What's with this "White card" milarky??

Just read that the "White card" is being trialed in the Super 15 this year:

White card

I haven't been following the super 15 so far - what are people's thoughts on it?

From reading the article it seems the idea is to simplfy the citing process, so if the ref isn't sure about something he issues a white card.

Seems pretty pointless to me - if the citing commissioner is watching the game anyway, and will have a much better view and numerous replays and angles, surely he decides who gets cited anyway and doesn't need a ref to issue a white card to tell him to look at it??

Should it be a white flag instead of a card!

Is the ref surrendering all responsibility to make a decision?

RDW_Scotland wrote:
Seems pretty pointless to me

correct

- if the citing commissioner is watching the game anyway, and will have a much better view and numerous replays and angles

correct

surely he decides who gets cited anyway and doesn't need a ref to issue a white card to tell him to look at it??

correct

The citing commissioner will be looking at the numerous replays and he'll already know whether the white card is needed or not by the time the game restarts.


The only possible reason for it is to let the player concerned know that he has done something that the ref feels is citeable. That again might have a negative impact on that team's chances as the player concerned might hold off on putting himself fully into the rest of the game. Indeed, a coach might be coaxed to withdraw the player if he thinks his player would then be under closer scrutiny from the ref.

Plus...the whole idea of a citing commission is to pick up on things the ref might miss.

And now the man who might miss things in an increasingly fast game is tasked with the job of flagging suspicions for the people responsible for picking up on things he might miss.

The citing commisioner would be better off just checking out match threads on here if he's worried he might miss something.

Seems a silly attempt to bring more discipline into a match. I thought coaches have a chance after a match to report potential violations to the citing commission. So the commission is already getting good information where across a full match to look.

It's a pointless thing and will lead refs to chicken out of big calls.


Also it's "mularkey" not "milarkey". Boo-urns!

Marlarkey (or Marlarky).

Would have preferred the TMO to tell the ref about things he's missed so he can inform the player.

It actually does work.

The referee if not sure, but suspecting foul play issues a card. The match referee then cites and the player has 4 hours to plead guilty to get a lother sentence, if he doesn't there is a judiaial teleconference hearing.SANZAR did say it will be one didicated guy for the whole tournament, but I don't know if that did happen.

Some players have already recieved bans due to this system.

Link to the first reports of the white card.

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/120227/First_white_card_judiciary_a_success

But the ref doesn't need to wave a card for that does he?

Why can't the citing officer just cite it as at present?

Are fewer cards issued? Are there fewer other citings? Are things picked up that would otherwise be missed?

It's working well so far. Byrne just got 10 weeks for eye gouging due to a white card incident.

Tom Carter complained he'd been eye gouged. The ref went to the Rebels captain and said that an accusation had been made and he produced a "white card" to show that it would be investigated.

It's a good move. The ref can't see everything that TV picks up.

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:It's working well so far. Byrne just got 10 weeks for eye gouging due to a white card incident.

Tom Carter complained he'd been eye gouged. The ref went to the Rebels captain and said that an accusation had been made and he produced a "white card" to show that it would be investigated.

It's a good move. The ref can't see everything that TV picks up.

But Tom Carter would have complained after the game anyway (or his coach would have). Then it would be investigated in the same manner, and the same conclusion would be reached as the same evidence would be given, verbal and/or video.

When Wayne Barnes officiates using this system, the ground is going to look like a ticker-tape parade.

George Carlin wrote:When Wayne Barnes officiates using this system, the ground is going to look like a ticker-tape parade.

confetti at a wedding.

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:It's working well so far. Byrne just got 10 weeks for eye gouging due to a white card incident.

Tom Carter complained he'd been eye gouged. The ref went to the Rebels captain and said that an accusation had been made and he produced a "white card" to show that it would be investigated.

It's a good move. The ref can't see everything that TV picks up.

That's exactly what I don't get - if the ref can't see everything then the citing commissioner should look out for stuff, not give the ref an extra card to say he doesn't know what happened.

I fail to see what the White Card achieves when the citing guy can do exactly the same thing, and still does it anyway along with the white card!

I'm assuming the citing person can still cite people even if a White card hasn't been produced? Again making the white card pointless!

RDW, i think the reason they are trailling it is to double up on events that may go unnoticed by the match citing commissioner.

The white card thing just seems like a gimmick to give spectators something to talk about. If anything I can see some cynical players ‘taking a dive’ (or similar)) to get a card produced to spread a bit of anxiety in the opposition ranks.

Wouldn't it be better if the ref did that thing where you point 2 fingers at your own eyes and then at someone else, back and forth?

That would be worth seeing!

biltongbek wrote:RDW, i think the reason they are trailling it is to double up on events that may go unnoticed by the match citing commissioner.

It seems so that the White Card is then for moments when neither the ref nor the citing official can see what is going on..... but one of the complaining players did?

Hmmmmm, now there's a new tool in the shed full of tools that could be used by coaches and players to put undue burden on their opposition. What's the line they use in court? Oh I forget it but it describes the situation when a lawyer throws an accusation at a defendent that he knows will be disallowed by the judge...but the jury will still have heard it and still cling to it.

If the ref can't see, and the citing commissioner needs someone to point out things he can't see - he'll have that in players coming with justified or unjustified complaints. A player who thinks he was wronged isn't going to let the lack of a White card stop him from telling someone after the game..