Yellow cards, Red cards and citing commissioners.

After some careful thought about the repercussions a team has to face due to foul play by individuals on a team who in most cases really aren't dirty players and what it actually means for a team to play with 14 men for either 10 minutes and in some cases anything up to 80 minutes, it is clear in my opinion that it needs to be re assessed.

Think about it this way, a player has a brain fart, let's take Warburton as an example. He was the inspirational captain for a resurgent Wales side during the Rugby world Cup, and during the tournament led his team by example.

Along comes the semi final, everyone is hyper motivated to go out and beat the team in front of them. In one moment of madness, unintentional error, or whatever you want to term it, he recieves a red card and his whole team has to suffer because of it, for 62 minutes. That is three quarters of a match.

Now in my opinion Wales would have most likely won that match, had they the extra player, and then considering it was their captain the effect was even more severe.

Last year in the Tri Nations, Drew Mitchell recieved a yellow card for a supposed late shoulder charge, and on replay it showed that it was in fact incorrectly given. He recieved the yellow card on the 28 minute mark, during the time he was off, New Zealand scored 10 points and Australia 3, on the 43 minute mark, he commited another transgression which automatically turned to a red card.
From then on New Zealand scored another 17 points which included 3 tries. australia fought valiantly and scored 14 points which included 2 tries during that period.

This in the beginning of the Tri Nations and at home for Australia. We all know that the Tri Nations matches are mainly decided on home cycles, and for Australia to lose their first home game of two against New Zealand immediately puts australia on the catch up trail for the rest of the tournament.

In the same tournamnet Danie Rossouw recieves a yellow card on the 4 minute mark against New Zealand, it was once again a nothing incident, incorrectly interpreted by the referee. but in this time New Zealand scores 10 points, two tries. Once again the effect it South Africa is on the back foot for the rest of the match.

Now when looking at these three incidents, no matter whether some fouls or transgressions were correctly called or not, the effect is damaging and in most cases the carded team will lose and the fair contest is over.

solution.

When the player transgresses, card him as per instruction from the IRB. I see no problem with that.

But is it fair in the sense of an international contest that fans who pay hard earned money and teams collectively put blood, sweat and tears into their preperations for a match, see a contest effectively over because of one moment of madness?

In my opinion no. Yes let the player who is carded go off as he must be penalised. But don't penalise the team as a collective for the transgression of one player. Allow the carded team to replace the offender with a bench player for the sake of the fairness of the contest and for the enjoyment of a competitive match up for the spectators.

Sharpen up on the citings of the offenders, and deal with the player on an individual basis.

Last weekend during the New Zealand vs France final, Rougerie without any doubt in my mind and on clear evidence gouged McCaw and becasue it wasn't seen, nothing came of it. New Zealand didn't submit a claim, and from what I understood there is a match citing commissioner at every test match. what happened on sunday? was there no match commissioner, or did they feel they didn't want to add insult to injury?

Either way, it was incorrect. a player who gouges must rightly be cited and banned according to the IRB regulations.

At the end of the day, I want to see a fair contest, but I also want to see the transgressing players be dealt with, but not at the cost of a collective team who thus far had paid the price for only a moments madness.

biltongbek wrote:When the player transgresses, card him as per instruction from the IRB. I see no problem with that.

But is it fair in the sense of an international contest that fans who pay hard earned money and teams collectively put blood, sweat and tears into their preperations for a match, see a contest effectively over because of one moment of madness?

In my opinion no. Yes let the player who is carded go off as he must be penalised. But don't penalise the team as a collective for the transgression of one player. Allow the carded team to replace the offender with a bench player for the sake of the fairness of the contest and for the enjoyment of a competitive match up for the spectators.

Whilst I understand your sentiments here Biltong the problem with what your suggesting is it makes it easy for a team to effectively pick a couple of thugs in the starting XV and send them out with the express instruction to injure the oppositions star players safe in the knowledge that once they are carded off the field a replacement who is a better player anyway can be brought on and you have taken the opponents best player out of the game with no discernable punishment.

You may say that would never happen, but the ctnic in me says it would. Regularly.

Ozzy, not exactly practical is it? If you consider that there are only so many thugs in any team, and they all get banned, how long do you think they will be able to keep it up, and how long before a pattern emerges and the IRB can step in.

What I think is important to remember that 99% of players are not thugs.

Only a few South Africans.

The other point to consider is that the bans must not be measured in weeks, but in matches and at the level that you commited the citable offence.

So if you get banned for 6 matches whilst playing a test, it means you would miss 6 test matches, and not the way it is now where a player can be banned at the end of his season and therefor effectively recieve no punishment at all.

Biltong, I agree and have said before that bans shoudl be in matches and not weeks, it is daft the way it currently is.

I still don't like the idea of you getting to replace a player who is sent off, that is no punishemnt effectively. As I say, a team could lose it's best player for the duration of the match injured as result fo somebodies action, so their team is effectively handicapped by this, and yet the transgressors team suffers no punishment as they are allowed to replace him with another player. Doesn't seem right to me. Sorry.

The problem with matches not weeks is how do you deal with internationals and clubs? How do you know a banned player would/wouldn't be involved in international games? Etc, etc. It would be better but needs to be carefully planned

Ozzy, the team being transgressed agianst receives a penalty already.

Perhaps when it comes to injuring a player who has to leave the field an alternative solution needs to be found. In the examples I have mentioned above, there were no injuries that forced the player off the field, so the team transgressed against lost nothing.

I still beleive the player transgressing must pay the price, and not the team as a whole.

Hammer, it doesn't matter whether a player will or won't be playing or selected for the next match. The point is the system of banning a player for 6 weeks doesn't work at all.

In most cases the affect will be more severe by banning the player for tests than for weeks.

Getting a penalty in your own 22 in minute 2 of a match is hardly fair recompense for losing your star player for the next 78 minutes Biltong.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one I am afraid. If you commit a red card offence, you are off and your team suffers as a consequence. It is a team game. Don't let your team mates down and do something to get sent off is the answer.

For me the system of dealing with serious fould play is correct, what is not is the inconsistencies around punishments issued after the event.

Ozzy3213 wrote:We will have to agree to disagree on this one I am afraid. If you commit a red card offence, you are off and your team suffers as a consequence. It is a team game. Don't let your team mates down and do something to get sent off is the answer.

For me the system of dealing with serious fould play is correct, what is not is the inconsistencies around punishments issued after the event.

Ozzy, the problem I have with that red card, is Warburton did not intend to hurt anyone. He tackled a player and in a moment, whether it was his positioning before the tackle, the momentum, or whatever, his whole team suffered because of it.

Take Drew Mitchell, he recieved his first yellow card unfairly, his second meant an automatic red. For what?

Intent is irrelevant Biltong, and life is not always fair.

There is no system that you could bring in for dealing with foul play, which would work perfectly every time and be fair to all parties concerned.

Well ,they were just ramblings of an insane mind. My therapist said I must talk about other things than just the springboks loss.

Ah, well I tried.

At age level rugby in Ireland there are no yellows. Only compulsary subs. I find it is a rubbisb deterrent.

Biltong, hear what you are saying, but I think ti would require some judgement over 'intent' and that's nigh on impossible in the heat of battle (and only slightly more possible in the calm of the aftermath)

biltongbek wrote:
In my opinion no. Yes let the player who is carded go off as he must be penalised. But don't penalise the team as a collective for the transgression of one player. Allow the carded team to replace the offender with a bench player for the sake of the fairness of the contest and for the enjoyment of a competitive match up for the spectators.

its one thing to say that a red card should not be awarded for a not so dangerous tackle etc but to basically allow the team to replace a player that had a red card would basically encourage acts of deliberate violence especially in very important games. For instance, a coach could decide to play a violent backrow or 2nd row to put pressure on say the opponent 9 or 10 and then get it replaced by a probably better player if the referee eventually send him off...that's a bit extreme but could happen specially in a nervous game and dont see how it's fair...

The rules need to be rationalized, rather than changed, in my view.

Don't have a problem with yellows. Yes, the other team will have a high probability of scoring points, but it's only for 12% of the match. There's still the other 88% with even numbers.

But a red card, especially early in a game, is the equivalent of a dropping a nuclear bomb. In most cases the game will be over as a contest and in the case of a knock-out competition, the offending team might as well book their plane home right away. IMO, punishment of that scale should only be meted out for the most serious cases of foul play - eg deliberate illegitimate violence. The authorities should otherwise avoid it as spectators have paid a lot of money to see a real contest.

Rougerie-style gouging would meet that criterion. A Warburton-style tip-tackle would not. A yellow would be enough. Reds at international level are thankfully quite rare, and that's the way it should stay. I can only remember 3 (including Sam's) for Wales in the past 40 years.

A citing and ban is no way equivalent to a red card in its impact on the team's fortunes. A banned player is simply replaced by another of international class. So the problem is inconsistent application and refs simply missing what is going on, as with Rougerie. Refs are missing a lot of other stuff too, so this is another argument for better reffing eg. video refs in constant contact with the on-the-field ref.

When were cards brought into rugby, did it coincide with professionalism? I know i can look it up myself but i can't be bothered!

Yellows came in with professionalism, I think, following the football model. Sendings-off have always been there, though I don't remember an actual card being brandished.

Cheers Samurai, makes sense.

Didn't sin bins come from Ice Hockey via League? Not sure.

The red card has to be there as a deterrant that means the player is dealt with there and then (and possibly afterwards with a long ban if warranted).

The team should be punished by losing that player and going down to 14 for the remainder of the game. It's a team sport and an individual act of foul play should affect the collective.

Sorry, biltong but I completely disagree with your proposal of substitutes for offending players. As others have said it could encourage foul play in desperate circumstances to win a game at absolutely all costs resulting in even more danger to players.

If a player commits foul play worthy of a sending off then they need to be removed from the field and their team needs to be penalised for this. If this 'ruins the game' and that team loses because of it then so be it. It's the fault of that player and his team.

In the case of Warburton rather than blaming the ref or saying the laws are wrong perhaps it should be a case of saying, "you idiot, you knew what would happen and you cost us the game there". Wales had a good chance of a final but for the idiocy and foul play of one of their side.

Personally I think there needs to be that ultimate sanction for foul play. One reason why yellows were introduced was because ref were perceived as reluctant to go red due to the impact on the game.

Just had a thought, what if for a red card the player is gone from the game, but the team can replace him after 10 minutes of playing with 14?

I think in a team game the team should suffer if one person is an idiot. That's the nature of teams...

Also, while I feel Warbs did not intend mayhem, the red card for that offence was brought in to protect players from serious neck injuries and I m in favour of red cards for that sort of thing, whether intentional or not.

The question of refs is imo getting impossible for one man especially at the speed of top flight rugby. I am beginning to fell we need to move more towards NFL style umpiring, or something. It is very hard to avoid the feeling that Joubert decided the result of this WC final and that's awful for all concerned. Even the kiwis, when they come down from cloud 9.

Ozzy, the problem I have with that red card, is Warburton did not intend to hurt anyone. He tackled a player and in a moment, whether it was his positioning before the tackle, the momentum, or whatever, his whole team suffered because of it.

Dropping someone on their head and shoulders could end their career, ok in this case it didn't and Warburton has a record of being a fair player. However, momentso maddness like this are dangerous and should be dealt with harshly, players should not be encouraged to take risks with each others health.

Sam, we're going to have to agree to differ on this. IMO, the Warbs tackle was not the same class of offense as eg. eye-gouging and should not received a similar punishment. In fact until recently such tackles were legal (tip, not spear).

Biltong points out that you can get a red for a second yellow, even if the first yellow was dubious. In almost all cases, a red is going to be a much bigger handicap that two yellows (for different players).

I think reds should be used sparingly, for really beyond the pale foul play. Serious injury is a constant risk in a sport like rugby, but we should be aware that when it does occur it is almost always from accidents - collisions, tacklers getting thier heads in the wrong place, etc. etc.

From the point of view of a team suffering due to the actions of one player, isn't that what happens when the opposition converts a penalty?

Part of the game I'm afraid. Play as a team, lose as a team.

Kiwireddevil wrote:Personally I think there needs to be that ultimate sanction for foul play. One reason why yellows were introduced was because ref were perceived as reluctant to go red due to the impact on the game.

Just had a thought, what if for a red card the player is gone from the game, but the team can replace him after 10 minutes of playing with 14?

That can work. It is very brave for everyone to now say it is OK to be red carded and team must lose as a team fot the transgression of one guy. You can go read all of 300+ posts on the red card recieved by warburton that would tell you otherwise.

Sam, we're going to have to agree to differ on this. IMO, the Warbs tackle was not the same class of offense as eg. eye-gouging and should not received a similar punishment

I'm afriad you can go on about the difference between spear and tip all you like but the minute you pick someone up in the tackle you are responsible for how they land and if you pull their legs above their hips and that forces them to land head first (irrelevent of whether, dropped, driven or placed) you should be off. It was unfortunate in the case of Warburton because his form and leadership had led him to be a cert for the next Lions captain but it was dangerous. Now I hate eye gouging and that should always be a red and a lengthy ban but it shouldn't mean that only eye gouging should be red carded. I thought the ban for Warburton was a tad harsh, 6 week (halved due to guilty plea and previous good record) when really the red and a one week ban (ending his tournament) would have been punishment enough. That 3 week ban is about a quarter of what the lightest gouging offence is given so it's not the same.

Anyway Wales didn't lose because of the red card they lost because they missed multiple shots at goal and attempted penalties from the half way line when their lineout was working well and they could have applied pressure from the 22.

I don't want to see players taken out off of the ball and denied certain try scoring chances because the offender knows that all that will happen is a ten min sub where as the victims team will see a 7 pointer become a 3 pointer and gain no real advantage.

I cant agree with the OP that you bring on a sub for a RED card, as it is a team game hence the team has to suffer, and similarly work as a team.

However, I do agree with the point on "dubious" cards.

I think the rules around the use of the TMO should be widened, and for any offence derseving of a card (Yellow or Red - but especially Red), the ref should be obliged to state what he has seen and have agreement of his discision made by the TMO. He can already go to his linesmen, so why not have the TMO, who can replay and check the offense verify that the card being shown is just. I know some will say it slows down the game, but no more than an injury, and for the number of yellows and reds shown, it would not create to much of a problem, and avoid unfair calls which will in most cases drastically alter the game result.

My beef with the Warburton red, was the fact Rolland went straight to his pocket, as if his hand had been on the red from the kick-off. No checking with linesmen just an arrogance that "i'm the boss". I still dont think it was Red, Yellow probably. But if he had discussed with his linesmen and they all agreed Red, then so beit, no one could really argue.

Get the TMO involved in these card decisions, that's my thoughts... Yep the team will still suffer at 14 men, for 10 mins or the rest of the game, but I would hope that it would eliminate 90% of bad calls.

My beef with the Warburton red, was the fact Rolland went straight to his pocket, as if his hand had been on the red from the kick-off. No checking with linesmen just an arrogance that "i'm the boss".

The entire thing happened right in front of Rolland, he had an unobstructed view and reached for the card having seen a player dropped on his head. It was a brave and correct call.

I think the referee should be able to call in the TMO if he so chooses but I don't want the TMO brought in on every decision. For instance I don't want the TMO spending 5 minutes analysing a collapsed scrum 5m from the try line to try and ascertain exactly which defensive front rower caused the collapse.

Here’s thought on Yellow Cards; make it a bit like match racing in Yachting. Once issued, the PENALISED team has to decide when to take the card. If it gets to 70 minutes then that player has to come off. If the player is replaced then the replacement cannot take the field until after 10 mins has elapsed. Imagine your team has a card but is only 5 pts up with 10 to play and have to play with only 14 men, it would definitely make the game intriguing.

Or, we could (yet again) borrow from Rugby League. All incidents which aren’t clear cut (Warburton tackle for instance) could be placed on report for the citing commissioner to investigate. To take it a bit further, if the reported player has another incident in the game which is a reportable incident, then it is an automatic yellow card.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The entire thing happened right in front of Rolland, he had an unobstructed view and reached for the card having seen a player dropped on his head. It was a brave and correct call.

I think the referee should be able to call in the TMO if he so chooses but I don't want the TMO brought in on every decision. For instance I don't want the TMO spending 5 minutes analysing a collapsed scrum 5m from the try line to try and ascertain exactly which defensive front rower caused the collapse.

I dont believe Rolland did have an unobstructed view.... The TV coverage definitely didnt show Rolland having an unobstructed view, so unless you where at the game, I cant see how you say that.... I would love to have your TV coverage if you could. Perhaps you can post a link to a clip which shows Rolland's view.

But, on the note of not wanting the TMO brought in on every decision, where did I say I wanted that. I said where the Ref believes a Card is appropriate. That is vastly different to every decision.

chewed_mintie wrote:Here’s thought on Yellow Cards; make it a bit like match racing in Yachting. Once issued, the PENALISED team has to decide when to take the card. If it gets to 70 minutes then that player has to come off. If the player is replaced then the replacement cannot take the field until after 10 mins has elapsed. Imagine your team has a card but is only 5 pts up with 10 to play and have to play with only 14 men, it would definitely make the game intriguing.

Or, we could (yet again) borrow from Rugby League. All incidents which aren’t clear cut (Warburton tackle for instance) could be placed on report for the citing commissioner to investigate. To take it a bit further, if the reported player has another incident in the game which is a reportable incident, then it is an automatic yellow card.

Not sure about these either... The time penalty should be served when it occurs in my opinion, allowing a side to know they have a man advantage to come, wouldn't work. I remember a similar thing in F1, when Schumaker knew he had to take a stop and go, but decided to take it on the final lap, which meant he actually crossed the finish line and took the chequred flag before the penalty. No, it should happen when the offence happened. I just think the ref should consult before making such a big call.

As for the Rugby League reference, isnt that what happens now in effect, by the nature of, if it is not clear cut, some refs will give benefit of the doubt and leave it to the citing officer.

I still say, the best approach is for a ref to take the heat out of an offence, warn the player of his intention and refer to the TMO for clarification that what he saw was without doubt a card offence.

If the ref is not going to issue a card, but just a penalty, then it is the ref's decision, he could still ask for advice from his linesmen, as he does now, but the ref makes the call, right or wrong, and we live with the fact that we are all human. (Apart from Rolland that is..... who is a... ... )

Not really Biggles, in League if a ref thinks something is worth reviewing after the game, he makes an 'x factor' motion towards the off field officials to indicate that the preceding play involved an incident whcih should be investigated. This doesn't happen in Union, as I understand teams have to make complaints to the citing commissioner or incidents involving cards will be investigated.

In this instance, captains could state cases on the pitch. For example, McCaw stated the incident of this thread to Joubert on the pitch, if we took the path of RL, Joubert could place the incident on report so the match officials could investigate after the match.

I wasnt aware of that mintie...

But they cant change the result of the game though.... and (god) I wouldnt want that to happen that way...

So I really dont see the difference to citing, apart from who makes the call to cite or not, as I assume the only penalty this way would be a fine or ban.

That being the case, cant see anything wrong with it, but I still think Yellow and Red cards are a good way of managing the game. My point is that I think that the outcome of a card can have such a drastic outcome, that the ref should discuss prior to showing the card and use all technology to his disposal (ie TMO) to make sure he is making as good as call as possible.

In the end of the day, it protects the referee just as much as the teams.

Dont see the problem with it, and I think most players and fans would respect the decision far more if they can see the decision was thought out and not a mere impulse call...

Theres really two issues here. Getting the decision right and the subsequent penalty.
By far the biggest issue is getting the decision right.
Im ok with the send off player not being replaced. The team gets credit for any tries and points scored by individuals so should the team suffer for missed tackles, shots at goal and therefore for infringements by individuals.
Replacing the player certainly lessens the impact on the team and could increase the frequency of them where teams are confident of their bench.
Im in for replacing if it impacts on player safety such as the front row and pj puts a good argument for this on another thread.
Getting it right should be the focus first. Looking at merits of using sideline and video for specific instances or utilising the 'review' option, say 1 per half per team where captain can ask for a specific ruling to be clarified by the video ref who needs to see enough to overturn the ref.

There are several issues here,the system is in place for good or evil.Half the problem is that the rules are to complicated in the Scrum/breakdown area in particular.
Now IF the officials see a cardable offence,BEFORE using the card refer it to the TMO for a decision.
Much of the thing comes down to intent,is it Deliberate or just clumsy.
Take the Warburton incident,it was clumsy NOT deliberate,the REF went to the letter of the law.CORRECTLY RED CARD,which is an automatic ban.
That similar incidents in this RWC and before had been Yellow or not sanctioned is irrelevant there in the book.
Deliberate Foul play,Gouging[if proven in my opinion a LIFE ban for playing concerned.Kicking,stamping,or deliberatly striking.Those are different and citing offences.
Gamesmanship[cheating]is as old as the game itself,what goes on in the depths of Scrum and Lineout especially in days past .
Make much of the petty stuff today fade into obscurity,deliberate targetting of players?
You betcha in touring days especially All Blacks and Boks were never slow with the ruthless dirty stuff they never took a stepback.
But even they pale into significance of what the French used to get away with Gouging,and Scrotum twisting were a speciality.
The professional foul ,or deliberatly conceding 3 points instead of a 7 is regular practice.
One of the problems just take one area the tackle/breakdown atEVERY one.
Players are tackled,not releasing ball and rolling away.Tackler not relesing tackled players.Players running past,then slowly retreating,ACCIDENTALY? falling at the base of the other sides ruck,and on and on.
THEN players get angry about it,refs not dealing with it take it into there own hands etc.
How often has a player been wound up,by the other side niggled so he does something stupid and is carded.
COMMON PRACTICE,often if you see someone swinging a Punch,means he retaliating for something done to him.
Sadly unless the officials see the offence they can`t penalize them,theTMO could for deliberate foul play.
The citing etc if it is for a RED card offence it should be a set number of Matches of the same level.
IF a player is sent off hard luck i t happens to replace that player makes a farce of the proceedings.
The system is supposed to be a deterrent if you can get away with a Red card offence then that is lost.
Finally Biltong,the case you state in a 3Ns it is indeed predicated on Home Advantage.BUT Australia was always considered the weak link and Nick an away win from them,win your Home Games that was the way to go.
THE reason the All Blacks were able to dominate the 3Ns was there ability to win away. AUS/SA win loss v All Blacks is almost identical.
It is assumed a Yellow card is worth 10 points,BUT there are recent cases when the teams.Not only did not leak points butch actually scored them with 14 men on the park.

Yes france didnt seem to do a lot against wales for their sending off and from memory the abs dont offer a lot when one down but i agree they certainly do make it count when the opposition when theyre one down- more the nature of their games as they are always trying expose weak points quickly.
Agree the breakdown needs sorting. Its the single area that is the most difficult to ref.