Heineken Cup 1/4F - Ulster v Saracens

[ratsapprentice]

I disagree and even if I am wrong it doesn't some how make the incident any less dangerous which is what you are insinuating.

It does change the complexion of the event:

- If his head makes contact simultaneously or primarily then the force of the landing travels through his neck.
- If he lands on his shoulder and his head whips round then he at risk of concussion/brain damage - not spinal/neck damage.

And I can assure you I am not insinuating it is any less dangerous - it does however change the range of injury outcomes.

 

[goodNumber10]

Dry my eyes? I have no harsh feelings, it's sport, but I'm sorry some of your posts were just silly. Good luck in the Amlin.

Aye, right!

 

[Thingimubob]

Which to me, means you have to take some power from the referee, so that inconsistent decisions are less impactful - and I believe less impactful decisions would be made more consistently. I would like to see Rugby follow Ice Hockey's example. A red card means a sin bin period for the team and the end of the game for the player. A substitute can be sent on at the end of the sin bin. Ulster lost under the current rules, fine. Fair enough. But I would like to see games settled on rugby, not reffing decisions/moments of madness. Possibly bias. But it was a non-Ulster fan that suggested it to me.

Actually a really interesting ides, never thought of it like that before. Could be something to look at in the future, especially considering this incident has followedon from the controversy surrounding that Wales vs France semi final, plus would maintain the spectacle to be had in matches like this. I mean the silly Hogg red card, which was certainly deserved, ruined the Wales - Scotland game as a spectacle, and left me feeling a bit lost on where we stand as a team despite putting 50 points on them. Maybe the Ice Hockey style rule would have helped there?

 

[ratsapprentice]

That's a brilliantly simple idea - interdasting.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Chill homie. Given the scale of the reaction in the media, given that you've got completely non-biased guys coming in and saying they disagreed with the decision, there is clearly more involved.

If you look at the forum at the time most I would say 8/10 people said it was a red card. The only people who seem to be disputing it are Ulster and Ireland fans, obviously not all of them but out of the people who have posted most of them are. After the match in the Sky Sports studio the only guy saying it wasn't a red was the irish prop( can't remember his name Wallace I think) and he wouldn't hear anything bad about the incident. Interesting article giving the views of other players on twitter http://www.espn.co.uk/heineken-cup-2013-14/rugby/story/220865.html

 

[goodNumber10]

It does change the complexion of the event:

- If his head makes contact simultaneously or primarily then the force of the landing travels through his neck.
- If he lands on his shoulder and his head whips round then he at risk of concussion/brain damage - not spinal/neck damage.

And I can assure you I am not insinuating it is any less dangerous - it does however change the range of injury outcomes.

I see your point, but I'm not sure of the relevance of it.

 

[TheSaffycen]

The ice hockey idea is interesting, but I feel it wouldn't work. If I understand it someone would be sin binned then a different player comes on in his place. I feel that if you have the thing where somebody eye gouges or starts punching a player on the ground I don't feel that the team deserves to have 15 players on the field. With the Hogg situation I feel that what he done was reckless and the ice hockey probably would have worked because it would be more interesting for the fans, but if Biggar had to go off with injury is it fair that Wales don't have their first team players on the pitch, through no fault of their own, but the opposition gets to have 15 on the pitch. You could get the situation where a team puts out 1 player and tell him too injure an important player for the other team knowing that they will have 15 guys on the pitch in 10 minutes time.

 

[ratsapprentice]

If he injures him illegally then he will be banned - they take out one opposition player only to lose one of their own for 6 weeks?!

A little farfetched IMO

 

[TheSaffycen]

If he injures him illegally then he will be banned - they take out one opposition player only to lose one of their own for 6 weeks?!

A little farfetched IMO

You're telling me that going into a prem final lets say 'Northampton vs Sarries' we start with Botha, as he isn't first team, and say when Myler next gets the ball pick him up and spear him into the ground, Myler is out and they have Wooley come on, who isn't particularly good, we spend 10 mins with 14 men then we have Kruis on the bench and we have our first team player come on and they have some kid at 10 for the prem final. How much would we miss Botha for 6 weeks ? I don't think it's that far fetched as we could also have someone take out North and same thing happens again, especially in HCup finals or even RWC knockout stages vs the All-Blacks you could see this happen.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I'd hope that people aren't scum - maybe I'm being naive and players would accept being told to intentionally put someones life in danger.

 

[goodNumber10]

Everyone else gets the advantage on the following weeks and the team who are infringed against get 10 minutes advantage.

Doesn't seem fair to me.

The point of a red is it's the ultimate sanction during a game someone has infringed to such a degree the whole team must pay a price. The ban after is the punishment for the player.

 

[goodNumber10]

Can I just point out that a red card doesn't decide the game. It puts one team at a disadvantage bit it doesn't give the game to the other team.

I've been in teams that started a man down and still won. Tigers beat saints with only 13 on the pitch last week.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I'd hope that people aren't scum - maybe I'm being naive and players would accept being told to intentionally put someones life in danger.

Professionalism and money make people horribly cynical. How many reds and yellows are accepted by players so they can make sure their team wins. When I play I want us too win fairly, when money is on the line it goes from 'Let the best man win' too 'Win at all cost' I personally hate it when I see people give away penalties on the try line even when I was on the line I would stay onside and tackle fairly(maybe I might lie on the ball but I would try to get out the way) what I said is the worse possible outcome and I would like too think no one would do this but not all players are good people.

 

[Peat]

The ice hockey idea is interesting, but I feel it wouldn't work. If I understand it someone would be sin binned then a different player comes on in his place. I feel that if you have the thing where somebody eye gouges or starts punching a player on the ground I don't feel that the team deserves to have 15 players on the field. With the Hogg situation I feel that what he done was reckless and the ice hockey probably would have worked because it would be more interesting for the fans, but if Biggar had to go off with injury is it fair that Wales don't have their first team players on the pitch, through no fault of their own, but the opposition gets to have 15 on the pitch. You could get the situation where a team puts out 1 player and tell him too injure an important player for the other team knowing that they will have 15 guys on the pitch in 10 minutes time.

It works in Ice Hockey, a sport that is currently at least as permissive and condoning of violence from what I can see - and in Ice Hockey, losing a player for the game and losing a player for the period is far less of a sanction for the team that it is in rugby. As we are all told so regularly, the usual points deficit for a sin bin period in rugby is 7 points - a whole score. In Ice Hockey, I think the Pittsburgh Penguins have the second best sin bin conversion rate as they score a goal 25pc of the time there's a man off the ice. Their shutout rate is, if I remember correctly, about 80pc. In Ice Hockey, there's a huge bench anyway. In rugby, having to send a man on early from your 8 man bench can severely constrict your tactical options later in the match.

Also, if we are afraid of very cynical abuses of the laws, at what point do we suspect the physio of whispering "Make it look bad" to stricken players? It cuts both ways. In Ice Hockey, there is very little evidence of teams in the modern game sending out players simply to inflict damage and traipse off in the knowledge of a job well done, despite it being far safer for the team than in Rugby. We don't have to look far for an example of players deliberately feigning extreme injuries to try and get players sent off. Before anyone says that is Football and it will never happen in Rugby, I know there have been incidents in recent years where people feel that a player has exaggerated the effects of dangerous play, and scrum-halfs exaggerate the effects of opposition players at the ruck as a commonplace.

You say it would be unfair for a team to escape so lightly when an opposition player deliberately commits a very dangerous act of play i.e. eye gouging. I have sympathy for this view but I am not seeking absolute justice in all cases, I am seeking the justice of as much consistency as possible. Schalk Burger wasn't sent off for gouging Luke Fitzgerald. Dylan Hartley received no censure for his knee drop on Richie McCaw. And conversely, this entire video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDV2hdEwhAU

Referees make big mistakes and they make controversial decisions all the time. Right now, their decision can be the most important factor in the match, yet there is a huge chance they will make an inconsistent decision, or even a just plain wrong one. I believe that the needs of the game to have as even a referee impact as possible outweighs the case of justice for the offended against team. Besides, most cases like this - a hugely influential player goes off for the offending team as well. Who's missed more, Stuart Hogg or Dan Biggar? Add in the 10 minute 1 man advantage and you've still got a very big advantage for the offended against team. It is still a heavy deterrent for teams who are thinking about offending and still a suitable reward for the team that has lost a player. But there is still a game to play and a spectacle for the fans, the guys who are ultimately paying for all this.

I've sorta lost the track of myself but to sum up
- It is not cynically used in another violent sport (Little Guy, other Canucks/Yanks/longer fans, correct me if wrong, but from what I've seen the day of the Goonhead is gone in the NHL at least)
- Suspicions of cynicism must cut both ways and must be accounted for in powerful we want sanctions to be
- It would still be a heavy sanction and deterrent
- The offended against team's rights to justice are overweighed by the game's needs for consistency and spectacle; and, speaking personally and anecdotally, I would rather play against 15 than 14 anyway, and I would rather my team won against 15 than 14.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Professionalism and money make people horribly cynical. How many reds and yellows are accepted by players so they can make sure their team wins. When I play I want us too win fairly, when money is on the line it goes from 'Let the best man win' too 'Win at all cost' I personally hate it when I see people give away penalties on the try line even when I was on the line I would stay onside and tackle fairly(maybe I might lie on the ball but I would try to get out the way) what I said is the worse possible outcome and I would like too think no one would do this but not all players are good people.

There is a huge difference between collapsing a scrum or killing the ball at the breakdown and intentionally injuring someone.

 

[McTallshort]

Sorry joining this half way through are we saying the red card was wrong?

 

[TheSaffycen]

The offended against team's rights to justice are overweighed by the game's needs for consistency and spectacle; and, speaking personally and anecdotally, I would rather play against 15 than 14 anyway, and I would rather my team won against 15 than 14.

I agree with what you said for the most part. But let's take the Payne one for example, I feel that it would be a better spectacle if it was 15 v 15 but what if Goode had broke his neck. There would be no discussion about new rules or was it a red, the only discussion would be how long a ban would Payne receive. I have played against 14 men only once when a guy decided to punch one of our guys when he was on the bottom of a ruck, I at no point thought this aint fair on the other team let them bring on another guy to replace him. In fairness all I thought was when the final whistle blows i'm gonna break his jaw.

edit

There is a huge difference between collapsing a scrum or killing the ball at the breakdown and intentionally injuring someone.

Collapsing a scrum on purpose is putting lots of people at risk but yes I do agree but you have to admit that people do dangerous things even if there are yellow and red cards, like O'Gara in the lions

 

[Peat]

I agree with what you said for the most part. But let's take the Payne one for example, I feel that it would be a better spectacle if it was 15 v 15 but what if Goode had broke his neck. There would be no discussion about new rules or was it a red, the only discussion would be how long a ban would Payne receive. I have played against 14 men only once when a guy decided to punch one of our guys when he was on the bottom of a ruck, I at no point thought this aint fair on the other team let them bring on another guy to replace him. In fairness all I thought was when the final whistle blows i'm gonna break his jaw.

Maybe, but that shouldn't be the case. As Moore said, you can't penalise on outcome. The challenge was an arguable red, regardless of outcome. Regardless of outcome, the ambiguity and the consistency of the decision deserves attention. Yes, it could have resulted in a broken neck. But so could a huge number of things in the game. We don't come down hard on those and we do that in order to preserve the spectacle of the game. I don't believe this is different. Come down hard on the player, fine, but not on the game.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Collapsing a scrum carries a risk of injury - where the aim is to gain a favorable penalty or to scupper the oppositions attack - the aim isn't to injure.

 

[goodNumber10]

Yes, it could have resulted in a broken neck. But so could a huge number of things in the game. We don't come down hard on those and we do that in order to preserve the spectacle of the game.

We do if it is dangerous or illegal play that provokes the incident... that is why shoulder narges, head high tackles rucking with the boots is all out of the game.

Rugby is a dangerous enough sport as it is, people need to feel safe and protected on the pitch, being inverted in the air by someone else's reckless play deserves sanction.

and ultimatley rugby is a team sport, it is all about the collective, if someone infringes the team should pay collectively.