As a European, I love watching Super Rugby Pacific.
Not only does it contain the ever-present Aussie, Kiwi and Pacific Island flair and free-flowing style of rugby, I see rules that I wish were in the northern hemisphere game.
Most importantly, the 20-minute red card.
In the English Premiership, we have drama with the ‘comeback Quins’ but regularly (as you would definitely have heard before) games are spoilt by an early red card.
“The players have been tackling this way their whole lives. This has ruined the game for the team that have been reduced to 14, the fans and most importantly, me.”
This can also be seen in the southern hemisphere but without the incessant tutting and the second line about the ruined game.
This is what I love about the 20-minute red card. No, not that I don’t have to listen to Lawrence Dallaglio’s bad humour but that the game is not tarnished by an early high tackle.
(Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)
This red card could turn away potential fans who are seeing their first rugby game.
The 20-minute red card has been trialled in Super Rugby since COVID struck and the tournament went regional.
I think World Rugby saw it as a risk-free way of trialling a new law when it was Super Rugby AU and Aotearoa. The law continued into Super Rugby Trans-Tasman and now Pacific and I don’t think it has shown any flaws so far.
The 20-minute red card seems just logical in the current moment of time.
When the rules around head contact changed so dramatically and are as unclear as they still are, it looks perfect sense to have a rule that lessens the punishment players receive.
If you look at Europe, a red card that sends the player off for the whole game is extreme to me.
Let the players learn, how many years it takes, and then bring the normal red card ruling back. I would recommend Zakaia Cvitanovich’s article on The Roar in support of the 20-minute red card.
There are, of course, those who are opposed to the 20-minute red card.
They say the punishment is not strict enough, the players will not learn, and they need to, quickly.
Their view is that the players need to change their tackle height and habits rapidly and to do that, harsh ruling is needed.
It is the only way players will learn.
I disagree. The 20-minute red card still comes with a ban of a certain amount of games and that is how players will learn.
I think you get the best of both worlds. The players change their ways, and the spectacle is not tarnished.
The other rule that was brought in for Super Rugby Pacific was the golden-point law. I do not have as strong as an opinion on this as I have on the 20-minute red card, but I am still definitely an advocate for it.
(Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)
Surely it is a good way of attracting new fans? Also, I see no impact on the game as a whole.
It is a fun rule to decide draws, which no one wants in our high-scoring sport.
So, listen World Rugby, even though you definitely aren’t, give the European game the rules that work well Down Under.
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
I don't see how the scenario I suggested (RWC final) makes it my scenario emotional. Using an example is a good way to make a point; the more extreme the example all the better to make the point. In the 1990's it was almost impossible to get a red card. An extreme example is the Michael Brial/Frank Bunce incident in 1996. Even looking at more recent games e.g. 2006-2015 there were a lot of tackles that would be a definite yellow, possible card, if those games were played under todays' rules/interpretations. Yes, the laws of the game are the laws of the game. But the laws and interpretations change. The laws/interpretations change almost every year as coaches find new ways to get around the current ones. Relying on an 'it's the law' argument is good way of avoiding a discussion whether the law it fit for purpose. You seem to agree that there needs to be change to the yellow/red card system. I understand that the rules have changed to protect the players, which is a good thing. But the red card, for most of rugby's tenure, has been used to punish despicable acts e.g. punching, stomping the head, eye gouging, squirrel grab etc. These days you can get a red card for a mistimed tackle/ruck clean out. I agree that whatever the laws are they will be applied imperfectly. But that’s not a reason to not modify them.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Nigel Owens has spoken out very forcefully against the 20 min rule . He was a great ref but also a Welsh fan. The only reason Wales won the 6N last year was because of red cards against their opponents at key times . The only way Wales will ever win a World Cup is if when playing the likes of NZ , France , South Africa , they play 15 against 14 . No wonder Owens takes that position.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
That's not unfair, but the flip side is that if there isn't a clear change in outcome, how can you be sure that the card had an effect? The NH wants there to be an effect to show for the punishment and the evidence presented hasn't been strong.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
SBW's red card probably did swing the outcome of that game. It was 5 years ago. I haven't stated my position on either side, so I'm not sure why you're launching into the emotional hypothetical. But to answer it, the rules decide the game and if the rules dictate that a player is sent off and that decides the final, then I'm ok with that. The same as I would be ok with a try being disallowed because a player's boot touched the sideline. Your tiers make sense but they do invite the usual nonsense about referees getting the level wrong.
Joshua Makepeace
Roar Rookie
I was thinking of that game whilst writing the article
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
The SBW red card altered an entire, once in 12 year, series. Do we want a RWC final decided by a ‘technically correct’, but no malice, no actual/significant/obvious injury red card? I think the best solution is a combination of: Yellow card, Orange card (20 minutes, then replacement), Red card (remainder of the game, no replacement).
Tooly
Roar Rookie
If we did that we would be playing VFL in three years.
The Ferret
Roar Rookie
Any example I find you can say the exact same thing… “they were not going to win that anyway” is a cop out comment. What about Valentini vs wales on the spring tour? Oh hang on… wallabies picked a crap team and were not going to win that anyway. Fiji vs wales in the same November tours.. Fiji are a tier two team and we’re never going to win that either.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
Were England going to win that one? Seems unlikely. Ewels getting sent off didn't really change anything. Can you point to something that shows otherwise?
The Ferret
Roar Rookie
England v Ireland in the 6 nations is an example
Spew_81
Roar Rookie
Increase the judiciary sanction for a red card. If offenders got six weeks, not six weeks cut down to three weeks. Then that would make a big difference. If the same player was red carded again, in the same season, then sanction the player for a longer period of time. That way two red cards would remove a player from an entire Super Rugby season. I bet that would radically alter tackling styles. Would northern hemisphere club owners be willing to pay a million per season for a player that might miss a large amount of that season? You could also fine the player. If they’re on reduced wages, because they’re not playing due to suspension. Then they also get a decent fine e.g. $5,000. I bet that will change the way players tackle.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
The key point of this article can be summed up with the quote: "I disagree." The northern hemisphere, those that are going to make the decision, will not be swung to vote for the 20 minute card with the current arguments and this article offers nothing new. On the flip side the evidence for the claim that games are ruined by a red card and that the 20 minute card is sufficient punishment is waning. Teams are winning despite red cards. I can't even think of the last game where a red card influenced the outcome of the game.
The Ferret
Roar Rookie
Thanks for your point of view. I feel the same way about the 20 min red card. The payer is gone for the game and not coming back… the team is forced to use a sub to replace them leaving less options later in the game to use a sub if needed. ( I think there are too many subs anyway or we should limit the number a team can use I a game but that is a different issue) and the fan who at the end of the day is paying the wages of the players is not turned off. What’s not to like about it? I can see the other side where people say “what if they injured the player and he can’t return to the game” well, players get injured from other incidents too and we don’t have an issue with that. Getting the judiciary in order and consistent will be the true problem rugby needs to sort out.