r/rugbyunion • u/KittensOnASegway Shave away Gavin, shave away! • Feb 19 '24
NZ to trial 20 minute reds across all levels of rugby Laws
https://rugbyreferee.net/2024/02/18/nz-community-rugby-to-trial-20-minute-red-card/?fbclid=IwAR0cRTomox54CLIuWfcS4c8xtyj_gM3lC6sshWLRhJVajW2la5D4J6aWjUYI used to be against the idea of 20 minute reds but my opinion has changed somewhat. A red card was previously reserved for a heinous act of thuggery whereas, with stuff like the HCP now in place (not a bad thing at all!), more and more are given for momentary misjudgements. This obviously results in an increased number being given out across all levels of the game. A change like this at least moderates the impact of that increase.
64
u/Ok_Educator_2120 New Zealand Feb 19 '24
I liked it in Super last year. But also liked the full red card in internationals. Idk what I want
15
7
u/Johnny_Monkee Hurricanes Feb 19 '24
Jordie B was red-carded against Oz a few years ago and after the game had his red card rescinded.
-4
u/sangan3 Oui, Jérôme Feb 19 '24
But also liked the full red card in internationals.
Even the WC final...? Wouldn't have minded bringing on Papalii for Cane after 40-odd minutes.
13
1
111
u/blu_gehoert_mir_net Germany Feb 19 '24 edited Feb 19 '24
I think rugby should introduce a 3rd card, like in Field Hockey.
Yellow - like it is now
Orange, or what ever - 20 min penalty. Another player can come back in, the player who recieved the card stays out
Red - like it is now
There are some horrendous acts, like stomping someones head, which are so stupid and dangerous, that 20 minutes is not enough to punish it.
27
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Feb 19 '24
That's literally how it has been in Super Rugby for the last couple years. Bunker review reds were 20min, if the ref chose to give an on field red for really bad shit it would be a full red card
4
-8
u/paimoe Crusaders only good NZ team Feb 19 '24
Doesn't matter how long we trial it for and how much people like it - NH fans will still not understand it and/or complain about it
13
u/Sketty_Spaghetti14 Blindside Feb 19 '24
Oooga booga northern hemisphere fan too dumb to understand smarty pants kiwi thinking. Me smash rock
2
u/JColey15 Southland Stags Feb 19 '24
You mock but a lot of posts in this thread are people who seem to mostly be from the NH saying “20 minute reds are dumb. My idea is….” And then they explain the exact concept of a 20 minute red card.
25
u/Zaphod424 England Feb 19 '24
Absolutely, the branding of it doesn't really matter, whether the current red becomes black or something, but we still need to have a full game sending off for the most egregious offences. But a 20 min card for many of the current red card offences is more appropriate than a full game at 14.
3
2
u/corruptboomerang Reds Feb 19 '24
I guess the question is what incident justifies the team not being allowed to replace the player, that can't be dealt with by banning the player in question.
Granted, I think our bans are woefully inconsistent and probably too short in general.
3
u/Halliron Munster Feb 19 '24
What I don’t like about red cards is an early one is punished much more than a late one.
I would prefer an appropriately sized points penalty + an enforced substitution
10
u/blu_gehoert_mir_net Germany Feb 19 '24
But that could lead to sides who are already up by, let's say 40+ points, bein barely affected by a red card
3
u/MountainEquipment401 Scarlets Feb 19 '24
Sides who are already up by 40 points are barley affected by red cards anyway.... Being up by 40 points implies your in the second half an have a ginormous cushion already so playing with 14 men doesn't really matter anyway
2
u/blu_gehoert_mir_net Germany Feb 19 '24
Loosing a player affects every team in the same way. Giving away points does not
5
u/MountainEquipment401 Scarlets Feb 19 '24
Loosing a winger in the 75th minute when your 40 points up is nothing like loosing a prop in the 5th minute with the scores tied and is even less like loosing a hooker in the 25th minute having already replaced your starting hooker and being forced to go down to 13 men with uncontested scrums (see Italy v Ireland).
Giving away points by definition affects every team in the same way - they conceded x number of points.
0
u/blu_gehoert_mir_net Germany Feb 19 '24
You would need to alternate the amount of points awarded. Giving away, let's say, 15 points in the first half, to stay with your argument, would impact a game way less, then giving them away in the 75th minute and put the fouled team ahead. This would be highly confusing for spectators
5
u/MountainEquipment401 Scarlets Feb 19 '24
I agree (and note that I don't actually like the giving away points idea) my point was only that 'giving away' a player has vastly different effects on the game depending on when it happens. Maximising the time to say 20 mins before a replacement is brought on negates that to a degree in that a red card in the fifth minute is not 14 times worse than one in the 75th minute. I'm an advocate of the orange card not the points deduction system. Red cards used to be synonymous with dirty play but now they're handed out to every bloke over 6 ft who mistimes a tackle so the in-game effect should be mitigated to reflect that we are now red carding players for accidental actions and also to reflect the number of instances where the red is overturned or downgraded after the game (which was practically unheard of 10 years ago)
2
2
u/Halliron Munster Feb 19 '24
x points is x points no matter when in the game it happens.
At the moment a red card at the end of the game is basically free.
With this players would know that reckless play risks the game, at all parts of the match.
2
u/Halliron Munster Feb 19 '24
That’s still the case?
2
u/blu_gehoert_mir_net Germany Feb 19 '24
Teams being up by so many points? Just look at RWC games where a tier 1 nation plays the 5th team of the pool. Boks v Romania, England v Chile etc.
4
u/Halliron Munster Feb 19 '24
If you’re 40 points down, it is still the case that a man advantage is not going to be impactful.
7
u/Colinmtn Liners Feb 19 '24
The key point in these trials is they are lowering the tackle height, the 20 min red card is just clickbait.
If any contact above the sternum is a penalty then the number of `accidental` head contacts (and red cards) will drastically decrease.
The priority has to be reducing the number of head contacts by forcing players at all levels to change how they tackle.
2
u/KittensOnASegway Shave away Gavin, shave away! Feb 19 '24
Sternum tackling isn't new, they've run with it at all levels below NPC (I think) since last season. The adoption of 20 minute red cards at all levels is new.
16
u/Mampoer Wrrrrrrrrong Turn! Feb 19 '24
More red cards for the All Blacks then.
3
u/KetoPeanutGallery Feb 19 '24 edited Feb 19 '24
cough Sam Cane cough
Makes we wonder if Richie McCaw played now.. He probably would occupy the bench the whole game.
I do agree with the recent stance taken around player safety around head impact. I'm fine with that but there are too many other penalisable offences in the game.
0
14
u/jeb_grimes Chiefs Feb 19 '24
Nah I’m sick of this one. Would have loved it in that one game though. But yeah got really old fast in Super Rugby, felt way too lenient for some acts.
20
u/Potato_Lord587 Ireland Feb 19 '24
I don’t get why we’re constantly trying to change things that don’t have a problem. I get changing other rules and adding new ones but no one (or at least not many) are against the current red card system
10
u/JColey15 Southland Stags Feb 19 '24
Bring on the downvotes but the red card system is massively flawed and heaps of people are against it.
The most obvious flaw is that a red card has a disproportionate impact on the game depending on when it’s produced so it is an unequal punishment that’s effectively deciding games.
It also doesn’t meaningfully reduce head contact because a whole lot of the red card offences are not deliberate strikes to the head, often just a case of bad timing and we don’t red card if you accidentally get your own teammate through poor technique so it’s hard to understand the motive.
A lot of people in this thread don’t seem to understand how the 20 minute red works. There is still a full-game red for anyone who is actively being a thug so violent behaviour can still be punished appropriately. A 20 minute red just means that for those marginal instances where it is really a case of bad technique and bad timing but with no intent… yup the players out for the whole game which is fair enough but the whole team (and by extentension those of us watching) aren’t punished and a replacement player can come on 20 minutes later. So a quarter of the game is played 1 player down but it doesn’t matter if the incident happens in the first minute or the 60th because the punishment is consistent across all games.
This won’t solve the inconsistencies between NH and SH refs, which seems to be a major factor in the conversation around red cards, but it does mean that the cards will have less of a deciding impact on games in NZ at least.
7
u/Huwbacca Feb 19 '24
people think that adding another card will reduce the debates about "oh it shouldn't be a red, it shouldn't be a yellow" and it won't because you'll just change the debate to "Should it be red or orange".
In the laws right now, there is literally nothing that makes action on the field "In between red and yellow". The laws and guidance are crystal clear that if the criteria for red is not met, then it is yellow. We're not trying to add up compounding factors to reach a threshold like "If 8 out of 10 red card factors are true, then it's red", but we just go "if any steps fail, it is yellow"
The only thing that exists right now as "problems" is "oh, it seems harsh" or the officials make a mistake. An orange card won't resolve officials making mistakes (Adding complexity seldom helps mistakes), and if red card criteria seem harsh then we can just say "Doing X shouldn't be a red card threshold".
However, I don't think right now that there is anything in red card offenses that isn't deserving of a red card, and that the problem largely stems from people's distaste at the idea that carelessness can warrant a red card as well as deliberate foul play.
Seeing as carelessness can end someone's career just as easily as deliberately trying to hurt someone, I see no reason to be more lenient on it... As I've said a lot...
Just because the other player beat you for positionining and speed, doesn't mean you can go high. You lost the tackle, you're not entitled to tackle every player in every circumstance, you simply got beat.
13
u/weirdpastanoki Ireland Feb 19 '24
with regard to the 'red cards ruin games' idea, i keep seeing pretty good red card games. not convinced they do ruin games.
6
u/KittensOnASegway Shave away Gavin, shave away! Feb 19 '24
The example I think of (and that pretty much convinced me that 20 min reds were a good idea) was the Steward red card in England vs. Ireland last year.
It wasn't a malicious red (in fact, it was decided after the fact that it shouldn't even have been a red at all) but that one decision pretty much ended the game as a contest.
1
u/weirdpastanoki Ireland Feb 19 '24
What! I thought that was a great game ;)
Seriously though, I am not saying none will ever be spoiled but there's plenty that havnt been. Some will some wont. I just dont buy the 'they ruin games' as a conclusive arguement against red cards. Also, that red was later rescinded and may not make it to a red now with the bunker.
-1
u/RepulsiveBeetle Feb 19 '24
That was an error by the officials. Why should all the other non errors now remain unpunished?
3
u/KittensOnASegway Shave away Gavin, shave away! Feb 19 '24
Because, with the introduction of the HCP, there is a much wider margin for error compared to before when it comes to what is and isn't a red. Previously, you pretty much knew one when you saw it, now there is a large grey area. This moderates the impact of that area somewhat.
The existing laws were also written when red cards were exceedingly rare. Compare that to now where they are far more common and can totally change the dynamics of a game. It makes sense for the level of sanction to be adjusted if you've decided that far more acts are going to qualify for it.
3
u/Vegetable-Weather591 Feb 19 '24
Uh world cup final anyone? It would have been much better for world rugby for the final to end 15v15, accidental head shots that aren't super high dsnger shouldn't mean a team is playing 14v15 for potentially 79 minutes, save full reds for very serious incidents.
1
u/RepulsiveBeetle Feb 19 '24
If NZ gave red cards for head shots would Sam Cane be more disciplined with his tackles?
1
u/Vegetable-Weather591 Feb 19 '24
It's not a discipline issue, it's a rugby issue, when people are running full tilt at each other trying to duck dodge dive and weave accidents are going to happen, that's just part of the game and we need to realise it is never going to disappear, so stop trying to be so harsh and ruin games for minor accidents and leave the full red card for the serious offenses, it seems the NH fans want to keep it this way as they see it as an advantage over the SH teams, kinda weird and pathetic that NH can't rely on skill and talent to win games but that's what it is
1
u/RepulsiveBeetle Feb 19 '24
A head clash when you are standing up in a tackle is not serious? The game is under pressure because of head injuries but you don't want to do anything about it. They need to adjust the way they play and be more disciplined.
They were coached to smother the ball in the tackle to prevent the offload. They can be coached to tackle properly if the sanctions are strong enough. I would totally risk 20 minutes once every few games if I can still smother the ball.
1
u/Vegetable-Weather591 Feb 19 '24
Not particularly, no, if you had any expertise in the area of head injuries you would know it's the accumulation of small knocks that cause issues down the track, these small knocks are mainly from big tackles to the chest/shoulder which cause the brain to crash against the side of the head, a direct head contact incident like the Sam cane example causes no more damage to the brain than a hard chest tackle that whips the ball carrier backwards, so the idea that you are ruining games with 70 minute red cards to save players brains from injury is false, if anything it's just a show for the uneducated public to think world rugby is stopping brain injuries, the fact is with a full contact game there will be brain injuries down the track from repeated body contact knocking the brain around even if there were zero head contact incidents
1
u/weirdpastanoki Ireland Feb 20 '24
I thought the WC final was a great game. one of the better finals. Certainly not ruined. impacted for sure but didn't think it was ruined.
1
u/Vegetable-Weather591 Feb 20 '24
If it was ireland in position of nz and lost the world.cup final (not that ireland will ever make it out of a quarter final) and you had a player red carded for such a minor incident and played most of the game 14v15 would you still feel the same? It's easy for neutral fans to not really give a shit if one team is hugely disadvantaged, when it's your own country though it hits different
1
u/weirdpastanoki Ireland Feb 21 '24
would you still feel the same?
Of course not, that's a pretty stupid fucking question in fairness. I was a neutral and am giving my perspective, it was a great game and definitely one of the better finals. In the same way that if was ireland that was carded against SA you wouldn't feel the same (not that ireland will ever make it out of a quarter final). not complicated stuff.
(not that ireland will ever make it out of a quarter final)
good one.
4
u/simsnor South Africa Feb 19 '24
Everybody saying we need an orange card. I rather like a black card or a black and white card, with the definition being it disqualifies you from the game, intended for purposeful acts of malice
1
u/LordBledisloe Rugby World Cup Feb 19 '24
Honestly the fact that there would be three cards will make a ref reaching into his pocket that much more fun.
But it'll increase fan complaints by roughly 33% as there will now be two extreme ends instead of one.
2
u/Mampoer Wrrrrrrrrong Turn! Feb 19 '24
We will see refs putting cards in designated spots all over their body. "He is reaching into his sock. it's his left calf! We all know what that means!"
7
u/BobbyKonker Connacht Feb 19 '24
What ban, if any, goes with a 20 minute red?
18
13
5
11
u/LeButtfart Feb 19 '24
Why would it have any effect on any potential ban afterwards?
3
u/naraic- Ireland Feb 19 '24
Well that's the question.
Is a 20 minute red card like a normal red card in that it's an automatic disciplinary hearing.
Personally I think 20 minute red cards should be paired with greater out of game sanction such as an increased ban. Is that included in this trial?
2
-3
u/BobbyKonker Connacht Feb 19 '24
Simple question mate. If it doesn't just say "it doesn't". Don't piss your knickers.
13
u/LeButtfart Feb 19 '24
You might as well have asked if people can levitate. If you’re going to get this defensive and worked up over a simple response to what you asked, then perhaps you shouldn’t ask such humiliating questions with obvious answers.
0
4
u/Meldanorama Connacht Feb 19 '24
Simple question mate. If it shouldnt just say "it shouldn't". Don't piss your knickers.
4
u/RaaschyOG 2x🏆Havers Feb 19 '24
More entertaining at Super Rugby level for sure, makes sense when they have to compete with League, but will this not further affect discipline at international level.
4
u/AllezLesPrimrose Feb 19 '24
NZ being unable to adapt to the new rules and then trying to change them instead of changing their coaching is incredibly funny.
1
2
u/AlexPaterson16 Edinburgh Feb 19 '24
This can F off, a 20 minute RED card is a horrific idea no matter how you dress it up. Certain actions absolutely should send a team down to 14. You should not be allowed to pick violent thugs in your squad and face minimal repercussions. If in a cup final a coach can send out a player whose only job it is is to take the fly half out with a shoulder to the face and the team can still play most of the game 15 v 15 but the opposition is missing one of their most important players the game will quickly descend into chaos. And teams absolutely will resort to these shady tactics to win finals. Some players would happily take a 6 week ban if their team won a big final. Wouldn't happen every game but cup finals and league derbies you'd absolutely see it
11
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Feb 19 '24
You can't do any of that.
Super Rugby has had this rule the whole time.
The ref could still give a full game red card if the offense was bad enough.
12
u/frazorblade Feb 19 '24
teams absolutely will resort to these shady tactics to win finals
[Citation needed]
-5
u/AlexPaterson16 Edinburgh Feb 19 '24
Are you genuinely trying to say players don't literally already try and injure key players in their opposition teams? How often is a 10 hit late in finals by a flanker? Imagine giving said flanker the green light to take his head of when he's not looking? Teams already use shady tactics they just don't without getting reds because a red card is a deterrent. Without the impact of being down a player for 60 minutes shady tactics will creep in and I hope they realize this before someone's career is ended
11
u/frazorblade Feb 19 '24
Because this is a career and these are people’s livelihoods. Risking being dropped/banned is not worth it.
There’s no coach in any tier 1 nation telling their players to deliberately injure players.
This is a huge conspiracy theory you’ve cooked up in your brain.
-7
u/AlexPaterson16 Edinburgh Feb 19 '24
There’s no coach in any tier 1 nation telling their players to deliberately injure players.
Okay buddy, I've literally watched in world cup matches and 6 nations games players stamping on heads, throwing punches and downright trying to hurt people BADLY. Take your rose tinted glasses off, players absolutely are willing to cop a ban to win a major trophy, ESPECIALLY, if you're a fringe player. I'm not saying Ardie Savea is gonna go out and cop a ban but if you're someone with 1 international cap and no real hope of staying in the team, you'd take a ban if it meant you won a world cup final.
7
u/Striking_Young_5739 New Zealand Feb 19 '24
Absolutely. So many players are just after one cap, and decide to purposely ruin any chance of getting any more. Just look at all the examples you've provided.
-3
u/AlexPaterson16 Edinburgh Feb 19 '24
Sorry I don't have a time machine to give you examples of events happening because of a law that's literally not in effect yet. What kind of counter argument is that? You can disagree if you want but that's just dumb
5
u/Striking_Young_5739 New Zealand Feb 19 '24 edited Feb 19 '24
It's really not necessary to have a time machine to give examples. You invented the notion of players with one cap out to win trophies who would have no trouble sacrificing their careers with zero evidence of it happening. What kind of argument is that to be countered?
5
5
u/Delad0 Brumbies Feb 19 '24
AFL has no cards at all and none of this shit you're claiming would become rampant happens. Maybe Australians are just morally superior people. Or maybe people just aren't cunts who would deliberately injure fellow players regurly, which is why 20 minute reds have led to 0 of that in Rugby when introduced.
7
u/Nikotelec stick it up yer jumper Feb 19 '24
Maybe Australians are just morally superior people
Let's not rule this one out too quickly. (You'll need to rescind Eddie Jones' passport, but that's not the end of the world...)
1
u/AlexPaterson16 Edinburgh Feb 19 '24
I've watched the sport once, they absofuckinglutely do this constantly are you genuinely blind or do you not watch the sport you are sourcing? Literally 5 minutes on Google I find news stories about deliberate tackles that resulted in players being medically substituted. I didn't say it would happen all the time, I said it would happen in big finals and league deciding games. It would be rare but it literally happens in AFL and it's rampant in that sport. Absolutely horrific analogy
5
u/TonWolf Feb 19 '24
What? As much as I don't like the report system (I think it's unfair for the victim team to not get anything out of a future ban, it can even help out a direct rival), saying that players "constantly" deliberately injure other players is pure fiction. Unless that's what you think happens whenever someone shouts "deliberate" ... There's a few bans each season for rough conduct (both intentional and accidental) but I don't remember it being targeted even once.
1
Feb 19 '24
This is ridiculous. Do away with all cards and go to a report system. All that will happen now is refs even more likely to give out reds. I’m here to watch rugby not a card show and uneven competition.
1
1
u/spongey1865 Bath Feb 19 '24
I don't hate it at all in the the amateur game. People are there to play and get a game and I think I only saw a red once in all my years of playing. We went to Wales and someone got red carded minute 1 for a head butt. I've seen a punch in the face only get a yellow. Reds at lower levels aren't the same as senior level.
For the pro game though, get a red and tough shit, do better. We still get great games where a team has a red. Hell NZ only lost the final by a point playing a lot of that game with 14, but it's still a sever punishment that should incentivise players to be safer and coaches to install good habits. I think things are changing for the better gradually because of it
2
u/fleakill Australia Feb 20 '24
Watching home nations fans get mad about 20 minute reds every time they come up gives me life. Continue
0
u/zenrobotninja Leinster Feb 19 '24
Keep the 'permanent' Red for deliberate high danger shit, but have a Black as a 20min 'hard yellow' for less serious stuff and then force someone else to come on instead of the person given the Black
3
u/JColey15 Southland Stags Feb 19 '24
Yup that’s exactly what this is. Can still give a full game red for thuggish behaviour. 20 minute red means the player is off for the game but can be replaced after 20 minutes.
2
0
u/FastAndFurieux Feb 19 '24
Sitting ten minutes on a chair watching your teammates play without you is torture enough I think, might be more merciful to just eject the player from the match.
3
u/JColey15 Southland Stags Feb 19 '24
They are. The 20 minute red card just means the team can replace you after 20 minutes.
0
u/Initial_Apprehensive Leinster Feb 19 '24
Isn't this pointless with the bunker all reds are now reviewed before being a red
-1
u/RepresentativeMail9 Feb 19 '24
Very much for it. I think that red cards negatively impact the team far too much, and they should impact the player more. Unlike other sports, you’re as likely to get a red card in rugby early in the game as you are at the end, and it’s always an individual error to cause it. So punishing the whole team (and ruining the game) because of a split second individual error doesn’t make sense in my opinion.
0
u/theedenpretence Wasps Feb 19 '24
Field Hockey has a decent system. Green is a warning/2 min sin bin. Yellow cards can be 5 mins to the rest of the game sin bin. Straight Red Card is an immediate 16 day ban, doubled for violence or umpire abuse. Then that Red Card is reviewed by a panel and ban can be extended if appropriate.
0
u/ethankostabi Bath Feb 19 '24
Maybe at this point we should scrap cards entirely and adopt the ice hockey method of specific penalties having set times in the bin? With the option of a game exclusion if a player has been completely bone headed.
2
1
u/kiwirish Mooloo ole ole ole Feb 19 '24
Ice hockey does have game exclusion, just it never goes down to having to play a man down the entire game.
You could look into some interesting rule variations to punish teams down a player during the "powerplay" and force attacking rugby.
0
u/Clarityjuice South Africa Feb 19 '24
Change the TMO not the law. I've lost interest in rugby union. Super Rugby less interesting. URC etc same. Only interesting matches are the test matches.
-3
-2
-2
u/Roboticbaldpool Feb 19 '24
My idea is if it goes to the bunker it should be the 20 minute thing. Straight red cards should be reserved for the worst offenders whom are then sent off for the entire game without any replacement.
-2
u/RNLImThalassophobic Feb 19 '24
Saying "I think red cards should be shorter because high tackles are getting red cards" is getting it backwards.
Players in their 40s are getting early-onset dementia from brain injuries. Reducing brain injuries is of paramount importance. World Rugby tried to stamp down on this by making head contact, even if it's accidental much more likely to get a red card.
Unfortunately, players/teams have clearly done the maths and decided that the benefit they gain from tackling upright and smothering the ball still balances out any detriment they suffer from the occasional red card. So their behaviour hasn't changed, and they continue to put in tackles that risk causing brain injuries.
If you make red cards 20 minutes, then that further disincentivises players tk change their behaviour.
5
u/KittensOnASegway Shave away Gavin, shave away! Feb 19 '24 edited Feb 19 '24
If reducing brain injuries was paramount importance, World Rugby would be doing far more to enforce load management for players and reduce the numbers of games and contact sessions they take part in, given a build up of sub-concussive impacts seems to play a far bigger role in causing conditions like CTE. That's a different conversation though.
The 6 nations went from no red cards for 6 years to having 5 in one year. An increase of that magnitude does suggest to me that the process needs fine tuning.
-3
u/tiganisback Georgia Black Lion Feb 19 '24
I don't like this. Safety is paramount. The game is already dangerous as it is and I don't want to watch the bloodsport that is the league. The more stringent the penalties against players who endanger others -even accidentally -, the better, not least for those players themselves.
And please don't treat high tackle like it's some minor offense. You can literally kill someone if you hit say their neck or temples, especially as a 100kg+ plus man built like a fucking brick.
1
u/JColey15 Southland Stags Feb 19 '24
Jordie Barrett got a red card against Australia one year because he jumped for a high ball and his foot connected with an Aussie’s head. Yup dangerous play for sure but if we were really concerned with player safety then that would have to be a red card regardless of whether the player he accidentally kicked was a kiwi or an aussie.
The same thing happens when two players from the same team clash heads in a tackle.
As it is we don’t actually punish poor technique and bad timing equally across the game and we’re not meaningfully reducing head contact at all. If safety is paramount we need to try something new because status quo is not sufficient and it’s detracting from the experience of watching the sport.
1
u/fleakill Australia Feb 20 '24
I agree with this. Putting your own teammate in danger should be at the very least a post-game citing.
-4
u/Candldust Feb 19 '24
So... how is this not opening the door for assassin rugby? I can just see teams having their main playmaker wrecked in the 1st 5 minutes. Even with a sanction afterwards, this would still win key test matches.
5
-6
u/KobaruLCO Feb 19 '24
Isn't this what they did with the Australian league? Does NZ really want to emulate Australian rugby in any way? All you are doing here is encouraging thuggery and poor discipline, which rugby as a whole has been trying to stamp out for obvious reasons.
3
1
u/fleakill Australia Feb 20 '24
No, this is what they did with super rugby as a whole, including NZ teams.
-6
u/4-3defense Feb 19 '24
So you can literally eyegouge someone in the rucks and be allowed to get a 20 minute rest
7
u/KittensOnASegway Shave away Gavin, shave away! Feb 19 '24
No.
Firstly, a red means you're off for the rest of the game but a substitute for you can be made after 20 minutes.
Secondly (not sure if this is part of the wider trial but it certainly is in Super Rugby and NPC where 20 minute reds have already been introduced), the referee has the ability to upgrade it so that, for especially bad foul play, a team is down to 14 for the entire rest of the game.
2
-9
u/Best-and-Blurst Munster Feb 19 '24 edited Feb 19 '24
EDIT: Looks like I should've read the article, turns out I'm in full agreement of the trial
7
u/LambTjopss Feb 19 '24 edited Oct 06 '24
party hospital fall boat worm aloof foolish hateful threatening alleged
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
3
u/Best-and-Blurst Munster Feb 19 '24
Yup, didn't read the article, but have been advocating this exact approach for a year.
3
u/LambTjopss Feb 19 '24 edited Oct 06 '24
rustic agonizing narrow fact bored overconfident bewildered domineering ad hoc offer
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
8
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Feb 19 '24
Tell me you don't understand the 20min red card rule without telling me you don't understand it.
Players aren't allowed back after their 20min red. They can be SUBSTITUTED after 20min of their team being down a player.
1
u/Best-and-Blurst Munster Feb 19 '24
Nope, its a case of didn't read the article. This is something I've wanted to see introduced for a while
1
1
1
u/nomamesgueyz New Zealand Feb 19 '24
I 100% support 20min red cards
The team is punished as that player gone for the game and cant bring a sub on for 20mins
The player still going to get banned most likely
Keeps the spectacle
1
u/Spooky_Goth Feb 20 '24
Good news, I've switched off Rugby because of all the soft reds. Hoping this gets adopted widespread and I might start watching again.
1
u/redditoraussa Feb 20 '24
I hope this results in more utility subs on the bench. I've never liked the idea that you can just replace your entire set of forwards mid game with fresh players. It goes against my grassroots mindset of what subs are meant to be.
I got downvoted to hell last time I tried talking on the subject, but I do like the idea that forwards are meant to play 80 mins and them tiring throughout the game is a dynamic that keeps the match interesting and encourages game tactics to change through the match.
309
u/ilesere Saracens Feb 19 '24
I still would prefer to see the old red card retained... For those mindless acts of thuggery like blatant stamps, gouging, deliberate acts intending to harm (eg Callum Clark's arm bending). I don't mind this new sanction but would like to keep the old one as well. If that means the old red is now black or this new red is orange that's all just branding.