- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Watching Blues player Hayden Triggs justifiably receiving a red card against the Stormers over the weekend got me thinking. There’s something wrong in seeing one team reduced in numbers, causing the game to be effectively reduced to a non-event.
It’s true, that at one man down the Blues battled on valiantly. They came close, though without ever really suggesting they were going to pull off an upset victory. Once Triggs trudged from the park the match was over as a contest.
Why shouldn’t red carded players be replaced on the pitch? Rugby is in its 20th year as a professional sport, and the days where 19th century values hold sway are long gone. Quaint English traditions of sport being more about taking part, rather than winning, have been lost in the dust of time.
Rugby gave up on that amateur ethos back in 1996. As such, paying spectators and those watching on TV have a right to expect a contest whereby the teams are matched up evenly in numbers, if not always in ability.
America, the home of professional sport, has always accepted the need for teams to be evenly matched in numbers. In baseball, basketball and American football, whenever a player is ejected they are simply replaced and the game goes on.
Already Super Rugby has adopted the American idea of conferences, which results in no two teams having the same playing schedules over the course of a season. One team may receive a perceived advantage by playing one or two so called weaker teams, and other teams might bemoan the fact that they faced tougher opposition and missed a playoff spot because of it.
However, the benefits of the conference system far outweigh any initial concerns about team playing schedules. Less travel time for players and more local derbies for fans mean a better, more sustainable competition for all.
The naysayers out there will claim that disreputable teams would use any rule change to their advantage. For example, trying to provoke a key opposition player into a red card act to remove him from the field.
Indeed, on the 1978 Kangaroos tour of Great Britain, the British scrum half Steve Nash initiated a fight with live wire Kangaroo Tommy Raudonikis, resulting in both players being sent off. The Brits went on to play much better, although still losing the game. Match reports suggested Nash’s act of getting both players sent off had been his most significant contribution to Great Britain almost pulling off an unlikely win.
The answer here, is to hit the banished player hard, and where it hurts. That doesn’t necessarily mean in the pocket but with a lengthy suspension appropriate to the foul committed.
Like the conference system, I believe a rule change will have far more positive outcomes than negative. There will be no more lopsided encounters due to player numbers.
How many games have we seen where the referee’s injudicious use of a red card has ruined a much anticipated game? Bismarck du Plessis’ red card versus the All Blacks in Auckland or Sam Warburton at the 2011 World Cup, readily come to mind. Not that I thought Warburton’s card was injudicious, but nevertheless, a potentially great game withered on the vine.
Referees may even be more inclined to produce more red cards knowing full well that their decision isn’t central to ensuring an evenly contested match. Also, the perpetrator is being punished rather than the game or the fans.
The end result is that we would have better, cleaner games where the decision of one person, whether they be the player or referee, doesn’t ruin the game as a contest. This is what we should demand of a professional sport.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.