How the times have changed

by LordDowlais Mon 17 Mar 2014, 12:56 pm

First topic message reminder :

Well after taking things into account from over the weekend I just want to talk about the Stuart Hogg incident, I am sorry if it has already been debated to death, but what I want to point out is that about fifteen to twenty years ago that type of challenge would have been par for the course so to speak, now before I get a tattering off people on here, I do not condone it and for me the right call was made by the officials, but I remember rugby always having sinister moments, Christ, I even remember watching a Pontypridd V Cardiff game at Sardis where an eighty year old man wanted to run on the field and hit Mark Ring for something he done that the ref did not see and the crowd were seething all game, I just wanted to point out how things have changed from the days when you could give somebody a good roughing up to put him off his game, without the video ref Hogg would not have got a red card on Saturday, and Biggar could well have had his mind else where for the rest of the game, now we are seeing more and more things that go on with all the different camera angles and the what not, although things like try or no try are seeming to be working and the fact that they could use the TMO to send Hogg off does anybody think it has taken something out of the game ? For me it has a little, but since professionalism and the players being more athletic I suppose this can only be seen as a good thing because it deters foul play, but perhaps I am just an old romantic of the game. Hug

by munkian Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:39 am

If people weren't sent off for dangerous play just for the benefit of the fans then it would basically be a Gladiator match.

Player safety is paramount, not the spectacle.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:42 am

Its not like that many Scotlanders bother to turn up anyway is it

by funnyExiledScot Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:45 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Its not like that many Scotlanders bother to turn up anyway is it

Both games at Murrayfield were sold out......

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:46 am

Taffineastbourne wrote:Even South African supporters can see that foul play must be punished and discouraged and the impact on a contest is a red herring.If players feel that they have a free shot with any punishment deferred until after the event games like the RWC Final would become bloodbath.

What makes you think South Africans don't see foul play should be punished?

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:48 am

Ok, seeing that most are against my thoughts of finding alternative methods to red cards.

Let's go with it. I'll keep my thoughts around it to myself.

by funnyExiledScot Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:50 am

Biltong wrote:Ok, seeing that most are against my thoughts of finding alternative methods to red cards.

Let's go with it. I'll keep my thoughts around it to myself.

I think we should run with the P Divvy theme, and make all red card offences punishable by putting a tutu on the offender for the rest of the match.....

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:56 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Biltong wrote:Ok, seeing that most are against my thoughts of finding alternative methods to red cards.

Let's go with it. I'll keep my thoughts around it to myself.

I think we should run with the P Divvy theme, and make all red card offences punishable by putting a tutu on the offender for the rest of the match.....

I have no response to that. Whistle

by BlueNote Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:56 am

Just a thought prompted by the Hogg incident (and I'm not suggesting for one minute this is the case with him, it just made me think about causes of hyper-aggression early in a game), I read a book about American Football from a guy who owned one of the franchises for a long time (San Diego Chargers) that a lot of those guys take the field on speed (this is going back some time now). I think he said he found some of the team doctors were supplying it, because the players were telling them they knew the guy they were up against would be, and they didn't want to go up against some guy with his eyes popping unless they were in the same condition themselves. Does anyone know whether that happens in rugby at all?

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:56 am

Biltong wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Even South African supporters can see that foul play must be punished and discouraged and the impact on a contest is a red herring.If players feel that they have a free shot with any punishment deferred until after the event games like the RWC Final would become bloodbath.
What makes you think South Africans don't see foul play should be punished?

Your posts on this thread.You appear to feel that foul play should be dealt with retrospectively to safeguard the spectators.You would be happy to see players stretchered off whilst allowing the miscreant to play out the game with just a 10 minute breather.That scenario is just plain wrong.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:57 am

Taffineastbourne wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Even South African supporters can see that foul play must be punished and discouraged and the impact on a contest is a red herring.If players feel that they have a free shot with any punishment deferred until after the event games like the RWC Final would become bloodbath.
What makes you think South Africans don't see foul play should be punished?
Your posts on this thread.You appear to feel that foul play should be dealt with retrospectively to safeguard the spectators.You would be happy to see players stretchered off whilst allowing the miscreant to play out the game with just a 10 minute breather.That scenario is just plain wrong.

And apparently disgusting as well, eh?

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:59 am

Biltong wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Even South African supporters can see that foul play must be punished and discouraged and the impact on a contest is a red herring.If players feel that they have a free shot with any punishment deferred until after the event games like the RWC Final would become bloodbath.
What makes you think South Africans don't see foul play should be punished?
Your posts on this thread.You appear to feel that foul play should be dealt with retrospectively to safeguard the spectators.You would be happy to see players stretchered off whilst allowing the miscreant to play out the game with just a 10 minute breather.That scenario is just plain wrong.
And apparently disgusting as well, eh?

I find violent foul play to be disgusting,yes.Don't you?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 19 Mar 2014, 9:59 am

Personaly i felt the 6 nations was ruined by GE getting a red card for an innocuous challenge.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:02 am

Taffineastbourne wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Even South African supporters can see that foul play must be punished and discouraged and the impact on a contest is a red herring.If players feel that they have a free shot with any punishment deferred until after the event games like the RWC Final would become bloodbath.
What makes you think South Africans don't see foul play should be punished?
Your posts on this thread.You appear to feel that foul play should be dealt with retrospectively to safeguard the spectators.You would be happy to see players stretchered off whilst allowing the miscreant to play out the game with just a 10 minute breather.That scenario is just plain wrong.
And apparently disgusting as well, eh?

I find violent foul play to be disgusting,yes.Don't you?

I'll ask again, and this time please do try and answer the question.

In what way or in which post did I suggest foul play is acceptable?

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:07 am

Biltong wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
Biltong wrote:
GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRysNQ-STo
Thanks mate, it does look quite innocuous when at first you look at it.

I suppose the belated jump and the shoulder to the face is what made it a red card. I would however think a yellow card would have sufficed.

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:08 am

Biltong wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Biltong wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
Biltong wrote:
GavinDragon wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26595036

56 seconds in

Thanks mate, unfortunately I cannot watch it from SA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVRysNQ-STo
Thanks mate, it does look quite innocuous when at first you look at it.

I suppose the belated jump and the shoulder to the face is what made it a red card. I would however think a yellow card would have sufficed.

Cannot agree. There was intent and intent to hurt. Had to go.

Yeah well, we'll have to disagree on that. Sending someone off so early in a match ruins a contest. Rather punish the team for 10 minutes and let the contest carry on there after and cite the player and give him a lengthy ban.

The public pays good money to see a contest, they expect a quality match.

by Guest Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:08 am

You didn't biltong

But what is a better way to manage red card foul play, there is none. What say we had our strike players on the bench. Send out some henchmen to break bones. Then sub on the A team. This could happen, not cool.

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:09 am

Biltong wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:But you can't just choose when you want to enforce red cards surely. 20 min too early, 35 ok? What's to stop players nailing the main man early every game knowing they're going to get away with it, (I'm going there!) like BOD in NZ?

The red card is a problem from the perspective of when it is issued. Yes unfortunately it ruins the contest. But if we want to punish the player, then give him a red card but allow the team another player after 10 minutes.

The citing proceeds as normal and the ban is issued.

This way the contest is protected, the match is still a contest for the remainder and the player is punished.

Just my thoughts

by fa0019 Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:21 am

They do that in basketball... if a guy is ejected, he's simply replaced.

The logic is if a guy gets sent off its his mistake not his teams. Rugby is generally ruined by sending offs. Very seldom do they stay a contest.

Difficult as if they take out someone like BOD in 05 then its just like a goon being hired as a hitman, then to be replaced by an actual player.

To be honest I think the threat of a red card is enough of a deterrent. It only occurs once or twice a season.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:26 am

Taffin, the posts you highlighted does not condone foul play.

So basically you decided to look for an argument today and found one based on nothing.

I suggest we leave it there as I am not going to waste my time arguing with you about nothing.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:29 am

ebop wrote:You didn't biltong

But what is a better way to manage red card foul play, there is none. What say we had our strike players on the bench. Send out some henchmen to break bones. Then sub on the A team. This could happen, not cool.

That scenario was brought up early in the thread.

But I cannot see how a player who has worked his whole life to become a professional player is going to be prepared to become a henchman for his team.

In the amateur era it was more plausible as it wasn't for money and long financial careers.

but these days players stand to lose a lot of money if they become henchman, and citings of such players with hefty bans will put a stop to that kind of thing.

Imagine a player is called into the national squad just to be a henchman, after the match he is banned for 5 years.

How is that to his benefit?

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:36 am

Biltong wrote:Taffin, the posts you highlighted does not condone foul play.

So basically you decided to look for an argument today and found one based on nothing.

I suggest we leave it there as I am not going to waste my time arguing with you about nothing.

Anyone who thinks that a head high,late hit with no use of the arms is not deserving of a red card is condoning foul play.Simple.

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:38 am

Biltong wrote:
ebop wrote:You didn't biltong

But what is a better way to manage red card foul play, there is none. What say we had our strike players on the bench. Send out some henchmen to break bones. Then sub on the A team. This could happen, not cool.

That scenario was brought up early in the thread.

But I cannot see how a player who has worked his whole life to become a professional player is going to be prepared to become a henchman for his team.

In the amateur era it was more plausible as it wasn't for money and long financial careers.

but these days players stand to lose a lot of money if they become henchman, and citings of such players with hefty bans will put a stop to that kind of thing.

Imagine a player is called into the national squad just to be a henchman, after the match he is banned for 5 years.

How is that to his benefit?

If a player such as Both a was retiring after the match how would the proposed banning affect him?

by Guest Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:42 am

It's a good point biltong, you mention a ban of five years. But there's no such thing. If that was the penalty, then no one would do a red card-able offense.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:47 am

ebop wrote:It's a good point biltong, you mention a ban of five years. But there's no such thing. If that was the penalty, then no one would do a red card-able offense.

True there is no such thing, lets look at the IRB.

They want the "product" to sell, so they have made attempts to reduce scrum time and other methods of time wasting, meanwhile they have done little to simplify the laws.

The one good thing is they are trying to reduce injuries and foul plays.

BUt

At the end of the day they are trying to make rugby an attractive sport that grows the world wide audience,

Does a competitive match sell more seats and more viewerships in sport?

The answer is a resounding yes.

You just need to look at the tv numbers in the Super xv to see top games have more of both.

That means finding a solution to foul play other than a red card will stand the sport in good stead.

by LordDowlais Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:49 am

So what punishment do you think Hogg should have had on Saturday after reviewing the incident Biltong ?

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:51 am

Trying to get parents to allow their kids to take up Rugby when they see head high late tackles not being punished to the maximum will prove very challenging.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 10:51 am

LordDowlais wrote:So what punishment do you think Hogg should have had on Saturday after reviewing the incident Biltong ?

I am not a judicial office mate, how do these things go usually, the player is cited, he is called into a hearing, they look at past behaviour, see if the player has remorse and work out according to the scale of offences what he should get.

by LordDowlais Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:05 am

So you agree his actions were deliberate ?

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:11 am

LordDowlais wrote:So you agree his actions were deliberate ?

I am not judging, the fact is he hit him with a shoulder in the face, whether he was deliberate I don't know, as I don't know whether he has a history of taking out players or committing foul play.

If it was Bakkies Botha, then there will be little doubt, but Hogg isn't BAkkies Botha.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:12 am

What's worse for the player: i can go in and rough him up force a sub as it's going to be a sin bin and 8 weeks out or I'm going to cost my team victory and have 5 weeks out? I'm fairly certain Hogg will feel rubbish about losing the test for his mates and won't do it again but under the proposition would he feel he could get away with it in the future? Would it continue until a contest is ruined by someone going off injured and the replacement being rubbish?

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:15 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's worse for the player: i can go in and rough him up force a sub as it's going to be a sin bin and 8 weeks out or I'm going to cost my team victory and have 5 weeks out? I'm fairly certain Hogg will feel rubbish about losing the test for his mates and won't do it again but under the proposition would he feel he could get away with it in the future? Would it continue until a contest is ruined by someone going off injured and the replacement being rubbish?

I have lost you. Where does 8 weeks come from and where does 5 weeks come from?

by LordDowlais Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:17 am

Well Biltong I have asked you two questions and you have given me two David Cameron esq answers ?

I'll ask again, after watching the video of Stuart Hogg going in late on Dan Biggar do you think, in your own opininion, that Hogg's actions were deliberate ?

by No 7&1/2 Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:18 am

I'm just plucking numbers from thin air to be fair Biltong! I would assume under the 'new rules' you'd give out a longer ban than the current ones. Could read 30 weeks and 2 weeks; just the general idea.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:20 am

If you are going to want me to answer, then I am going to say he ran into him deliberately, however I doubt his aim was to injure him with a shoulder to the face.

There, now take that apart at your own leasure.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:21 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm just plucking numbers from thin air to be fair Biltong! I would assume under the 'new rules' you'd give out a longer ban than the current ones. Could read 30 weeks and 2 weeks; just the general idea.

My suggestion was 5 years. Wink

by No 7&1/2 Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:22 am

Ha. That may work!

by LordDowlais Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:26 am

Biltong wrote:If you are going to want me to answer, then I am going to say he ran into him deliberately, however I doubt his aim was to injure him with a shoulder to the face.

There, now take that apart at your own leasure.

Weather Dan Biggar ended up injured or not was Dan's good fortune, the fact that as we both agree, a deliberate act of violence did not end up injuring anybody was down to pure luck as that moment of deliberate foul play could have ended up a lot worst. So, we can come to the agreement that the act was deliberate, o.k now we can move onto the first question, for that moment of deliberate foul play, what punishment should be recieved directly at that time during the match, penalt/yellow card/red card/ a stern talking too or something else ?

by HammerofThunor Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:32 am

Biltong wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:So what punishment do you think Hogg should have had on Saturday after reviewing the incident Biltong ?

I am not a judicial office mate, how do these things go usually, the player is cited, he is called into a hearing, they look at past behaviour, see if the player has remorse and work out according to the scale of offences what he should get.

They look at the event. Determine whether guilty of foul play and what the entry level of the sanction is (note: low entry low level is not the same as a minimum offence). Once they've done that they look at the character of the player, previous, etc.

I'd expect 1-3 weeks for this one.

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:34 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Biltong wrote:If you are going to want me to answer, then I am going to say he ran into him deliberately, however I doubt his aim was to injure him with a shoulder to the face.

There, now take that apart at your own leasure.

Weather Dan Biggar ended up injured or not was Dan's good fortune, the fact that as we both agree, a deliberate act of violence did not end up injuring anybody was down to pure luck as that moment of deliberate foul play could have ended up a lot worst. So, we can come to the agreement that the act was deliberate, o.k now we can move onto the first question, for that moment of deliberate foul play, what punishment should be recieved directly at that time during the match, penalt/yellow card/red card/ a stern talking too or something else ?

Good luck with your questioning! Rolling Eyes

by LordDowlais Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:35 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
Biltong wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:So what punishment do you think Hogg should have had on Saturday after reviewing the incident Biltong ?

I am not a judicial office mate, how do these things go usually, the player is cited, he is called into a hearing, they look at past behaviour, see if the player has remorse and work out according to the scale of offences what he should get.

They look at the event. Determine whether guilty of foul play and what the entry level of the sanction is (note: low entry low level is not the same as a minimum offence). Once they've done that they look at the character of the player, previous, etc.

I'd expect 1-3 weeks for this one.

I am not talking about ongoing punsihments aftger the game is over, I am talking about the at the time during the game punishment.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:35 am

I suggested a yellow card in my first response which some have seen as condoning foul play.

There are two schools of thought here in my view, firstly it is a professional foul for the following reason. It was late and no arms

Hogg ran onto Biggar as he was going to kick, Hogg then started to think he is going to charge the kick down, but realised he was going to be too late, but his reaction was too late and he proceded to hit Biggar.

The other school of thought is that he from the moment that Biggar had the ball was going to run into him with the intent to injure him, now if I may be so bold as to suggest, if I was going to take Biggar out with the intent to injure him, I would have done a hell of a better job than a halfhearted jump with a leading shoulder.

by HammerofThunor Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:37 am

Oh, ok.

by LordDowlais Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:44 am

Biltong wrote:I suggested a yellow card in my first response which some have seen as condoning foul play.

There are two schools of thought here in my view, firstly it is a professional foul for the following reason. It was late and no arms

Hogg ran onto Biggar as he was going to kick, Hogg then started to think he is going to charge the kick down, but realised he was going to be too late, but his reaction was too late and he proceded to hit Biggar.

The other school of thought is that he from the moment that Biggar had the ball was going to run into him with the intent to injure him, now if I may be so bold as to suggest, if I was going to take Biggar out with the intent to injure him, I would have done a hell of a better job than a halfhearted jump with a leading shoulder.

Ok, fine, but a deliberate foul with the potential to seriously injure somebody, in your eye warrents a yellow card ? That's your opinion and you have all the right in the free world to put that opinion out to everybody. You have mentioned earlier in this thread that you come to this decision as you do not want the contest of the game spoilt by the offending players team going a man down and having thousands of people wasting their money on a non contest, do you still stand by these comments ?

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:47 am

Just remember, my opinion on the yellow card is a deliberate professional foul being late and no arms, my opinion is not a deliberate foul to injure or take out a player.

As I said, in my view if you were going to take a player out, I would have done a hell of a better job than the halfhearted jump he did.

But that is how I see it.

by Taffineastbourne Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:47 am

It would be terrible if SA reach the RWC Final and there place kicker is taken out late and high and has to leave the fray and the culprit only gets 10 minutes rest and a potential citing.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:49 am

You have mentioned earlier in this thread that you come to this decision as you do not want the contest of the game spoilt by the offending players team going a man down and having thousands of people wasting their money on a non contest, do you still stand by these comments ?

No, the one has nothing to do with the other.

My opinion is on red cards in general, I am suggesting a different manner in dealing with deliberate foul play.

by LordDowlais Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:53 am

Biltong wrote:
You have mentioned earlier in this thread that you come to this decision as you do not want the contest of the game spoilt by the offending players team going a man down and having thousands of people wasting their money on a non contest, do you still stand by these comments ?

No, the one has nothing to do with the other.

My opinion is on red cards in general, I am suggesting a different manner in dealing with deliberate foul play.

So youv'e changed your mind then ?

by LordDowlais Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:57 am

Biltong wrote:Just remember, my opinion on the yellow card is a deliberate professional foul being late and no arms, my opinion is not a deliberate foul to injure or take out a player.

As I said, in my view if you were going to take a player out, I would have done a hell of a better job than the halfhearted jump he did.

But that is how I see it.

But the act was deliberate as in, he knew what he was doing, it was a reckless act that could have caused serious damage to Dan Biggar, or any deliberate foul play to any other player that is dangerous and could cause injury in your eye's warrents just a yellow ? Look, I am not wanting to nail you to the wall here I am just trying to wrap my head around your way of thinking.

by **Biltong** Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:57 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Biltong wrote:
You have mentioned earlier in this thread that you come to this decision as you do not want the contest of the game spoilt by the offending players team going a man down and having thousands of people wasting their money on a non contest, do you still stand by these comments ?

No, the one has nothing to do with the other.

My opinion is on red cards in general, I am suggesting a different manner in dealing with deliberate foul play.

So youv'e changed your mind then ?

No, I haven't changed my mind.

Let me try this again.

For me personally I want to se a fair contest. That means 15 players on the field for each team, I understand the need for cards, a ten minute card mean roughly 7 points to a team statistically.

If a team loses a player for 40, 50 or even more minutes of a match, the contest is over. Even when it is two well matched teams.

I am not saying don't have a red card, I am suggesting find another way. Now my suggestion is I would rather see a fair contest and the player who has committed a deliberate act to injure another player be banned for a long time.

If the majority of supporters are fine with red cards, then my opinion doesn't really matter now, does it?

by BlueNote Wed 19 Mar 2014, 11:59 am

Biltong, I don't want to pick an argument with you, given that you seem to be on the receiving end of some unfair flak on this thread, but I don't find the line of argument very convincing that if Hogg had really been trying to hurt him he'd have done a better job of it. Did you see the way Biggar's head was snapped back? I don't suppose he was literally trying to take him out of the game, but he was certainly trying to rough him up good and proper. Also, that he was hyped and trying to put in cheap shots was shown by the way he went into Liam Williams at the first Welsh try. I don't know what was up with him, maybe its the frustration of a poor 6N for Scotland. He's not someone I've noticed before being dirty.

by Sponsored content