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.
Vman
Guest
As an AB supported I always hated Richard Loe. He was a dirty player that cost the ABs at least one penalty shot at goal every game. Apart from that I just hate dirty players. The coach and management were too scared to tamper with a wining combination to get rid of him so he kept getting picked. After all there was no yellow or red card system to concern them. If there had been yellow and red cards during his time his dirty play would have been seen for the liability it was and his career cut short. Many other countries have had similar thugs in the past. The point of not replacing a red carded player is precisely because it penalises the entire team. That is the point of it. There is nothing like an entire team being let down by a stupid thug to get that thug to sort him self out or get lost.
Jerry
Guest
You refer him to to an incident that there is no footage of and only witnessed by about 24000 people at the time, many of whom are now dead given it was nearly 50 years ago. So something he's never seen, he's never going to see and you've probably never seen? Has anyone who posts to the Roar ever actually seen this heinous crime or are we just relying on 3rd hand accounts?
Trans Tasman Diplomat
Guest
Edward Pye, for an example of ruthlessness I refer you to Meads Vs Catchpole, at Sydney Cricket Ground, sometime in the 60's.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Whether it has a 'huge impact' on the game depends on whether the person is sent off in the first minute of the game or the final minutes. But if they go of in the final quarter of the game it is almost equivalent to a yellow card anyway. I have suggested keeping the yellow card but making red carded players be permanently replaced and stiffening up the penalties on the player in terms of week bans and fines. This preserves the match and if a player was risking the rest of their career (millions in earnings) they may be unlikely to start a fight. Would you do something that mean't you could never work again? It is possible to stiffen up penalties to a point that they discourage players more than their team automatically losing the game. In NZ players have been given life time bans from the sport for attacking referees in club matches. This is far more serious than his team losing a match.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
By all accounts 1/15 players had a 'huge impact' on the game between the Blues and Stormers so I think you proved your own point backwards. Everyone including both coaches have said that the game was effectively lost for the Blues when he left the field after 24 minutes. So by that definition alone the impact of 1 out of 15 was huge.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Terrible example. 1 of 5 players is a huge impact compared to 1 of 15 players.
Harry Jones
Expert
Good. And then we can all eat Asada chimichurra w Malbec at a big braai
Ozee316
Guest
Basketball games are not reduced to rediculous 4-5 games when a player is fouled out. The player is simply replaced and the game carries on. You want a deterrent? Try banning the player from the game for 2 years and fining them and their team $1million dollars. Then we can see who commits a professional foul. I certainly wouldn't even in a final if it meant the end of my career.
Bakkies
Guest
They are becoming more common over here.
Bakkies
Guest
You can be ejected from the game.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Yeah exactly. Incorrect Red Cards are almost not worth discussing as they are that infrequent. Referees are so reluctant to give one, that the bigger issue is the offences that are missed, not incorrectly punished.
Jerry
Guest
I'm don't think you even need the word probably there. Basic logic suggests there would be a bunch that were missed, then take into account the fact that the ref is under immediate pressure and will generally err on the side of caution. And if you want more evidence, look at the number of players who were cited (which requires a red card level offence) and then suspended as compared with the number of red cards issued. It's not even close.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Probably lower than Red Card offences which have not received a Red Card.
I understand your viewpoint, what would be interesting though is what percentage of red cards in hindsight has been given incorrectly.
Jerry
Guest
Both Bismarck & O'Connor really only have themselves to blame. Sure the original yellow cards were bogus, but they should have then been on their best behavior. They weren't and their team paid for it. In the case of O'Connor's second, the ref had been very clear in issuing a team wide warning to both sides for that particular offence, so he can hardly query the call.
Who?
Guest
Red cards are red cards, and should remain as such. There have undoubtedly been travesties - Bismarck's card in 2012 was a shocker, given it came off the back of a completely legal, onside hit. I still think Drew Mitchell's carding in 2010 in Melbourne was a farce, because it was so stupidly soft. Penalty, sure, but red..? Even as a first yellow it would've been too strong. But you can't say that those rulings destroyed the games. The ABs were always going to win the last 20 against the Boks in 2012. The margin starting that last 20 might've been very different, but I don't think you can say the Boks didn't lift with Bismarck off. That often happens. I don't think the Wallabies would've won in Melbourne in 2010. We'd lost that game already. And Wales in the 2011 RWC? They left something like 9 points out there in missed kicks - kicks that none of their kickers would ever miss at any other time. They still dominated the game. So it's wrong to say that playing a man down cost them the game. And Rugby's not meant to be easy. We're not meant to make it easy for teams to play spoiling roles. If you're going to stupidly infringe, expect harsh punishment. I think yellows for scrums can be harsh, but how often do you see reds for them? That being the case, there's no issue. And it's not like reds are common.
Richard
Guest
Red cards arent given out like lollies. They are reserved for the most serious of offences. The kind of offences that are completely optional. Like Rynard Landman's elbow to face. They are there to protect players. What about Landman's victim? If a player is replaced there is little or no consequence. I could quite easily see an enforcer type player say Bakkies Botha deliberately taking out an important playmaker say Dan Carter knowing there would be no real consequence for his sending off. Where as Landsman's removal from the game quite probably cost his team the match. Your argument that in the professional era this shouldn't happen doesnt wash. AS a professional, players should be able to manage themselves professionally. They know the rules and the consequences. Costing your team a win, probably some kind of financial incentive, as well as putting your own career at risk either through giving your replacement an opportunity while you are banned or your club finding your approach unprofessional seems an entirely appropriate response to me. Grabbing incomplete examples from other sports to support your opinions is a somewhat flawed process. American Football is a game that has 60 minutes of playing time but takes 4 hours to complete through stopping play while live adverts run endlessly. That would be so awesome for Rugby!!! Or Soccer which has been professional for a long time too and does not allow red cards to be replaced, but perhaps we should encourage talking back to and swearing at the referee, diving. They are microcosms of the society and history that made them and irrelevant as examples.
Ozee316
Guest
Red cards are supposed to be a deterrent. Are they the only way to deter thuggery and professional foul offenses? A player being banned for 6 months or 12months and fined upto $400,000 sounds much more effective than red carding them. two yellows can equal a red just like soccer. That is a good compromise. Players would then be replaced like in basketball before they foul out.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
"Why shouldn’t red carded players be replaced on the pitch?" Because the best disincentive against red card offences is leaving the team 1 man down. Effectively making it impossible to win the game.
pjm
Roar Rookie
I've found TV viewers are the real rugby fans, well at least those who used to be forwards. If I go watch a game at the ground I can't see what happens in the rucks, mauls, scrums, line outs and if I wanted to I spend 3/4 of my time looking up at the big screen and then have to forcibly tear myself away from it as I remind myself how much I spent on these tickets. Rugby games are now a placed to be seen or at least tell people at work that you went to one, not for those who are interested in the science of it all.