangerous act.
If I choose to take a flying leap into a crowd is it the guy I land on's fault if I injure myself?

As I see it people see jumping to take a ball a "brave" act yet it is the very act of jumping that makes it a dangerous act and the most likely danger is to the guy who voluntarily jumps yet you want to reward him by hobbling the other team.

 

[Hulk Hogan]

Reds win it next year.

 

[Nubiwan]

Because the word "opponent" is in the law about tackling in air.


I don't get why people want to be more lenient on people who back away from challenges yet the opponent still lands in a dangerous position. You should be incentivised to make the best decision for your opponents safety.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, wrapping a player up whose in the air is a lot safer than just standing there.

Well, you can see why I asked. The mere fact I am on the same team excludes me from being reckless, and causing injury to my own team mate. My question is what difference if my opponent did it unintentionally too? Thought the law was there to protect players first and foremost.

Couple more scenarios that are not too hard to imagine.

If I walked up and butted or punched my own player then do I get sent off.

Likewise, if I booted my own players head in a ruck, do I get sent off? Why? What difference?

 

[Nubiwan]

We clearly disagree on who is committing the dangerous act.
If I choose to take a flying leap into a crowd is it the guy I land on's fault if I injure myself?

As I see it people see jumping to take a ball a "brave" act yet it is the very act of jumping that makes it a dangerous act and the most likely danger is to the guy who voluntarily jumps yet you want to reward him by hobbling the other team.

You are correct, but the game appreciates the contest in the air. I think it was brought about after too many people being hit early before they caught the ball from a high Kick. Seem to recall it changing to they jump, you can't touch them. We are now at the other extreme. If you disallow jumping for the ball, then what of line outs and kick offs. The contest in the air is what makes it intriguing, and both sides need a required skill set to do it best.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

We clearly disagree on who is committing the dangerous act.
If I choose to take a flying leap into a crowd is it the guy I land on's fault if I injure myself?

As I see it people see jumping to take a ball a "brave" act yet it is the very act of jumping that makes it a dangerous act and the most likely danger is to the guy who voluntarily jumps yet you want to reward him by hobbling the other team.

I understand what you are saying, and if they want to make jumping for ball illegal I'd accept it.

What I don't get is that under the current philosophy of the laws why standing there and doing nothing is seen as better than wrapping the guy up. When the guy is on the ground a no wrap tackle is a penalty while wrapping is fine, why do the relative punishments (or lack there of) get flipped when the tackled player is in the air.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Well, you can see why I asked. The mere fact I am on the same team excludes me from being reckless, and causing injury to my own team mate. My question is what difference if my opponent did it unintentionally too? Thought the law was there to protect players first and foremost.

Couple more scenarios that are not too hard to imagine.

If I walked up and butted or punched my own player then do I get sent off.

Likewise, if I booted my own players head in a ruck, do I get sent off? Why? What difference?

All the laws refer to an opponent. It is however Illegal to lift your own player and drop them in an unsafe manner.

To me, it goes to the philosophy of rugby refereeing. It's not to call every ticky tacky thing and be an authoritarian. It's to be a mediator that provides a safe and fair match between the two sides and an exciting ones for neutrals. If two idiots on the same team wanna go after each other that's their own problem and their punishment is having a team that will fall apart. I'm not there to mediate team disputes, I'm there to mediate between the two teams.