I see red, I see red, I see red. That seems to be the motto of this World Cup and it has destroyed what could have been a great showpiece of the game they play in heaven.
There have been 24 yellow cards and seven red cards out of 34 matches played at the time of writing – that’s almost a card per game and more cards then any other World Cup tournament by quite a considerable margin. And there’s still another 12 games to be played!
When a yellow card is given, the opposition has a significant advantage for ten minutes, but when they are back to full strength it’s game on. However, when a red card is given, the game as a contest is basically over, unless of course we’re talking about Samoa who had no idea how to play with a one-man advantage for the majority of the match against Ireland.
But on most occasions, a red card makes it very difficult for any team to salvage a win.
I understand that player safety is paramount and should definitely be high on the priority list but some of these cards have been marginal at best. In previous years they barely even warranted a penalty, let alone a card, but those are the new laws of the game. And to the letter of the law, the refs have apparently been making the right call, as much as we the spectators disagree, and despite the fact it’s killing the game and the spectacle.
Rugby is a physical game, and collisions are inevitable. Part of the object of the game is to out-muscle your opponent. Accidents will happen and sometimes just can’t be avoided, especially when someone runs and ducks their head coming into the contact.
Common sense needs to prevail. Not all head contact needs to result in a yellow or red card – a penalty should suffice. Let the contest be just that – a contest – and not just a one-sided affair. The game is slowly becoming the laughing stock of the sporting world and viewers are losing interest.
Bundee Aki cops the umpteenth red card of this RWC. (Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images)
Let’s move on to the fiasco that is the cancelled games. Once again, I’m sure we all understand that the safety of the players and the public is important. But having no contingency plan during typhoon season is absolutely ridiculous.
Knowing that the weather was going to be bad, surely World Rugby could have made a plan to either move the games a day or two or move locations. This is a World Cup after all, and only happens every four years, and now Italy are kicked out of the competition without getting a fair shot. I would be absolutely livid if I was an Italian player or supporter.
What a way to bow out of the competition. Obviously they were long odds to beat the All Blacks, and the most likely scenario saw a NZ victory by at least 50 points, but to play and give your all and get well and truly beaten is still a much better scenario then being told to pack your bags early, going home without playing your fourth pool game.
Imagine the All Blacks lost to the Springboks in the first game and needed to win this game to qualify. What an uproar that would have been if the favourites didn’t get past the pool stages due to a forced draw. There’s no way they would cancel the game if that was the case. The powers that be would move heaven and earth to make sure that game got played.
This should not happen in a World Cup. Yes, there’s not much we can do about Mother Nature but we can certainly plan around it. Given the early forecast, there was ample time to move the games to a different location – especially if they had a contingency plan. Sure, it would have been annoying, and yes, it would be hard for the spectators and their travel plans but I’m sure they would much rather have the game played, even if it was terribly inconvenient.
In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, “if you fail to plan, you are planning to fail”. World Rugby has failed terribly this World Cup, not only with cards killing the spectacle but by having no contingency plan for weather-affected games.
The biggest fear now is that matches at the business end will be decided by rugby’s ridiculous laws rather than the rugby talent on show. One lapse in concentration and your team could be playing a man down for the majority of the game, basically deciding the outcome in the process.
Let’s hope we see 15 versus 15 for the remaining games of the competition. But that is wishful thinking.
The reality is more yellows and reds will be given, likely at crucial stages of the contest, and we are left to grit our teeth and hope it is not our team that suffers from these inept laws killing the game we love.
Ruckin oaf
Guest
all you seem capable of is taking issue with the person. Hmmm trying to emphasise the point ?
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Well I guess they could stand still. That would at least have the element of surprise going - nobody will expect that. OR they could drop / pass the ball and no longer be ball carriers. And thus they will have hands free to deal with the tackler as they see fit. However there will be times when the ball carrier will have very little choice but to tuck the ball close to the body and run forward.
RugbyLover
Roar Rookie
AFL is tough pm don’t you worry about that. The thing about AFL is that a good shepard is allowed, even encouraged, and the hits can come from any direction and at any time if you are within about 5 metres of the ball!! Not tackles but good old fashioned hip and shoulder bumps that send you flying 5 metres. Lots of concussion in AFL. Luckily for us Rugby players the hits usually only come from the front.
Chivas
Roar Rookie
You win. I’ll leave it with you
AndyS
Guest
No choice but to launch themselves into contact with a shoulder charge...?
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Ball carriers - as long as they want to be ball carriers don't really have too much choice though do they ?
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Rugby being more important than matters of life and death right ?
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
ball was instead in the Argentinean’s hands – I'd be amazed that he'd be down on one knee while carrying the ball. But the shoulder would still be an issue.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
all you seem capable of is taking issue with the person. What with all that time playing you've managed to pick up your masters degree in irony too. Well done.
Chivas
Roar Rookie
Yeah, because the problem would never be your lack of understanding, it must be something else. Having played the game for 30 odd years, I do recognise a person who understands the dynamics of tackling. You just don't happen to be one of them. Recognising someone that can't grasp the points I made is relatively easy, because instead of talking about the issue, all you seem capable of is taking issue with the person.
AndyS
Guest
At the moment, probably rucking. Whether you like it or hate it, that is how you apply an interpretation consistently. It would be a shambles if it was a penalty one game, and mountain-climb away the next. And even that would make more sense than the current approach to high contact, where "play on" if you are carrying the ball would be weeks on the sideline if you aren't. Look at those pictures again and imagine the ball was instead in the Argentinean's hands - what would be the penalty for English player doing that, do you think? Yet the contact and impact would be no different in either scenario...
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
But but but, it's all about the Australian fan and what they think. I mean it's not like we're watching a world cup or anything
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Ok, sorry I thought I was communicating with someone with actual knowledge of the situation. I'd be amazed that you could recognise such a person :stoked: Ever consider that the issue is at your end ;)
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
As a comparison perhaps you could point to the areas of the game, scrum / ruck / whatever - that are refereed with perfect consistency ?
michael duncan
Guest
Actually Graeme that tragic death came about as a result of a 'double tackle' - I have not seen any reports of a high tackle being involved. The deceased player had a 2nd cervical vertebra fracture. My guess is it was a result of axial impact - i.e head first into the ground - although I stress I am postulating. The player was also 18 and playing U21 age grade according to the Guardian. Yes high tackles need to be stamped out - maybe by reducing the height one can make contact at - but it is not a Panacea and will not eliminate all danger. In my honest opinion the officials should be able to rule on 'intent' in a high tackle - often there is no time to adjust - the fastest possible human reaction (in laboratory conditions) is in the order of a mere 0.2 seconds. I think we actually need a weight quota per 15 men on the field at senior level in the same way boxing has weight strata and NZ schools rugby does too. World rugby mean well but more radical changes than the current high tackle protocol are needed. Michael
AndyS
Guest
Many others don't, as those pictures show. At around the 34th minute of that same game one of the Argentinean wings put on an elbow fend similar Kerevi's but direct to the head/neck. Again replayed several times...so they could show everyone the knock-on. So much for either commitment to player protection (per my point) or consistency (per that of this article and many other posters).
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Kerevi might disagree.
Stuart Robson
Guest
The game is being ruined by a bunch of fat old men who have forgotten what it is like to play and instead get their kicks from enforcing rules in an absurd manner and now are blaming the coaches! Pure arrogance. I am one of several fans that I know who have turned off the TV in anger and frustration at some of the stupid cards we have seen. I also wonder how many will not pay for the broadcasting services next year. I am one.
Graeme
Roar Rookie
With regard to the high tackles you may want to refer to this informative article which may influence your view on this topic:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/07/nicolas-chauvin-french-club-rugby-player-death-stade-francais-espoirs-ffr
AndyS
Guest
And mine is that clearly you are wrong...so long as you are carrying the ball, WR seems pretty good with it.