Whilst reading comments related to the match on Saturday at Eden Park, I found a comment whereby a New Zealand supporter compared the number of cards each nation have received since 2000.
It is something I have often wondered about, and having been told that these statistics are available on ESPN Scrum, I decided to have a look for myself.
Here are the results of the nine nations who take part in the Six Nations and Rugby Championship.
Statistics since 1st January 2000:
South Africa – 79 yellow cards – 4 red cards – 2.1 matches per yellow card
Argentina – 58 yellow cards – 0 red cards – 2.2 matches per yellow card
Wales – 55 yellow cards – 1 red card – 3 matches per yellow card
Australia – 52 yellow cards – 1 red card – 3.2 matches per yellow card
England – 46 yellow cards – 2 red cards – 3.4 matches per yellow card
New Zealand – 48 yellow cards – 0 red cards – 3.5 matches per yellow card
Scotland – 40 yellow cards – 2 red cards – 3.6 matches per yellow card
Ireland – 34 yellow cards – 1 red cards – 4.5 matches per yellow card
France – 27 yellow cards – 0 red cards – 6 matches per yellow card
Now granted, yellow cards and red cards are issued for a variety of reasons, most commonly for repeated infringements and foul/dangerous play.
Now, there is no need to start any conspiracy theories in regards to this; however I want to refer to a conversation a South African referee had on Super Sport sometime last year, when asked about the perceptions of referees when facing specific teams.
Because I cannot remember who the referee was, I do not want to hazard a guess.
The story went like this – his debut international match involved Argentina, and he was fore warned by his refereeing colleagues of the manner in which Argentina in specific operated at the breakdown, and he should concentrate on their behaviour in the contact areas.
His explanation was that no referee goes into a match with a bias, and to suggest that any referee is intent on cheating or favouring a team is a ridiculous idea. However he did suggest that they are human, and perceptions of how teams play are on their minds.
Now to that end, when considering the above statistics, it is clear that referees have a perception in regards to South Africa and Argentina they don’t have with other teams.
Where this theory does fall flat though is the French are not known for their subtlety at the contact area, yet they manage the best match per card ratio of these nine teams.
However, having said that, consider these statistics when it comes to the Pacific Island teams.
Tonga – 52 yellow cards – 4 red cards – 1.6 matches per yellow card
Fiji – 47 yellow cards – 4 red cards – 2 matches per yellow card
Samoa – 35 yellow cards – 5 red cards – 2.5 matches per yellow card
Now, the Pacific Island teams are filled with big strong athletic physical specimens who play rugby for fun, they ask no quarter and give no quarter. Would it be fair to assume that they are seen as too hard, or too physical?
Certainly when you add South Africa to this list, does that make a stronger case for physicality by teams being a negative?
Then there are teams to be perceived to play negative rugby – a good number of comments have surfaced over the last year with regards to Argentina since having joined the Rugby Championship, and when I consider what the South African referee has said about his perception in regards to Argentina, could it carry some truth?
Once again France dispels or negates the theory in regards to physicality.
It is difficult to ascertain the statistics for each country as to why each team have received yellow cards; this could help to dispel or confirm whether there is a common denominator towards physicality/aggression/foul play or simply repeated offences.
Duane Vermeulen was interviewed last night on Boots and All and asked how the team felt when Bismarck was sent off the field. He avoided the question by simply saying that the Springboks train for such an eventuality.
Do all teams do this? Is the sin bin and red card such a focus for teams that they literally have training sessions just to deal with the situation of being a man down?
The question begs, what do coaches do to address these statistics?
In fact, do they analyse these statistics at all?
Of the top teams in world rugby, South Africa has a significantly poorer match per yellow card statistic than the other nations. Surely this is something they need to address, be it to change the perception of referees (if that is a validity); certainly they need to look into the reasons why they are statistically worse off, and ultimately they need to put a system and process in place to eliminate this.
The SARU obviously has work to do; the fact that they train specifically for situations with 14 players on the field is a scary thought.
The IRB, on the other hand, need to find a solution to the inconsistencies, or errors made in judgement which causes contests to whittle out into little more than a training run to the team with the one man advantage.
Consideration has to be given in regards to repeated infringing, in other words, how consistency can be achieved when a team infringes continually in their red zone. The fact is, repeated infringing is as bad for the game as professional fouls.
Foul play and dangerous play is easy to monitor, in the same manner as a try being reviewed by a TMO; the same method or process should be used before awarding a yellow or red card, as both can change the course of a result as much as a try scored.
Coaches, players and referees are equally responsible to ensure a fair game and a fair result.
Then of course, simplifying laws has been the answer for some time now.
In contrast to your post, mine was not coming to a conclusion of whether we are dirty or not. There is enough examples of dirty play, and I haven't desputed that. There is also enough examples of cards being issued erroniously. The question still begs, do referees carry a perception onto the field whereby we get penalised or carded due to referees over reacting? And the second part of the question, do other teams deemed "less dirty" get away with foul play or repeated infringing?
Simon
Guest
Interesting theory but not very scientific. This type if reasoning is why people drag out the cliche 'damn lies and statistics' Would use the same statistical 'evidence' to prove that the springboks Are dirty. 1. Yellow cards are given to teams who are dirty 2. Springboks receive more yellow cards, therefore 3. Springboks are dirty players For the record I don't mind that they play hard and love watching them. Us kiwis were all sticking up for that type if play few years back with Umanga.
Wal
Roar Guru
Really tough question, The no D^&khead policy of the Sydney Swan's here in Aussie is perhaps a great starting point. at what point does a player no matter their skills start to become a liability for the rest of the team. Something surely Nonu having already exceed this point in Super Rugby, must be close to in the AB's as well. The other thing to consider is these things are cyclical, NZ had it fair share of "tough"men who would over step the mark, Richard Loe, el al. They did perhaps adjust their approach to the game when it went professional.
Hi Wal, I actually like stats, but it is important to use it in context, or at least attempt to make sense of it. Unfortunately it is near impossible to collate stats on why players have recieved cards. I tried various combinations on google to see a list of bans and cards with reasons but found it frustrating. I agree the physicality has a lot to do with it, but I think perception plays a big role here. You just need to take Bsmarck's incidents in the past test as evidence of it. The Carter tackle is a prime example. Then compare Messam on Care vs Bismarck on Messam. Question is how do you curb the perception?
Wal
Roar Guru
Great to have you back BB I thought we may have lost you for a while there. I know you aren't normally a fan of Statistics, so found it surprising you would write an article using stats like this. It would be very interesting to separate out the offence for each card. My theory's (based on no facts) The Island and SA teams receive most of their yellow cards for tackles gone wrong, careless and high tackles may make up a large %age of these cards, NZ, Arg and the WB's may receive more cards for repeated infringements.. SA's physicality and passion is the most alluring part of their game but I think it also and area where in the heat of battle some players come unstuck. The Top 2 Offenders for SA in that time Bakkies and Sckalk have 10 yellow cards between suggesting they play pretty close to the line.
Blackcanelion
Guest
Good post BB.
Good to know where you stand on this.
dsat24
Guest
I am not a supporter of the playing smarter proposal for the Boks. I think if they are going to be smarter they would be smart by now. The BDP incident is case in point, he illegally looked to be the hero and ended up a chump and due to the furor he has become a martyr for the supporting hardcore. I think really we can call the highest number of cards for what it is - systematic illegality. The Boks are better than they were but they have come from a low base in terms of thugby so in the context of recent fans they would probably think the past must have been really bad. Like rugby is often played in the wet, Bok rugby will always look for off the ball cheapshots. It's ingrained. It staggers me really, in similar way to the Aussie cricket teams need to sledge, they have the goods to get the job done without the sledge or the biff in this case. Is a shame as SA can produce great players but there is this cultural bent to do whatever it takes to get a win and it detracts from their rugby reputation. Over the years the quoted comments from players interviewed have included, 'that was in the game it's over now', 'it was a clean out of the ruck so it is legal', and 'the kiwis are good because because they take their medicine, but the Aussies always whinge about it', and the tiddlywinks explanation by PDV for Shalk's gouging incident. It's not about smart ending up, it's about cleaning up. The example of Bakkies Botha is interesting in this context. I on the one hand looked forward to see his name on the team sheet because, as an opposition supporter, I knew might would give away penalties, at least but might get sent off giving advantage to opposition but the other side of the coin was who would he damage in the process and disadvantage the other side. He is admired by some but to me is the epitome of the old ways. The public comments following the Dean Greyling incident in Dunedin offered hope but the BDP incident dashed it.
SteveP
Guest
Gosh, quite a line up.Going back a little bit, I wonder how many Mrs Small's little boy Jimmy would qualify for?
Benny I think the reason for the high percentages against the European teams could be due to the away games in Europe which could be the "home town refereeing" effect we often hear about.
Benny
Guest
The espn site is interesting, I could waste hours putting together stats that don't actually tell us anything. But something I found interesting was the number of cards the Boks and NZL pick up against other teams. For example, the Boks pick up a card in 37% of their games vs ENG, 38% vs NZL, 60% vs AUS, 69% vs WAL, 70% vs FRA, and 88% vs IRE. It's the 21 cards vs AUS that really boosts the stats overall. For NZL, it's 15% vs IRE, 16% vs RSA, 32% vs AUS, 35% vs FRA, and 50% vs FRA and ENG. We've picked up a few in a match vs FRA and ENG though. But this tells me that NZL and RSA are usually on their best behaviour when they play each other or else the refs are reluctant to hand out cards in (most of!) those games. Ok, enough time wasted, off to watch the sailing. Hopefully the ref doesn't give us another card like yesterday
dsat24
Guest
Thanks NOS, one event that did get 'missed' was in the RWC final when Rougerie tried to adjust Richie McCaw's view of the ruck, which I'm others have wished for the opportunity, but there was little , if any(?), repercussion on that one. That should have been a card.
dsat24
Guest
Again, it's gone from hating to dating on here. Eeeeueueuue
I quite like Venter, I thought he did well in the Super XV. But he is already 26 years old. We have Lambie and Goosen who I believe is our next two flyhalves, we need two youngsters to compliment them, van Zyl and Reinach are both attacking scrum halves, combining them wirh their provincial fly halves will mean we have two international pairings who know each other's play well.
TrueBlue
Guest
It's hard to be sympathetic when you consider some of the guys with most cards have eye gouged players without getting a red card for their trouble, i.e. Bismarck, Burger and Botha
Harry Jones
Guest
I'd like to see Cobus Reinach on the EOYT tour. I'm not one of the anti-Pienaar crowd; I think he's world-class as a traditional territorial scrum half. But he constricts the way we play, and hardly ever snipes any more. Jano Vermaak, Piet van Zyl, and Cobus Reinach seem more dangerous on attack; fast to the ruck. How do you rate Shaun Venter (Kings No.9)?
Harry Jones
Guest
Ja, the Lions kept ball in hand and looked good. Sharks made me happy for my SuperBru. Lots of young talent; homegrown. Strong.
Harry, did your watch the Currie Cup today? Two brilliant games of rugby, who says we don't have skills, eh?
DanUK
Guest
There's also a consideration for me about the style, approach and coaching, for example I believe the Springboks had there greatest amount of cards during Pieter de Villiers's reign. I personally think the Boks style of play, selections and his influence also did them no favours, whereas the S15 teams, as a whole did seems quite professional this year. Similar for me if you look at the difference between then Crusaders, who I regard as very well coached and disciplined vs the Highlanders.
Harry Jones
Guest
Also, the Currie Cup (or SA derbies) are full of Bismarck-style tackles and fends. None of it offends us. At Test level, we have to dial it back, sadly.