Replacements for red card offences?
Roar Guru Related coverage
Rugby fans, how do you feel if your team has a player sent from the field for what would a significant offence? Other than cursing the stupidity of the player in question, you know that your team is up against it for the remainder of the game.
Should such an incident occur early in a match, in most instances the team reduced to 14 men will struggle to win or even be competitive.
I certainly don’t condone unfair or foul play in any circumstances. However, an offence committed by one person should not have a detrimental effect on not only the team, but also the supporters at the ground and those watching on TV.
When I say detrimental effect, I’m looking at the significant imbalance that has now been placed on the game.
In my earlier response, I considered that a yellow card and a white card could be given. However, if the offence was of a nature that was deemed serious enough that a player should have no further part in the game, then a red card should be awarded.
However, after a period of 10 mins, that player may be replaced, but the player sent off will have no further part in that particular game.
This would provide a much fairer contest. It would be 15 against 15 (except for a 10 min period) but would still mean the offender being removed and facing a judicial process.
It would also require that team to have used one of their replacements, so it is not like the team doesn’t suffer due to the incident.
I thought to some extent about a team playing a lesser player in order to inflict damage to a key opposition player, but feel this would not occur and would be fairly obvious if it did. Certainly, a significant sanction by the judiciary would certainly put a halt to such actions.
I strongly believe that rugby supporters should be rewarded by a fair contest, where 15 players a side remain for the duration. However the team should not go completely unpunished, and therefore a fair sanction of 10 mins for foul, professional foul and red card offences would be appropriate.
Such action in no way condones foul play, but would address perceived inconsistencies in some of the red cards that have been given, certainly during the last couple of seasons.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- Rugby Union
August 3rd 2012 @ 4:48am
fin said | August 3rd 2012 @ 4:48am | Report comment
There is the obvious Sam Warburton card ( in a huge match ), but realistically does it happen that often?
Unless your arguement is that Refs are too reluctant to give red cards, because of their impact on a match, then I don’t think there is a major problem at the moment. If it encouraged refs to use the card more often and more consistantly than maybe there is some merit there.
August 3rd 2012 @ 9:37am
Jutsie said | August 3rd 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
The only major red cards I can think of is the warbuton case and drew mitchell in the first bledisloe of 2010.
IMO the warbuton was justifiable, that was the perfect spear and even if it wasn’t intentional it could have caused serious damage.
The mitchell one on the other hand was ridiculous as it was not due to foul play and had disproportionate effect on the game in relation the offence, red cards should only be used for the most extreme foul play.
August 3rd 2012 @ 10:31am
Rev said | August 3rd 2012 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Drew got a red card since he was already binned earlier so their was no option but to give a red card.
Joubert said he would bin the next person who disrupted thequick throws and taps. Unfortunately Drew did that straight after Joubert said that.
August 3rd 2012 @ 10:44am
Jutsie said | August 3rd 2012 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Yeah I know why he got it but It just seems OTT in the context of the game, a bledisloe cup and a bloke is sent of for an entire half for knocking the ball out of the hands of the bloke trying to make a quick throw.
We see those sorts of things happen many times a game without even a penalty being given.
Mitchell should write his memoirs when he retires, hopefully there is a section about whether he considered if match fixing was involved in that game
August 3rd 2012 @ 12:19pm
Kane said | August 3rd 2012 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
“but It just seems OTT in the context of the game”
Well like Joubert said “It’s not my responsibility what this decision has on the game. I made a pretty clear statement that I wouldn’t allow slowing of the game down. These guys want to take a quick throw in and he deliberately slapped the ball. Thats his second yellow, since you’ve already had one its a red.”
With ann explanation like that you can’t complain at all about the outcome.
August 3rd 2012 @ 12:30pm
Jutsie said | August 3rd 2012 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
But there is no consistency on how stringently they officiate the rules. You watch game after game where these sorts of infringements are ignored all together and then all of sudden in an important test match it becomes a cardable offence.
Another one that annoys me is that most refs let a person re-take a penalty if they dont take a quick tap on the mark, however every once in a while you get a ref that decides to be pedantic and gives a scrum to the opposition. There is no consistency and it confuses the players.
It similar to the AFL where halfway through the season the rules committee decide to focus on a certain infringement (eg throwing) and instruct umpires to crackdown on it in the following round. All of sudden players are pinged for minor indescretions they have been getting away with all year.
If refs are instructed to crackdown on certain infringements this has to be clearly communicated to teams at the beginning of a competition.
August 3rd 2012 @ 2:37pm
David said | August 3rd 2012 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
The trouble with your point is “the context of the game”
You can’t have a ref deciding different things depending on context. Bled, WC final and schools 1st team the same offense must get the same penalty.
I do accept that where there are mitigating circumstances like extreme provocation, the ref should e able to consider this.
However even that is difficult.
The problem is that generally I find a Red to harsh and allowing a Red Replacement to mild
August 3rd 2012 @ 11:55am
Kane said | August 3rd 2012 @ 11:55am | Report comment
His first yellow card was for a late shoulder charge, that’s more intentional than Warburtons spare tackle.
August 3rd 2012 @ 12:07pm
winston said | August 3rd 2012 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
That was milked big time. Wasn’t that on Ritchie?
August 3rd 2012 @ 4:01pm
Carnivean said | August 3rd 2012 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
His first yellow card was a complete and utter joke. 2 players running towards the play ran into each other. No foul play by either. Some f…wit with a flag ran onto the pitch and had Drew yellow carded.
The other player was Richie, and I don’t believe that it was milked at all. Just a complete brain fade/explosion/whatever from the officious official.
August 3rd 2012 @ 7:18pm
colvin said | August 3rd 2012 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
Fin,
I did a brief google search and it is more common than you would think. And it’s getting more prevalent. So far in the RWC there have been 16 red cards.Then you have to consider when red card offences have been committed but not picked up by the referees. That’s equally a problem under the current laws as in one match a player is off, but in another for the same offence, he’s not, either because the referee didn’t see it or because he interpreted it differently. Then you have to consider a player who gets sent off for a minor offence (Drew Mitchell) and the impact that has on a game.
The most damaging RWC red cards were in 1987 when Wallaby David Codey was sent off after 5 minutes in the 3rd place match against France. France won 22 to 21. Wallaby captain Andrew Slack was, rightly so, very unhappy. Then there was Welsh captain Sam Warburton after 17 minutes against France in the semi final in 2011. France won 9 to 8. Just those two matches are enough to change the laws.
So there also have been around 16 red cards in the 5/6 nations, some seriously impacting on matches; a number of international teams tour matches where red cards are given and a number of red cards in Internationals in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Then you also have to consider when red card offences under the current laws have been committed and the players have gotten away with it and how unfair that is compared to the teams that didn’t get away with it. And the impossible position that referees are put in because they pick up the blame for any inconsistencies.
Then you have to think about the professional tournaments in Europe and Super Rugby in the SH. I didn’t search these tournaments but it’s pretty clear to me that the same problems exist. The professional game needs to look very carefully at this whole area as currently in my opinion they haven’t got it right.
August 3rd 2012 @ 6:55am
mania said | August 3rd 2012 @ 6:55am | Report comment
CD – good idea and would stop the match being one sided and keep the competiveness of the game alive.
fin – red cards maybe rare but each one has had a massive impact on the game. it just ruins it. i remember when mitchell was red carded for getting 2 yellows. aus went from having a slim hope to none.
August 3rd 2012 @ 7:30am
formeropenside said | August 3rd 2012 @ 7:30am | Report comment
If you dont have red cards – and use them – then you will see an increase in cynical play and probably some deliberate foul play.
Yes, a red card can ruin a game for one team and their supporters. Thats part of the game.
August 3rd 2012 @ 7:41am
mania said | August 3rd 2012 @ 7:41am | Report comment
formeropenside – ruins the game for both sides.
and how can u not have redCards and use them?
August 3rd 2012 @ 8:30am
formeropenside said | August 3rd 2012 @ 8:30am | Report comment
One side wins. The game is not ruined for them.
Sorry, my statement was poorly phrased – I meant to say that referees should be more willing to use red (and yellow) cards, not less. And that taking the red card away would be a huge mistake.
August 3rd 2012 @ 8:49am
mania said | August 3rd 2012 @ 8:49am | Report comment
formeropenside – one side wins but its a hollow victory where no real lessons about the team itself were learnt. this happened quite often to the AB’s where oppn would be red carded. AB’s won but were hard done by as they werent being tested or given proper prep. they couldnt gauge how well or bad they were doing because the match was ruined.
CD isnt suggesting red cards get removed he’s saying that it should change.
August 3rd 2012 @ 10:05am
formeropenside said | August 3rd 2012 @ 10:05am | Report comment
1. A win is a win.
2. Ok, lets say there are no red cards – you get sent, but a replacement can come on after 10 minutes.
Australia picks a 145kg no-hoper out of 3rd grade with express instructions to smash Sir Richie at the first ruck of the game and rip his legs out of the way, thereby possibly ending his career due to serious injury. Lets assume, after a week’s intensive training, he manages to do it. Fair trade? No McCaw, possibly for ever, vs 10 in the bin and a set of fresh legs in Palu coming on after 20 mins (OK, he’ll be buggered for the last 20, but oh well).
Still like the no red card idea?
August 3rd 2012 @ 10:25am
mania said | August 3rd 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
fos – thats a bit extreme. any team caught doing it would be banned for life.
if this continued tho then NZ would do the same thing, everyone would start doing it until someone realised that you were just killing off great players and a rule would come up to stop it.
its not very realistic and it would soon end as its unsustainable.
August 3rd 2012 @ 11:36am
colvin said | August 3rd 2012 @ 11:36am | Report comment
FOS
Australia, can still do it with the 145KG no hoper under the current laws. The only difference is the impact.
Richie would be off and replaced by another. Penalty to NZ.
The 145K no hoper would be off banned for life, probably.
After 10 minutes the no hoper would be replaced by Palu.
A reasonable game wil continue.
After investigation if the whole thing was planned a number of people (the Perps) would be thrown out of the game.
A bit like bloodgate. they wouldn’t get away with it.
August 3rd 2012 @ 8:52am
Cattledog said | August 3rd 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
FOS. I’m not advocating taking the red card away. I’m stating that the player may be replaced after a 10 min period. This may perhaps influence referees to use the red card more and in doing so, start to clean the game up even further.
August 3rd 2012 @ 10:52am
Fan said | August 3rd 2012 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Also thinks its a good idea. A red card in this case can penalise the player not to be part of the next game also.
August 3rd 2012 @ 10:55am
mania said | August 3rd 2012 @ 10:55am | Report comment
actually i reckon this would be a good idea but have it as middle ground tween red and yellow. call it an orange card.
this is getting a bit over complicated
August 3rd 2012 @ 11:00am
colvin said | August 3rd 2012 @ 11:00am | Report comment
One of the other problems is the complete inconsistency in their application which can never be resolved.
Richie was eyegouged in the WC final. But they didn’t find out who did it until after the game. I imagine if they knew who it was during the game, it would have been a Red Card. But because they didn’t know, nothing.
Then there was the famous Drew Mitchell Red Card. Sent off for hand bags at dawn niggle.
It’s so hit or miss whether a game is ruined or not. Let’s not ruin the game. Let’s deal with it afterwards, while an appropriate but not totally destructive sanction is applied during the game.
August 3rd 2012 @ 12:17pm
Deez said | August 3rd 2012 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head – the issue is the subjectivity of the call from the ref. And the ref already has enough influence in ruining a good contest with poor decisions. I like the Cattledog’s idea of allowing someone else to come back on after 10 – would just add that every Red Card automatically get cited for a post-match review. This keeps the game more balanced (10min+ advantage to the non-perpetrating team, but still a contest), but also discourages blatent fouls for fear of longterm bans.
August 3rd 2012 @ 9:11am
winston said | August 3rd 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Hypothetical, your best player on your team is hit with a dangerous insidious tackle that takes him out for the rest of the game. Your team has done nothing wrong and now you’ve lost your main man. Should the guilty player be sent off and be replaced by another one 10 mins, later. The opposing team is down for 10min and then they are good to go yet you’ve lost your key player.
I think the Red card needs to be used as it currently is to discourage this kind of thing in the game.
I know there have been incidents like Drew Mitchell when he got his but that was from 2 yellow card offenses for which one was a ridiculous call. But then we’ve all been on the wrong end of an incorrect ref’s call. This is also part of the game.
I like the idea of losing the player but not the position after 10 min, could this be another card type?
August 3rd 2012 @ 9:17am
CizzyRascal said | August 3rd 2012 @ 9:17am | Report comment
It’s a team sport. If you do something wrong, it will impact on the whole team. If you do something good, it will impact the whole team. That’s the idea of a red card. It’s the ultimate deterrent.
August 3rd 2012 @ 9:23am
Karl said | August 3rd 2012 @ 9:23am | Report comment
There’s something in what you say. There’s a huge difference in effect between a red card issued in the first 20 minutes of a game and one issued in the last 20. Surely something better than “them’s the breaks” could be implemented.
August 3rd 2012 @ 9:27am
murph73 said | August 3rd 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Are you three years old? Or is that too generous?
August 3rd 2012 @ 11:28am
Cattledog said | August 3rd 2012 @ 11:28am | Report comment
In Cattledog years?
August 3rd 2012 @ 9:35am
colvin said | August 3rd 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Personally, I think it’s a brilliant idea.
While, red cards in big matches are not that common, they totally destroy a match. They punish the team, the supporters, the sponsors, the TV audience, the game itself, when it is looking to promote itself against other sports. When all they should do is punish the player concerned, and maybe give a short rap on the knuckles to the team.
You only need to look at the huge impact of the sending off of the Welsh captain at the WC to say that should never happen again. In Wales, they opened their big stadium for supporters to watch the game which was played in NZ on their big screens. There were more than 60,000 people there. Apparently the atmosphere was unbelievable. At the sending off, all changed. The mood was total depression. It just isn’t good for rugby.
It would be interesting to get a list of big matches ruined by red cards. I can certainly think of a few. It might be surprising to see how many there were. The damage done is huge. Too great to be allowed to continue.
As Andrew Slack said when he lost a player to a red card, rugby is a team game 15 players against 15. Not 14 against 15.
August 3rd 2012 @ 10:09am
CizzyRascal said | August 3rd 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Exactly and that is the punishment for breaking the laws of the game. You let down your team.
August 3rd 2012 @ 11:25am
Cattledog said | August 3rd 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
If it was that cut and dried, CR, I would agree. What we have, however, is inconsistency throughout the world and what one referee would red card another would yellow. We need to cut human nature out of the equation (not that I don’t enjoy their music)
August 3rd 2012 @ 2:02pm
arbitro storico said | August 3rd 2012 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
The law book enshrines the principle that it is the referee’s opinion that counts – not just in dealing with foul play, but in almost every aspect of the game. Players understand this and accept it; it’s a shame that spectators – and some Roarers – don’t.
August 3rd 2012 @ 3:38pm
colvin said | August 3rd 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Arbitro,
Yes, that has always been the principle.
But the problem is circumstances have changed. The game is now professional and therefore more is riding on the results and at the same time it’s a much more challenging game to referee. A huge amount of analysis is done designed to give teams an edge. The players are bigger, faster and stronger.
With the greatest respect to most referees they can hardly hope to keep up with the game, catch all offsides, forward passes, knock ons, not straight throw-ins, monkey business in scrums, foul play, obstructions etc.etc. What has become obvious is that now too many games are being won or lost as a consequence of mistakes by referees. So something must be done to protect the sport.
Many people believe more use of technology is needed and that some of the laws and interpretations need to be amended to take account of the obvious flaws that have become apparent in officiating the modern game.
All most people want is for the best team to win and not lose out because of out of date laws, interpretations or, even worse, errors by match officials.
Concerning your last sentence, you can be sure that all players and coaches want is for accuracy and consistency from the match officials. They would support every action taken to help deliver that.
August 3rd 2012 @ 10:13am
robbo said | August 3rd 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Matches are not ruined by red cards they are ruined by the stupid or, much more rarely, thuggish players who earn them. Red cards are a deterrent and their rarity is testament to their effectiveness. Take them away or allow replacements and the incidence of cynical fouls (not professional fouls because it will happen at all levels) will increase dramatically – and then the team, the fans, the sponsors and the game itself will be much more heavily punished.
August 3rd 2012 @ 11:19am
colvin said | August 3rd 2012 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Robbo,
I have to respond.
A number of red cards have been given for activities that many people dispute were serious enough. Drew Mitchell?
A number of activities happen that deserve a red card under the current laws but no card is given. McCaw eyegouged in the WC Final.
So red cards are a problem.
The end impact of a red card is so serious on one hand but the game is such that the Law cannot be applied with total accuracy on the other. Therefore don’t have it or change the impact..
August 3rd 2012 @ 4:16pm
robbo said | August 3rd 2012 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Sorry Colvin I cannot agree – the game is managed by human beings who are fallible – so sometimes they will miss things. I have not seen the Drew Mitchell case so cannnot comment, but as for McCaw – the ref did not see it, the AR’s did not see it and as far as I know it was not investigated after the game – maybe the AB’s decided to leave well alone after the ref gifted them the final. My points stand – Red Cards are rare, they are a deterrent – and I think they work.
The only point I would cede is the red card given for a second yellow – maybe a 20 minute yellow instead and make the idiot sit facing the crowd (preferably a section of his own fans) wearing a dunces hat
August 4th 2012 @ 10:58am
colvin said | August 4th 2012 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Robbo,
The Drew Mitchell sending off has been commented on plenty in the last few days so you will be able to get a pretty good understanding as to what happened. It was one of those two yellow cards and you’re off issues. But on their own each offense didn’t deserve a yellow. When Drew was sent off for the first yellow I seem to recall the ABs ramped up their scoring. When the red card came not so long later the Wallabies had no chance of getting back in the game. If I had been a Wallaby supporter and had been eagerly anticipating a great game of rugby and, even worse, had paid good money to see the game, I would have been furious at what happened.
The eye gouging on Richie in the WC final was strange. The referee didn’t see it at the time. I recall it was about 5 minutes to go. After the match was over and replays identified what happened it was obvious the culprit was the French centre Aurelien Rougerie. But the officials seem to only have a short time in which to bring charges. The ABs could have but didn’t bring a charge themselves although it was commented that they expected the officials would. But seemingly by the time the officials found out what happened the reporting time had expired. So the whole thing just lapsed. Richie had scratches around his eyes for about a week.
August 4th 2012 @ 2:24pm
colvin said | August 4th 2012 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
Actually Robbo, on the Rougerie/Richie incident, you got me a bit fired up about it so I google searched a video of the incident and looked at it again. Rougerie (the centre) charged into a ruck where Richie was lying on his back and head butted him first then eye gouged him. Rougerie should have got six months.
The other point I found was that any foul play complaint needs to be made within 36 hours of the match. After that it’s expired.
For those of you who feel the All Black shirt somehow prevents referees seeing Richie in compromising positions on the field there could be an argument that Richie was lying on the French side of a ruck. Not that that excuses Rougerie’s actions.
August 3rd 2012 @ 10:40am
Invictus said | August 3rd 2012 @ 10:40am | Report comment
I think that the issuance of cards of any colour should utilise the TMO for review purposes. We saw a number of yellows during this years SR that were just ridiculous (mostly on AR recommendations). A review would probably have seen many of these reduced to a penalty only. Review would have helped in the Warburton case also.
What really gets me about the card system is inconsistency in its application. The system of warnings/cards needs to be more systematic and when a ref says ‘next one goes to the bin’ then he needs to damn well follow through on it.
August 3rd 2012 @ 11:30am
Cattledog said | August 3rd 2012 @ 11:30am | Report comment
I hope we see wider powers given to the TMO for next season, Invictus. It would certainly help with much of the current controversy.
August 3rd 2012 @ 4:10pm
Carnivean said | August 3rd 2012 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
When any AR goes onto the field to report foul play should be instantly referred to the TMO to get a number a of replays and assess the offence properly.
A Highlanders prop (I think) was yellow carded for a dangerous tackle on SBW that saw SBW lifted a foot off the ground, never anywhere near horizontal, let alone past it, and dumped on his rear, not his head. One look from the TMO and the AR is shown to be a fool, and the game isn’t interrupted.
Kane Douglas red carded last year against the Bulls by the attention-seeking Pro Legoyte for headbutting, when he merely cleaned out a ruck. One view by the TMO and at most a penalty. 2 such reviews and suddenly Pro no longer is allowed to be an AR as he is hopeless.
August 4th 2012 @ 3:04pm
Jerry said | August 4th 2012 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
That was Ben May from the Canes who got yellow carded for picking up SBW.