Sending a player off always ruins a game of rugby

Can argue all we like but I do not see World Rugby reducing sanctions. Their approach in recent times is a very tough approach to foul play. And I find RL "on report" a bit of a joke. Player remains on the field and then gets a 3 week suspension. That is almost laughable. Elimination of foul play will not be achieved by a soft half hearted approach. I would think player welfare should always be placed above spectator interest. Changing player behaviour comes at a cost.

I share your sentiments Norris. Remember "That tackle" Bismarck Du Plessis on Dan Carter . Firstly the red came early in the game and there was no way for it to be a fair contest thereafter . Secondly it was pretty debatable if it was a legit red card. I guess Bambie got shot and someone had to pay .Anyway thousands at the game and millions yes millions around the globe were denied a decent game. Conversely sometimes strange things happen... During the first test last season Ireland against the Boks , CJ Stander was red carded for trying to decapitate Lambie. Ireland played for a long time with 14 men , cant remember the exact amount and still won the game. I remember after the card saying to my mates watching with me that the game was done and dusted , no way for Ireland to win. I was wrong. It was the stuff of legend.

best article this year..if there is a red card early you might as well turn off the tv..if you at the stadium, ,might as well go home..it's a no contest with the way most teams are now evenly matched..some players also seem to be milking cards to get numerical advantage..

There's another scenario when a ball-carrier, charges into a tackler with the ball and his arms raised and placed in front at chest height, to cushion the impact of the collision. The tackler approaches with a slight bend in his back and his shoulder lining up the impact point trying to ensure that the tackle avoids contact with the ball-carrier's shoulder/head region. Suddenly, raised arms and elbows of the ball-carrier, comes into direct contact with the lowered head, of the tackler. The tackler is concussed and for a few milli-seconds, appears to be in ga-ga land. Does this impact qualify as a head knock even though the concussed player is actually the tackler and not the ball-carrier?? Is it reckless because the carrier, while intending to cause a collision, mis-times his entry and makes contact, with the tackler's head?? Is it a similar scenario to your example of a ball-carrier dropping into the tackle but leads, with his arms and elbows raised?? If the WR wants to ban high tackles than surely, they must look at the ball-carrier's position immediately prior, to impact/collision with the tackler and of course, whether the carrier was intending to charge into a tackle or fall into the tackle, either accidentally or intentionally because the end result is, a player could/may be concussed as a result, of that collision. The exception is, the injured player is the tackler and not, the ball carrier.

I used to have the same view, it is up to the player to not offend. However YC's for high tackles when the ball carrier drops into the tackle, when a guy jumps on the shoulder of another from behind and the guy below gets a yc means milking yc's will become a more frequent occurrence and it will be very easy to get 2 soft yc's. Perhaps keep the red card the way it is , BUT 2 yc's no longer mean you get an automatic rc. I would be happy with that.

Nonsense to suggest this. Players are culpable for getting sent off. Sorry but you shouldn't be allowed to stay on the pitch if you get caught gouging, stomping, dropping a player on his head in a reckless tackle or abuse of an official (see Hartley) Then to compensate their actions by allowing a substitute but sorry this isn't the under 10s. The GAA brought in a black card for professional fouls where a player that commits one is sent off but replaced for the rest of the game. It still hasn't stopped cynical play and the stronger teams aren't bothered as they have the depth on the bench to replace that player. You can win Rugby games while down to 14 men. Two of the best team wins I saw last year were by Ireland at Newlands after being down to 14 men after 20 minutes (13 at one stage after Henshaw was yellow carded) and Racing 92 against Toulon in the Top 14 Final in Barcelona. Machenaud was sent off for a reckless tackle beyond the horizontal on Giteau and Juan Imhoff stepped in to play scrum half for the bulk of the match. Imhoff was fantastic.

Here's something to think about - the player who was on the receiving end of the illegal action (which it must be to require a card issue), may have suffered an injury in that action that removes him, from the rest of the game. What if the injured player just happens to be one of the best , if not, the best player, in the side. The argument is that a player who commits an illegal act is either entitled to return to the match or have a replacement enter the match while the side that lost their player as a consequence of an illegal act, can only have a replacement enter the match because, their best player is injured and, won't be returning. I think it is fool-hardy to consider a game requires equal representation between the opposing sides, when one player commits an illegal act, to cause injury to an opponent......for the sake of maintaining a contest and then penalise the offending side, after the match. I don't know whether to admire the intent of trying to maintain an equal contest or not but, what is equal, if the side that suffers from the illegal act, also suffers by losing the match, as a result of that act. And, what is justice if the player that suffered from an illegal act, is not able to play, for the rest of the season. Will the offending player get stood down, for the rest of the season even though the act in itself, was reckless rather than malicious?? The rules differentiate between these instances and that's why there are yellow and red cards and various durations of penalties, for a stand-down period, that are available to the adjudicating panel. As Tana Umaga said after the Luatua incident - It's up to the players to improve their timing and technique because they know what to expect, if they cross that line. There are no excuses and we just have to get better, in these facets of the game.

Like this - it pretty much runs with what I have been advocating except I say that the red should just be 10 before replacement. The chap is going to the judiciary now and will be dealt with there - so there is no reason for the team penalty to outweigh what they would receive with a yellow. My big objection to cards is the way some teams view them as part of the game and play for them and call for them - as anyone who has watched Brit rugby will know. Its bad enough that they affect the game the way they do but to then be cynically manipulated just rips my shorts.

Fair enough mate - I do understand your point (although to be honest a lot of those blokes never used their brains much anyway) - I just think there has to be a better way. Hope my lines above did not read too badly - I try to use a robust humour but sometimes people take it personally. I am now going to lose all credibility from the front rowers club and say that if its body aches and pains you are suffering from try a bit of yoga. I took it up 6 months ago and while I am still about as flexible as a rock I am moving far more freely than I have in years. As with all disciplines there seem to be good and bad outfits but the one I have stumbled on is really making a difference. Carry on.

Considering how low the yc threshold is and then how easy to get 2 yc's red card consequences should be reviewed. IMO a red card should be 20 mins in the bin AND the offending player is not allowed back but a player from the bench. So the offender is red carded in effect but not the team.

I agree it always ruins a game. I would prefer if a player got 10-20mins for a red card rather than the full game. After the match, however, they should face long bans of however many weeks is deemed appropriate. This way the team is punished, as is the team who the player plays for. On the other hand though it doesn't totally spoil the game for the fans. The opposing team gets a benefit in the player getting sent off for 10-20 mins, and in modern rugby that is often more than long enough. I think that the only time, perhaps, a player should be sent off permanently is when it is indisputable that the player who fouled knowingly broke the rules with the intention to seriously hurt or maim the opposing player. Luatua broke the rules but I don't think he passed the above threshold as I think it was more down to negligence and incompetence as opposed to intention to harm. The bigger issue is the pathetically low threshold for yellow cards these days. The Hunt yellow card was bad enough, but the ones given to Dargaville and Fekitoa were even worse. Nowadays even if you are trying to catch the ball, if you're unable to jump as high as the other player you'll get a yellow card. It's an absolute joke and a shambles as a yellow card is often enough to decide a game.

I have to agree with RedandBlack. The red card is a blight on the game and robs everyone of the contest we were expecting. Creating an uneven contest by sending offending players off may have been OK in the amateur days of rugby but more than 20 years into professional rugby we should be able to come up with something better. My solution would be that red carded players can be replaced. I know people claim that would lead to more red card type incidents because players would not fear the consequences of their actions on their team. The answer to that is to hit the sent off players much harder with suspensions and fines. Super Rugby has increasingly embraced a more American sports philosophy with the use of conferences etc. Many American sports replace players who have been sent off (baseball, basketball, ice hockey). The players are punished, their teams lose the service of said player, yet the public is not denied a true contest. A low scoring sport like soccer is rarely ruined by a sending off. Simply the team tactics are adjusted and in most cases the game remains competitive. There is a lot of negative comment around about the structure of Super Rugby. This measure would lessen the frustration of seeing a much anticipated game go down the gurgler because of the foolish actions of one man - usually a player but sometimes the referee.

Stand firm R&B for who am I, to try and teach an old dog new tricks. Sometimes this old dog, struggles with them also. However, if I may say one more thing - yes, it sounds as though we are survivors and I was a HB, to be precise. But mate, there are a lot of our age players, who are suffering today and I don't need to go into any details, suffice to suggest that you know, what I'm talking about. So in your words - I am happy that those "brain boxes behind the scenes" are exercising their responsibilities to not only ensure the game remains relevant but also, to prevent those wunderkind of today, from suffering what our mates of yesterday, are now suffering. So you stand firm R&B and pursue your argument. As for me, well I'll just rely on the brain boxes behind the scenes.

Played for over 30 years those days myself OB - and we both survived so obviously not a complete blood bath then. You sound very much like a back (no offense but those delicate flowers never did see the beauty of rising through the muck and grime and ploughing on). Quite frankly a few of todays wunderkind could do with a few sprig marks to concentrate their minds. However there is no law that says we have to agree but I stand firm in my view that red cards in particular reduce the game to a travesty. If there is no effective contest then what is the point of the game? You may as well say - well you're a sinner - game is forfeit - we'll wrap it up there boys. The brain boxes behind the scenes have a responsibility to their public to ensure the entire game remains relevant - and maybe think outside the square a little.

Nah, I dont agree R&B. You are correct that our sport is a contest but, the contest is governed by a set of rules. And, when players enter that contest and fail to follow those rules, then you don't have a contest at all. What you have is a free-for-all with the only outcome being, injuries suffered by the participants. Sport in general and rugby in particular, has moved on from those free-for-all contests and being a former player that came through the game, where there were no replacements allowed, the opportunity to injure an opponent to gain a numerical advantage, was top of the hit parade ('scuse the pun), on the rugby field. Nah, in those days, games weren't contests.....they were blood-baths that included coat-hanger tackles, late tackles, stomping instead of rucking, hay-maker punches, head-high tackles and that's just a few examples, that I can remember. Kane is right - the problem is not the yellow or red card......it is the player, who is shown the card. And we all know why......without the need, to ask??

Thats a blinkered response. Its actually the fans problem as you have suddenly paid for a non event. And the Unions problem as people don't like being ripped off like that. Its a contest - keep it that way.

It's not the referee's problem what impact yellow/red cards have on the game. It is the person who committed the fouls problem.