An alternative to rugby union's send-off rule

Tommy, the thread of this article is on a red card, not a yellow card. You suggest if a video ref reviewed card offences, Mitchell's red card would not have occurred. I'm keen to understand why a video ref would overturn this situation. Two yellows equals a red. What you are probably referring to is whether or not he would have been yellow carded in the first instance. What many are saying is that in some instances a red card can have an unintentional affect on the game, as in the case with Mitchell, although that's not to say by any streatch of the imagination that Aust would have won. I'm not sure having a reserve player come on for someone sent from the field would have a detrimental affect on the game as a whole, especially if the sanctions against illegal play were increased. Certainly, as was the case with Mitchell, a replacement would have been appropriate. It would be nice to see people open their minds to change, not for change sake, but to improve the game for all to enjoy. Why does change, which is inevitable, have to cause so much angst?

Absolute sense. This article is bizarre in my opinion. I think the send off is one of the BEST things about rugby. Punish actions in the game IN THE GAME. Look at the AFL where a player illegal or dangerous actions usually only result in a (relatively) meager financial penalty and there is no impact on the team or the result of the game. Terrible!! I would also contest the other thrust of the article: Who says that games become boring when a team goes a man down? Ireland managed to fight hard and keep the ABs to a narrow margin while 14 men down for the whole game. Thrilling to watch. The last 10 minutes of the last AUS-RSA match while Faingaa was of was some of the most nail-biting I've ever sen I've ever seen. What should be done is for the video ref to review any card offenses before they are given to ensure that we don't get a repeat of a situation like Mitchell's red card. But I'd still prefer the odd stuff-up like this to the alternative of no send-offs and lesser consequences for dangerous or cynical play.

No problem Gary with leaving the yellow card system the way it is. I think keeping a game the specticle it should be is the crux of this article and if someone is to be red carded early in a game, that will often no longer be the case. With any change will come some adjusting. However, it's certainly worth considering and as has been pointed out once more severe penalties start being awarded for these indiscretions, then we will hopefully see a reduction rather than escalation in send-offs. The awarding of points to the non-offending team is not necessary. The fact that the offending team will have one less reserve to utilise I believe will have the desired effect. And their also given the same suspension as a yellow card. However, by implimenting something of this nature, we have 41 players and however many fans watching live and on TV still able to see a contest and not be duped as a result of the stupidity or otherwise of one individual.

Your talking about under 19 rules and teenage stuff If you get yellow carded a reserve runs on to equal numbers. These are big boys and deserve to be treated as big boys "do the crime do the time" Leave it as it is.

Thought-provoking article;Definitely think that if any draconian methods are introduced-then the Video Ref MUST be utilised or else we will have more bleating from fans-not less(which is the desired result,right?).Take for example Anna Richard's yellow in the WWC Final; She had rolled to the back of the ruck and was lying in a foetal position with arms wrapped around her head....binned for "not rolling clear".Or Rene Ranger's "high"tackle that video subsequently demonstrated was not high....we would be going into dangerous waters awarding 10 points willy-nilly. As to consistancy..how about eg once the Ref gives a "final warning" to a team...some symbol..like a red light etc is posted on the scoreboard as a reminder? Too often teams transgress in the first half and seem to get an amnesty during the oranges-break.

The card system is kept to help Rugby referees deal with cynical offenders. The cost to the team can be massive. Self Discipline is a required by-product of our game. Play Hard Clean Smart Fair Rugby and the problem will be for other teams. However the Barnes send-off of Mitchell in Melbourne was arguably technically correct but still an overuse of the sanction. Refs can get it wrong but luckily in this instance had little effect on the game's outcome. There is a current cultural problem as teams adjust to the correct interpretation of the ruck. The sendoffs have mostly been to focus the players on staying on their feet and keeping the ruck area clean for a quick resumption of play. IMO I don't believe the refs have been hard enough in that area. A possible improvement would be carry-over sanctions similar to Soccer which would then concentrate the coach and selectors minds on which players are better prepared to play an entire game and not be a liability. Another improvement might be a send off for the game but allow a replacement. Something in between a Yellow and a Red.

Thanks, you should see what I have lined up for my next one.

Immature comment, but obviously we can't expect much more from you....

What about a red card offence being worth 10 points and a yellow card being 5 points. If a player is red carded it cost his team 10 points as well as a forced substitution and a hearing for further sanctions. This way if a yellow card offence is committed on the try line (or anywhere else), the attacking team gets the try they were looking for and the player gets a warning (yellow card) if he commits another card-able offence he gets a red, costs his team 10 points and gets subbed. That way its 15 vs 15 the whole game with a points advantage being the main punishment.

It's thinking outside the square like this we need, TF. Really hadn't considered it before (as a referee and someone who has sat on the judiciary). Whilst I hear the calls for having to be strict on punishable offences, I tend to think there's some merit in what you propose. The arguement about sending on a 'hit man' doesn't hold water as outlined by Emuarse and others. Certainly didn't think I would be siding with an abnutter but his post has merit regarding 10 mins. Psychologically, it may even give referees the balls to red card appropriate offenses. Lots of pressure in big matches not to send off for the reasons outlined. As Mick has so candidly pointed out (as usual), financial awards against individuals often doesn't have the same effect as a lengthy suspension. Certainly something to look at and consider. Happens in under 19 laws (or used to, Im a bit rusty on them these days) so why not at the senior level. Good article TF.

problem with that is the Saffa's will send out 7 head-hunters to take out the opposition's best players then win the game with their top 15 players...

Why not replace the red-carded player but give five points to the team that was wronged. Even easy kicks at goal can be missed and a serious foul deserves more than three points in my opinion.

Hey Mick, the "a passing sheila collides with a glass" comment from above is just pure gold.

And good on you for saying so, joshf. I do like your note "I've suddenly decided my opinions need to escape the confines of my mind." Clever stuff.

Sorry Emuarse, I stand by my comments because you have to apply these rules in all grades of rugby, not just the games with full TV coverage - I have played in games where players have been deliberately been taken out, and if the ref or touch judges don't see it, then bad luck. With no video evidence foul play can be very difficult to prove.

Over a period of years Co$ta Lote and Telly Tubbie of Twickenham donated enough money to finance the operations budget of a moderate sized local council, for their sins. They were doing the same things in Year End as they were in Year Start. The financial pain was not enough to change their behaviour one jot.

I stand corrected.

You're misremembering Josh. It was Heaslip who got red carded for kneeing in the NZ v Ireland test. Bakkies headbutted Jimmy Cowan, which was missed by the refs - he did get a yellow card for a professional foul though. He was cited and banned for nine weeks for the headbutt.

My sentiments too, RedsNut. League is a joke now as to on field discipline. They not only ignore the ref, they verbal him and the linesmen with impunity and don't they squeal so if some nasty man says "You've been naughty"? I saw that fancy lad from Parramatta with the pink boots a couple of years back badmouth a linesman for flagging him out – he was running along the sideline, his eyes 5 feet something above his feet looking forward, and the linesman was staring at them – but, oh no siree, he knew better by golly! What did he cop for that? A fatter contract! Going back in time Darcy Lawler couldn't care how many he had to send off to maintain the control he was commissioned to ensure. I thought it was a great day when Bill Harrigan sent Gordon Tallis off for calling him a cheat – Tallis was man enough to apologise later. If they do get "reported" they turn up to the judiciary armed to the teeth with QCs arguing natural justice and restraint of trade, plus two hours of quiet and focussed reflection on the decision that should have been made on the chaotic battlefield. If they're famous and belligerent times two they get Churchill Medal bonus points. All the kiddies are due for a lolly. The mere mention of "rugby league player" brings forth Phil Gould publicly feeling their pain, blaming David Gallop - someone accidentally steps on a needle, a passing sheila collides with a glass ... David Gallop! Worse than Kafer when it comes to saying "Oh look, over there" when the imperative arises to blame someone else, rather than offend players' fragile sensitivities. I miss André Watson out in the middle - his long experience, self confidence and sarcastic turn of phrase chopped the nonsense well before it got legs. "Yes, yes, George, we've all heard from you earlier on. Toddle off now." shut Gregan up when that was necessary. He also used the extra ten craftily to get the players' minds back on their job, early in the piece. He had a sense of humour - one day he cautioned Bill Young and others before getting set to "Not complain about off the mark (or something)." The moment they got set there was a chorus of "Oh André, they're off the mark!" and grins all round, with his the grandest. Peter Marshall was good. He had a steel wall between emotion and a good job, with a decisiveness and finality the players simply could not mistake. If they approached him they saw Bjorn Borg's impassiveness. Self regulation won't work - that has only ever succeeded, in sporting, professional and business spheres, in golf. Over there players penalise themselves a stroke for even thinking ill of the match committee. The only aberrant behaviour in 45 years has been John Daly's dreadful fashion sense - and the delicious possibility he may head butt himself in public one day, for his own wayward drive. The laws of rugby probably don't say anything about preserving the spectacle for the spectators, even if they've paid a lot to see it. I imagine the lawmakers believed that, played within a clear set of rules observed by all, the people will come. If the players don’t know and respect the laws it’s their fault, and it’s their DNA on the “unfair” weapon if their team suffers a reduced complement.

During the first Tri Nations game of the year Bakkies Botha, a notoriously dirty player, was red carded for purposly kneeing Richie McCaw early in the match. At the time the game was in the balance. Once the card was given it was all over and the ABs ran away with it. Under today's laws Bakkies was rightfully dismissed with the game. However I remember thinking that it's the fans who are being punished, those watching on tv and those who have paid top dollar to see the match. I do not want to understate the importance of punishing a dispicable action like Bakkies' but I believe the punishment should be targeted more to the player and less to the fans. Rather than a red card (which ruined the game) and an 8 week ban I think Bakkies should have been given or yellow (or a red with a substitute as you have been discussing) and a much, much more serious suspension. Let's say he was banned for the entire year, misses the entire Tri Nations and the end of year tour, let alone thousands of dollars in match payments he would definietly think twice about committing the actions again.