Abolish yellow cards in Test matches

I never said they were great, jeez. By your estimation then, A.Smith, Cruden, Jane, Dagg are rubbish. They all had poor games and I'll just gloss over the final test as if it never happened. Yes they are all rubbish. I will give you Ashton..as long as you promise to feed him occasionally.

But any time you kick out and hit a player on the ground, accidentally or not, you're dicing with the ref and it's not really surprising he got carded.

I didn't want to muddy the waters but yeah - it wasn't a card. Stephen Jones did the same thing and kicked Brendan Leonard in the head and didn't even get penalised.

The initial contact was to Cruden's trapezius area with incidental (ie minimal) contact to the base of Cruden's neck, it then rode up so that as he pulled Cruden down his arm was on Cruden's neck & face. You can't tackle above the shoulder - doesn't matter if it slips up or the arm hits the ball first, if you tackle above the line of the shoulder it's a penalty. It wasn't a dangerous tackle, but it was a high tackle. You can argue the card, like I said above I don't think it should have been carded - but the 'if even an offence at all' is rubbish.

Yarde's was pretty cynical. Farrell's was due to ignorance of the law, I suspect.

I wouldn't give it a card, but it's not outside the realms of high shots that get cards. I've seen softer tackles get cards, I've seen worse tackles only get a penalty. It was a mildly harsh card in my opinion, but not so much as to be outrageous. I stand by my earlier comment, if it hadn't been for the earlier cards against England in game 1 & 2, I doubt anyone would still be mentioning it, especially as it had no real effect on the game.

in the third test, they were rubbish. Yarde and Tuilagi were good on attack. Both wings were particularly bad on defence- Ashton, in my opinion, embarrassing. That has been echoed by many English fans.Burns and the 12- forgot his name, were a shadow of their first test performances as they were simply worked out by the AB attack. the incoming reinforcements were terrible- Care flopped, Burrell and 36 did little, as did Farrell. Brown was average and way of his NH form. Possibly reasons for it all but as the series went on the backline got worse, and it showed. These guys might all be shining lights in the NH playing club rugby or against sides ranked outside the top 3, but based purely on their performances in NZ, they were rubbish. If you think they were great, then good on you, but I would suggest you have no idea what your talking about.

Yep, totally agree. It happens in super rugby too and is now creeping in at a test level. C'mon not every high tackle has to be a yellow, it's cant be helped sometimes with the height diff. Pretty sure all the tests that have just finished there was a yellow in each game. In the sa v Wales series was ridiculous.

I know mate. Can't help myself though, always trying to help the afflicted

Actually Billy WAS carded when England were under the cosh. Happened around the 20 minute mark of the first half when NZ were going nuts. Second time I've had to ask you to pay more attention. Raise your game nipper

Dangerous foul play gets an automatic red card. Otherwise do as they do in league and put it on report. But continued cynical infringements result in a red. Give the refs more power not less. As it is now they operate under a strict regime of law a bit like mandatory sentencing. Forget the running psychological warfare. It's like a smack versus a talk. It would only take one game for the message to get across.

I am of the other opinion... more yellows! No reds. In the JRW the baby blacks got pinged all the time for infringing in the 22. Basically first penalty advantage and if you give away another penalty within the advantage period, its a penalty tri and a yellow. Cleaned up the attacking 22 very quickly. All Blacks are the best at infringing on their try line. 2 penalties in the 22, yellow if the second is within the same advantage play its a yellow and a penalty try. I dont agree with red cards, its spoils the contest. harsher post match bans.

They are not mutually exclusive. The players under performed in some cases and it's a moot point to speculate whether the results would have been different without the yellow cards, probably not, but they most certainly didn't help. My issue is with you throwing around comments like the entire English back line is rubbish. Your entitled to your opinion of course, however I would question your rugby knowledge and understanding. I wouldn't even say that things are either black or white in your world, because clearly they are just black.

good point on the parity thing- I agree. My view is England were able to draw the SH sides into the 10 man game (not that with the Boks you have to try that hard) and therefore dictate the terms, and that versus the SH 3 they played different rugby to those in the NH purely because the dominance up front came quicker in the matches up there. But for me a perfect illustration of the difference between 10 man rugby and 15 man. The ABs will try to score from the kickoff by using all 15 to run the ball if they have to. England would have assured themselves the permission to go 15 before doing so. That they could dictate play that way makes them a very special side- no one else has really been able to do that as comprehensively.

Except the truth...which of that is incorrect? Or do you consider the article has merit- that yellow cards and not reponsibility of the players to play well contributed more to the loss?

The players decided it when they decided to make their actions. The ref ruled on the players actions.

Yep,v Scotland in 1967.And considering Meads was kicking out at the ball,it was at most a penalty for reckless play as there was nothing cynical in his actions.

The ref and that yellow card did decide the ab England series and determined Frances qc up final. It destroys credibility

Jerry - It's no different to a trip. That's a professional foul, that's a yellow too. Automatic. The fact he pulled back a player in support of a player breaking towards the posts only compounds what didn't need compounding in the first place. First minute of the first test, faced with penalising the red hot favourites on home turf with a baying home crowd and the Haka still ringing in his ears, Owens bottled it. Pure and simple.

They could become a bit more lenient on yellow cards during normal play, and then in the red zone, instead of a yellow card for repeat infringements, they could award a penalty try. That way we see less players leaving the field but still don't allow them to take advantage of this and play negatively in the red zone.