Players on Report / Orange Card

[TobesHodges]

Which game?

France Scotland?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Don't remember it being ruined tbh

 

[TobesHodges]

If you say so

 

[Scotty]

If you say so

Whilst i wouldnt actually be apposed to a 20 min red card(no change to bans after the game), that game wasnt ruined, it was still a physical battle with quite a few good tries. Red cards dont always ruin matches.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Player safety > Fan's entertainment. Grass roots refereeing is very lax in my experience* when it comes to high shots. Any perceived reduction in the severity of the punishment will seep down the levels and encourage this further. The game is not in a position to reduce the level of protection against head injuries at all.

There's also an element of fairness, replacing a player after 10/20 mins after an illegal shot that often takes the tackled player out of the game isn't a severe enough punishment.

And finally, this is entirely within player's control, Gilchrist was reckless asf yesterday and Haoas was typically dangerous. When individuals **** up, the team gets punished, an orange card sounds the same as changing an intercept try or charge down try to only being worth 4 points to me, it's just daft.

*I've given the sport up due to concussions, the first of which was a no arms hit to the head that wasn't even penalised, and watching my club since I'm often appalled at reffing standards with regard to this.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Player safety > Fan's entertainment.

Absolutely this,

If players can't get it into their heads not to try and decapitate the opposition then they need to keep getting red carded, maybe knowing that they're letting down their side will eventually get it through their thick skulls

Once it becomes a rarer, and more accidental, occurrence then maybe we can talk about orange cards

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Red cards ruin big games. Remember Sam Warburton being sent off just 18 minutes into Wales' 2011 World Cup semi-final defeat by France? We don't want a repeat of that in France this year.'

Not sure i agree/disagree, but you could argue the quite the opposite based on that evidence. You could easily argue that that tackle/red card changed the way players handled those situations and that because of that players safety has improved.

I mean, about that game specifically, the rules were clear, the tackle was crystal clear and Rolland just put one and two together. Unlike 543725423859742390 of the cases we see today, Warburton had clear and tangible options. I recall, vividly, checking what refs in rugby shows at the time said of the incident. One of the very few instances where everyone (refs, not players, former players, pundits, fans) agreed. That was and should have been a red card.



The main issue i have with the current rules/cards is that in many situations, not all, they are asking from tacklers/defenders things that i consider unrealistic. A 120 kilo guy comes at full speed, lowers his center of gravity and with that his head/shoulders. The defender does what he can to stop him with every intention to abide by the rules but his actions get disected in slow motion in front of 30000 sould who go 'OHHHHHHHHHHHH' at their convenience. He not only gets rammed into oblivion but also gets yellow carded (if lucky) because his reacion time to go (even further) down and wrap arms was not fast enough.
I see a LOT of situations where it's up least up for debate whether it's the tackler aiming at the head with the shoulder OR the BC aiming at the shoulder with his head. The result is always the same thou: the defender gets punished, severely more often than not.

I understand safety and all, but the way this is being addressed is very, very, very one sided.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Player safety > Fan's entertainment.

I see where you're coming from but i am not sure you can generalize it that way. If that were the case we should fobid running and prohibiting tackles, scrums and high balls, just to increase players safety.
Without entertainment for the fans there'd be no money for the players which means no sport. It is a contact sport and part of the appeal is that players put their bodies on the line.

I believe the trick lies, precisely, in figuring out how to make the game safer while minimizing the effect on the entertainment part, at least not enough so that fans decide to stop watching. We're not that far away from that imo. South Park's sarcastabal episode comes to mind.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I sympathise with the genuine accidents, but there's enough reckless/dangerous reds that need to be stamped out that I still think the traditional red card is the right outcome - the two on the weekend, Gilchrist threw a very sloppy/wreckless hit, he could've tackled lower but chose to go for the big impact and got his calculations wrong
Haouas' looked borderline intentional

Both well deserved reds, both deserved to impact their team negatively through their absence

I think referees are starting to be a bit more lenient/sympathetic with it, at club level at least - taking into account whether hits are dominant or passive/absorbing and looking at where most of the force is transferred into the player (i.e. if it's a tackle that rides high, does the majority of the force go through the legal hit, or was it a glancing blow to the chest before caving someones face in) - and we're seeing yellows for hits that a season ago would be red

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I see where you're coming from but i am not sure you can generalize it that way. If that were the case we should fobid running and prohibiting tackles, scrums and high balls, just to increase players safety.
Without entertainment for the fans there'd be no money for the players which means no sport. It is a contact sport and part of the appeal is that players put their bodies on the line.

I believe the trick lies, precisely, in figuring out how to make the game safer while minimizing the effect on the entertainment part, at least not enough so that fans decide to stop watching. We're not that far away from that imo. South Park's sarcastabal episode comes to mind.

They're all false equivalences though aren't they? A stat has been shared here before that showed 40-50% of high tackles resulting in a red card also result in the tackled player not returning to the field of play. If collapsing scrums had the same results you'd sure as hell see scrums change drastically.

The current make up of the game is far better than one where a significant number of players are punch drunk or worse 10-15 after they retire.

 

[Scotty]

Absolutely this,

If players can't get it into their heads not to try and decapitate the opposition then they need to keep getting red carded, maybe knowing that they're letting down their side will eventually get it through their thick skulls

Once it becomes a rarer, and more accidental, occurrence then maybe we can talk about orange cards

My issue is simply the deterrent is there of a red card/ban and it still happens, the issue is it cannot be fully reduced to zero head injuries due to the nature of the sport.

Id be happier with 20 min red cards and increased bans - make the ban the big deterrent - Add in larger fines if the player doesnt pass the HIA and just make it a nightmare off the field if a player goes high.

Player safety is very important but a deterrent can only change behaviour but cant eliminate every idiot who does something stupid in the moment or makes a mistake.

Entertainment is important (less so) but we need to grow the game so 20 min red card is a good way to change behavior(with ban/fine) yet game entertainment is kept up.

 

[BrokenWing]

Haouas' looked borderline intentional

Looked to me like he pretty much threw himself over the ruck to headbutt the guy.

 

[TobesHodges]

Oh Hi, we're back so soon

 

[Kiwiwomble]

dont actually get to watch a lot of 6N but i saw this video pop up on another forum, some interesting points (if you can get past the bloody test boxes)