Rugby must find consistency with its card system

on the side on tackle the player had every opportunity to wrap around his body and not head , from side on there is a large area to aim at i.e the body and very easy to avid the head, this is not the case for front on when the drop down or dive.

No matter how rough and ready it is the game will survive and thrive. There's always an appetite for a bit of blood sport. Just look at the wrestling and cage fighting and look at who makes up the baying crowd. Girls and boys. Mothers and men. All screaming for the dropped knee of body slam. Remember Fight Club! I love fight club. Remember the pride the fatty and meek had with their souvenirs wounds at work next day. ' insert smiley face here'

The bench players would probably sit there popping away like we all like to do I hope you realise. Alternatively they could play in Sumo suits like the Michelin Man. Wouldn't that be a spectacle!

Good posts usual PK. However I ask you to reconsider this statement. if he never dived he would still have collected him around the head, I am not sure it a tactical move from the AB's to tackle side on and I know the two tackles differed. But I think the tackles generally were aimed/attempted low-ish and if the runner remained high per standard then the tackle would have been good. In other words I think the head never was a target. If it was it would be disgusting in my eyes. I am with you all in that I agree the desired change to protect the players and that the process of change challenging. The pick and drive with nose near the ground especially going for a try one of the more difficult to resolve. The one thing that I must admit is that I would never want to be a ref and my sympathy for them has grown.

There is simply no need for a referral system IF the citing committee does its work correctly. It is a very big if.

As others have said before Ralph, very topical. The second Lions vs AB test will forever stick in my mind. I agree that SBW deserved the red as issued. But some time later Naholo was cleaned up with a viscous swinging arm in a ruck cleanup that was not even penalised despite being replayed and despite him being knocked out. It was accidental they said. And it very probably was. As I believe was the tackle second man in from Sonny Bill. But the test was ruined as a result and the ABs would very probably have won if the player was sent like SB. Sometimes the 14 lift and find a way to compete, but most often not as we saw in Perth.

Not sure about two refs on the field. I don't think it has provided any real improvement in Rugby League. The ref already has two assistants out there with him. They just need to work better with each other. Fully agree with what they are trying to do in regards to teaming up refs in a group/pod so they get use to each other. But this has to happen well before the WC starts.

HH, I'm not 100% sure with it, but I think the TMO's only get involved upon ref request. ie, if there's any doubt, especially in relation to points potentially getting added to the scoreboard, the refs ask the TMO with a specific request to 'check this or check that'.... I think the decision making is similar to rugby and advise on technical matters that the technology provides, but the TMO input is by request, and consensus is reached - not one official goes it alone, nor is there any 'over-ruling' between officials so to speak, nor TMO interventions direct to the ref stopping play - it's decision by collaboration, but I sense strongly that the refs on the ground might flex there muscles occasionally if they felt they needed to, and go with their instinct. But the big one is placing players on report for all the things that rugby probably gives a yellow card for. In other words, the equivalent of a rugby yellow card in league = an instant penalty is given, the matter is placed on report, and the offender stays on the field knowing they've got to front the judiciary mid-week, and they're normally pretty tough on those who go there. A red is only given for certain unacceptable offences. The point as well is that the more times players fronts the judiciary, the more demerit points they carry each time, so their penalty increasingly gets heavier and heavier. The bottom line, is that players don't want to land before the judiciary too many times or they'll find themselves unemployed. I think players contracts have a clause in there as well regarding stiff financial penalties if they are unavailable due to suspension. As I said, I do not speak with any authority on this, but generally, the system they use is effective and fair. Rugby could well wise up a fair bit by looking into it closely in my view. I know AFL have a citing capacity for foul play, so even if the refs miss something, post-match, players can get hauled before the judiciary a few days later for wrongdoing. Again, I think this option should be there, with the rugby TMO providing a match report direct to the higher authority to action any recommended citings etc, rather than telling the ref in the middle of the game to stop and go back and review something they've missed. (disclaimer - I'm happy to stand corrected on the above) Cheers Freddie

In general I'm with you regarding your comments. One thing I would add is that they need to find a way to take into account bad tackling technique that clearly contributes to the subsequent illegal contact; putting it all on the attacking player is clearly inequitable at times. The same could be said for attacking players who duck and swerve at the last moment going into contact with a defender - who then has no time to adjust. At the moment they seem to be just looking at the fact a high contact is made and ignoring everything that actually contributed to it when coming to a judgement. Then there's the issue of consistency from the panel - it seems to be 3 weeks for all [unless you are an English player in which case you get a free pass] regardless of any mitigating factors. That is laughable in itself never mind anything else.

addendum, there needs to be team penalty as well - a case like the weekend where the Aussies made four high shots that got penalised and at least one other that the ref didn't call should be seeing a tougher sanction than the two yellows that were awarded.

Nice one Ralph, very topical. I wonder if the yellow card isn't the correct instrument but that it needs to be employed in a slightly different manner. Save the red for the glaring heinous act but use the yellow for head contact except in cases where the mitigation is completely obvious (then drop it to penalty). So the vast majority of high's get a yellow but then have yellow cards stack. We have the circumstance now that two yellows in a game is an automatic red. Additionally penalise those players that are collecting head contact yellows on a frequent basis - so in a tournament like this the first high shot you put on is a yellow, the second even if it happens a few games later is a red, any subsequent are straight reds plus suspensions. Coaches will have to think very carefully about playing someone in a high pressure match that has given away one or two high tackles earlier in the tournament. I'm sure someone on here can take us through how the cards stack in Football - think there is an opportunity here and a lot of focus would shift to looking at substitutions and selections when players are under card pressure due to head highs.

Hi Fred, How do the tmo's in league work with the refs? Do the tmo's have adjudication rights and advise the ref of their decision after review of the incident while the play goes on with the ref accepting their decision without himself reviewing the incident on screen? If this is the case that would cut the down time. How many tmo's do they have in the bunker? If there are 4, and 2 go over review and ajudicate on incidences while the other 2 keeps an eye on live footage. This would work but it would need trust in the tmo team. The tmo team could also automatically review trys without being asked. This would cut down the time wasting and the tmo shows only the decisive view to the ref and the crowd. We need a way to cut down all this time wasting including stopping the clock on penalty and conversion kicks, scrums sets and lineouts. Clock stops when a penalty and scrum is awarded, try scored or ball goes out. Starts again at the kick, ball throw in and ball put into the scrum. Cheers.

Think you'll find that the yellows have dropped and the reds have skyrocketed.

Maybe training should be aimed at tackling at the nipple line. To provide a target height, rugby shirts could have a band around the nipple line.

I like both of those options TM.

Hi Neutral, yes there is too much going on for the one ref to oversee and what you propose makes sense. It works in other sports using 2 refs and I can't see why it will not work in Rugby. It all boils down to team work and allocation of duties and it needs to be given a fair go. But I also think there should be third card say orange to go between the yellow and the red with a more severe penalty than yellow with red cards being for the most extreme of infringements. In instances where the ball runners duck to avoid the tackle has been tackled from behind causing him to fall it is almost impossible in some cases for the tackler to adjust and avoid collision with the head. I :happy: :happy: n these type of cases an orange card would be appropriate. The scrum, lineout and offside at rucks needs better attention which the extra assistants and tmo's could help police. The not in straight lineout throws seems to be a lottery. Often the ref is not standing in a position to determine it. Why can't the linesman adjudicate that? Similarly, with 2 refs and tmo's looking at overheads the policing of the scrums should be better. The ref cannot watch the ruck and for the defender's being offside at the same time. To help with forward passes in play extra lines on the pitch would be helpful. My pet hate is the ball not being put into the scrum straight. Cheers.

gotta love bubble wrap :laughing: