What can WR do about Red Cards ruining games for the fans?

[All Black]

I'm not the one trying to find loads of excuses for why I'm right. A cheapshot leading to an elbow to the throat at speed = red, simple. Claiming I'm the one clutching is the equivalent of a child going "I know you are but what am I?" Just accept you are being a tool and move on.

If you bothered to read my posts you would see that I understand that an elbow to the throat is a red card. I know that. I just don't feel that the De Allende incident shouldve been given a red card despite what the laws state.

Look if you tell me your opinion, I will respect it. I might disagree but I wont put you down for it.

 

[All Black]

I'm not the one trying to find loads of excuses for why I'm right.

Neither am I. Im trying to make others understand how I've come to my conclusions. If you do the same and you make an effort to provide resources to support what you're saying, I'll try to see exactly where you're coming from.

I'm a tool? fine, Im a tool lol. Can we get past the name calling now? lol jesus

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If you bothered to read my posts you would see that I understand that an elbow to the throat is a red card. I know that. I just don't feel that the De Allende incident shouldve been given a red card despite what the laws state.

Look if you tell me your opinion, I will respect it. I might disagree but I wont put you down for it.

"I understand that an elbow to the throat is a red card but I don't think this elbow to the throat is a red card because I say so"

That is pretty much what you've written.

 

[All Black]

"I understand that an elbow to the throat is a red card but I don't think this elbow to the throat is a red card because I say so"

That is pretty much what you've written.

This is my post from earlier on in this thread

I also said 'despite the laws'. I know what the law says, it doesnt mean I agree with it.

Like I said - had you bothered to read the earlier posts, you would've understood where I was coming from because only a real tool wouldn't at least try to hear someone out, right?

No the law says its a red card but it doesnt mean I agree with it. What theyre trying to do is make the laws black and white but rugby has so many grey areas.

 

[All Black]

Some controversial red and yellow cards here boys. Some commentators disagree with some of the calls despite what the laws or the refs say.

 

[Derpus]

If you bothered to read my posts you would see that I understand that an elbow to the throat is a red card. I know that. I just don't feel that the De Allende incident shouldve been given a red card despite what the laws state.

Look if you tell me your opinion, I will respect it. I might disagree but I wont put you down for it.

Stockdale got a yellow for elbowing Phipps to the throat?

I don't think it even warranted a yellow mind.

Rules are optional in union these days. Moody elbowing Beale also springs to mind, which was no-card. Consistency near non-existent.

 

[Derpus]

Some controversial red and yellow cards here boys. Some commentators disagree with some of the calls despite what the laws or the refs say.

Almost none of these are controversial? Punch to the head - red, obviously. A few late tackles - standard yellow, particularly where no arms are used.

And yes, we get it, the Lions call was wrong. There wasn't even a card involved in that one.

 

[Derpus]

Ignore

 

[Immenso]

I like the idea's in the first post. Particularly the 3 categories.

I object to one of the cards being coloured black. Black is the colour of the good, and of the awesome. Bring in an orange card, no one cares about the colour orange except the Dutch.

That's my positive contribution.

 

[Immenso]

Now for my negative whinge.

I also agree with Jabby about 'intentional' knock-ons. Drives me insane. Pass it better you clown if you don't want your move disrupted.
Intentional slap-downs - yes. But missed intercepts? give me a break.

I remember when David Campese got penalised for an intentional knock-on in a test v England in 1988. It wasn't even televised here in NZ back in those days but that was such a talking point in rugby media at the time - as it was so rare (just a penalty, not a card). I was a kid who had been playing and watching for a good few years and that was the first I ever heard of it and never knew it was even a rule. I'd guess it would have been a decade or more before another intentional knock-on occurred. Now any unsuccessful intercept carries the risk of sin bin. Ridiculous.

I concede with modern rush defences there is more opportunity to disrupt passing than back in the Campese days. Still seems to me we have way, way, way overshot the mark on this one. Cards should be rare and for foul play or professional fouls, not because someone didn't perfectly execute a legitimate rugby defensive play.

 

[Derpus]

I tell you what they shouldn't do. They shouldn't review more incidents with the TMO. Sitting in the stands for 5 minute periods with no ******* idea what's going on is shite. Or watching your team reach the sporting climax and score a try but have hold your load in while the TMO spends 5 mintues clearing it.

In the last Aus/Ireland game there were 11 minutes of dead time in each half.

What a joke.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Now any unsuccessful intercept carries the risk of sin bin. Ridiculous.

Players understand plausible deniability, how would you differentiate between a failed intercept and an intentional knock on? Even if you could, would you really want to? All this is going to lead to is beaten defenders lunging wildly at the ball and claiming they were going to the intercept as it will be recognised as a cheap way of possibly preventing a probable try.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Players understand plausible deniability, how would you differentiate between a failed intercept and an intentional knock on? Even if you could, would you really want to? All this is going to lead to is beaten defenders lunging wildly at the ball and claiming they were going to the intercept as it will be recognised as a cheap way of possibly preventing a probable try.

Well, aren't they using the method of calling an attemtep intercept one where the player's hands are moving in an upward motion trying to keep the ball in the air and easier to recollect?

Whereas an intentional knock on is where the player's hands are moving in a downward motion trying to prevent the ball from remaining in the air and also preventing other players from catching it, so as to make the ball get to the ground quicker.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Well, aren't they using the method of calling an attemtep intercept one where the player's hands are moving in an upward motion trying to keep the ball in the air and easier to recollect?

Whereas an intentional knock on is where the player's hands are moving in a downward motion trying to prevent the ball from remaining in the air and also preventing other players from catching it, so as to make the ball get to the ground quicker.

I think you're right, and have heard similar comments, but have never seen this formalised. It's harder to knock a ball upwards than downwards in the kind of situations I'm talking about, but in some situations, I can still envisage it being possible to do (and claim you were trying for an intercept) in a situation when there's little or no chance of regathering the ball.

 

[Reiser99]

Well, aren't they using the method of calling an attemtep intercept one where the player's hands are moving in an upward motion trying to keep the ball in the air and easier to recollect?

Whereas an intentional knock on is where the player's hands are moving in a downward motion trying to prevent the ball from remaining in the air and also preventing other players from catching it, so as to make the ball get to the ground quicker.

Well it's not as simple as just hitting it up in the air, because otherwise all you have to do is it up and claim you are trying to intercept. There also has to be a realistic attempt/chance to catch the ball.

For me there are 3 types of intercepts that aren't successful.

1) The player has a genuine chance to intercept, usually with two hands and drops the ball. Result: Knock on, scrum.
2) The player hits it up in the air and tries to regather. For me this is the grey area as it's hard tell what is a realistic attempt/chance to catch. However I feel players know they are taking a risk of intentionally disrupting play and that while they might have a chance to catch, they also might not. Result: Penalty, no card. However this can be lowered to a knock on if the ref or upgraded to a yellow depending on how much of an attempt was made to regather.
3) Deliberate, intentional knock on, usually knocking the ball down. Result: Penalty and Yellow Card

 

[ncurd]

I'd suggest anything one handed and definitely outstretched (which is usually the case) is a deliberate knock on with penalty YC. Ultimately you never see them gathered. Just about everything gathered is two handed and close to the chest.

I suggest 99% of the time the player knows they had no chance of gathering it.

 

[Immenso]

Many of you guys seem to think an intercept has to be a 100% clean take on first attempt with two hands. That's not how rugby players catch a rugby ball 100% of the time. They (are supposed to) play with soft hands and peripheral vision and constant concentration ready to take a pass or offload with zero warning.

As a hypothetical. What if Stockdale had got an arm or a hand to the Foley pass the other week? He's only a meter away from Foley at the time he's passing so he has almost zero thinking time. At that moment Stockdale is between the two attackers, in the milisecond he has to think the possible outcomes could occur:
- It could go straight into his bread basket, outcome = play on
- it could hit his hand and be knocked backwards, play on
- it could hit his soft hand, and juggle up for a 'clean' catch, play on
- it could hit his soft hand, and juggle upwards but he is impeded or prevented from re-gathering, outcome = god knows, you're in the ref's hands
- it could hit his soft hand, but be passed 5cm lower than his instincts thought and it knocks straight down. Outcome - depending on ref's interpretation on the day of 'straight down'.
- it could hit his soft hand, but be passed 5cm lower than his instincts thought and it knocks down and forward, outcome = yellow card, maybe penalty try.
- it could hit his soft hand, but be passed 5cm higher than his instincts thought and it brushes his arm and flies into touch. Outcome = yellow card, maybe penalty try.

In my opinion. Stockdale is making a legitimate instinctive rugby play of a guy defending between two attackers. The outcome is entirely reliant on how the ball rebounds off his hands. At the moment Stockdale is deciding to attempt to play at that pass there are multiple legitimate possible outcomes that could occur.

Creating a yellow out of that situation is, IMO, card-braying nonsense. I don't think that is cynical. But it is risky under current defender-hating refereeing interpretations. Stockdale was just 5cm away from a card and maybe a penalty try and a series win for Australia.

 

[Immenso]

Players understand plausible deniability, how would you differentiate between a failed intercept and an intentional knock on? Even if you could, would you really want to? All this is going to lead to is beaten defenders lunging wildly at the ball and claiming they were going to the intercept as it will be recognised as a cheap way of possibly preventing a probable try.

Rugby got on fine for a 100 odd years before referring think tanks decided to complicate it.

If a player slaps a ball down, penalty.
If a player misses an intercept, even if it is just fingertips, play on.

Going for an intercept is a risky play, without the refs interfering, if you miss it then it's try time.

If defenders lunge wildly and slap it. Penalty
If defenders lunge, almost get it but drop it,. Knock on.

Attackers need to be responsible for taking care of their possession and for drawing defenders and then passing. Without nanny referees.

 

[All Black]

Two types of circumstances in an intercept try springs to mind.

1. A pass thats well before the defensive line. Most successful intercepts comes from these passes as the defender reads and intercepts passes such as long floaters out to the wing.
2. A later pass thats made just before the defensive line. These passes is where we more often than not, see our problem of a intentional knock down or failed attempt to intercept arise.

You would think that, since all the players know that knocking the ball up and trying to regather will get them off a yellow card, that they would just avoid knocking it down. However, its not that easy just to remember that. Sometimes the ball pops up right in front of them and they react impulsively. In these plays where everything happens so fast, the players initial actions is very telling. They will either knock it down (which is easier as someone has mentioned) or they will try to intercept.

To conclude, in the heat of the moment, its very hard to 'pretend' you're trying to intercept the ball. Although it is possible to pretend, I think with the use of the TMO, its easy to determine whether or not a player is making an honest attempt to intercept or not.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

the more i think about it the more it seems like just another excuse for giving penalties and cards, i've never considered the attacking team to have unhindered right to make perfect passes. if you're making a pass that a defender can get a hand on then you've just made a poor pass.

if they just made it legal we'd have NONE of this interpretation and arguing. players would just take the tackle more often if they didn't think they'd get a pass away cleaning or pass it earlier. if the defender doesn't regather then its a knock on and so scrum to the attackers.

I have to say, talking with AFL fans in Melb and this is exactly the kind of thing that puts people of rugby, they're just like

afl fan: "but why couldn't he try and grab it"
me: "he is"
AFL fan: "then why is it a penalty?"
me: "he dropped it, didn't regather"
AFL fan: "but isn't that the knock on you told me about last week?"
Me: "the ref decided it was deliberate"
AFL fan: "of course it was deliberate, he didn't accidentally try and grab it"
Me: "deliberate knock on/down...its different'
AFL fan "....so you're allowed to try and grab it but if you knock it on the ref has to make a decision on you're intentions potentially from +10m away and you might get sent off?"
me: "...yeah....get it?"
me: "....where ya going?"