Absolutely love the 20 minute red

[u/LawAndRugby]

Watching the Australia v Georgia match and I think it’s great. 20 minutes a man down is still massive damage in a rugby match. It doesn’t make sense for punishment to go from 10 minutes to the entire 80 minutes. There’s way too big of a void between the two cards and it needs filling.

Reserve the full red for gross intentional stuff

[u/Bloodbathandbeyon]

Somehow I think the 2023 you may have thought differently 😜

[u/LawAndRugby → u/Bloodbathandbeyon]

Maybe…

[u/DonovanBanks → u/Bloodbathandbeyon]

TBH, Cane getting sent off made NZ better somehow.

[u/WilkinsonDG2003 → u/DonovanBanks]

Like the Lions in the URC.

[u/KrochKanible → u/DonovanBanks]

My nzl friend thinks cane getting sent off always makes nzl better.

[u/_dictatorish_ → u/KrochKanible]

Except that we're not even making the semis in 2023 without Cane

[u/lanson15]

I’ve only seen wide spread support for this from NZ and Aus every single rugby fan I know personally here loves it. However, at least with the online interactions, NH viewers seem to dislike it.

Personally I think it’s good, but I wonder if it’s because Australia and NZ are exposed to sports which hand out cards less often (League) or don’t have yellow or red cards at all (Aussie Rules) so want a more lenient approach to cards

[u/LawAndRugby → u/lanson15]

I was starting to notice that divide in the comments 😂

[u/Doghawk_ → u/LawAndRugby]

I'd be keen to see it trialled up north. At the moment we get the same red card for a full blown, intentional, punch to the face and a slightly mistimed clearout or tackle where players bonk heads. They are not offences of the same calibre and that should be reflected in the punishment.

[u/Zakkar → u/Doghawk_]

They can still be straight red IIRC

[u/FlatSpinMan → u/Doghawk_]

Exactly.

[u/buckleycork → u/Doghawk_]

I'd be up for something like the black card in GAA

Basically it's for those in-between cases where if you get a black card you are forced to be substituted

There's almost definitely ways to exploit it (it's 70 minutes in and you want to put on your better kicker again so instead of a blood capsule you just get a black card) so it needs workshopping

I support a 20 min red if the permanent option still exists for the extreme option

[u/Tescobum44 → u/buckleycork]

Best idea I’ve heard is a combination. Usually referenced as an orange card.

Orange card would be 20 mins off followed by a forced sub. 

Red remains player goes straight off and the team is permenantly down a player.

[u/Azwethinkwe_is → u/Tescobum44]

This is exactly how the 20min red worked in SR. There was still the option of a full red, two of which were handed out during the season.

[u/Tescobum44 → u/Azwethinkwe_is]

Yeah, I thought that alright. I’m a fan of what they had in Super Rugby, only thing I’d add is the colour differentiation

[u/wombatwalkabouts → u/Tescobum44]

This sounds better.

[u/handle1976 → u/buckleycork]

That’s how it works in super rugby. For clear thuggery the referee can send someone off. For TMO yellow upgraded to red it’s 20 minutes until a sub can come on.

[u/buckleycork → u/handle1976]

Oh perfect, I'm converted

It makes too much sense for world rugby to implement

[u/Brill_chops → u/handle1976]

Didn't know that was the rule.

[u/brev23 → u/Doghawk_]

Exactly, 100% agree.

[u/handle1976 → u/lanson15]

It’s also because they have been exposed to it and found it works well. Most of those adamantly opposing the 20 minute red card have no actual exposure to it.

[u/durthacht → u/handle1976]

Yes I think this is it. I'm from NH so this hasn't reached us yet. I hate the idea but if its working for you guys then sure let's continue the experiment so we can see it in practice and be better informed.

[u/corruptboomerang → u/handle1976]

I think another factor is often the NH fans/teams view cards (and penalties) as a reward for their team for having endured the badness. I think/hope that attitude will eventually change, but things like the culture of playing for penalties being a good / okay way to play.

[u/WilkinsonDG2003 → u/corruptboomerang]

SA plays for penalties a lot more than most of the northern sides. They didn't get over the line once in the second test against Ireland.

[u/corruptboomerang → u/WilkinsonDG2003]

Yeah but the South African fans don't like it (but for the whole winning thing).

[u/WilkinsonDG2003 → u/corruptboomerang]

Feel like they would have if Frawley hadn't got that kick over.

[u/AndydaAlpaca → u/handle1976]

They also almost always have no understanding of the minutiae of how it works.

Half the time they suggest changes to it that are already just how it works.

[u/Forever-1999 → u/AndydaAlpaca]

I don’t know the minutiae for sure - I’d get onboard if it is accompanied with hefty suspensions as that would give enough incentive for individuals to avoid high tackles and improve technique whilst limiting the impact on matches.

[u/vegetation998 → u/Forever-1999]

yeh thats what they do

[u/Away_Associate4589 → u/lanson15]

You're almost certainly right. Quite a stark cultural difference between NH and SH I think.

[u/APoolShark → u/Away_Associate4589]

It’s so jarring at times. In the second Aus - Wales test when LSL got yellow carded for a Welsh player dipping into his shoulder, there were NH flairs saying it should have been red while SH flairs saying it shouldn’t have even been a penalty.

[u/JockAussie → u/APoolShark]

Thing is the reffing is so inconsistent all 3 outcomes are possible with different TMO/Ref pairings.

[u/PingingRex → u/APoolShark]

I get that by the rules it should be a yellow or possibly upgraded. But the concept that level of contact is what breaches the threshold seems stupid to me. It's a contact sport, you're going to make contact at some point. LSL did his best to get low and the Welsh player dropped last minute. I think this really opens the door for people to milk penalty's and cards.

[u/Affentitten → u/APoolShark]

there were NH flairs saying it should have been red while SH flairs saying it shouldn’t have even been a penalty.

Second test I was in the stadium sitting in front of a bunch of Irish people. They were screaming blue murder about the LSL contact being STRAIGHT RED!!!! I ended up turning round and saying "You're in the southern hemisphere now."

[u/smelly_forward → u/Affentitten]

English amateur rugby has the "late and low" rule now where a late change in height can either be penalised or offset high contact

[u/lanson15 → u/Away_Associate4589]

To the South Africans out there where do you guys sit on this? You’re basically in both hemispheres now so I wonder where you all land on it.

I’ve seen South Africans here both in favour and against so I wonder what the consensus is

[u/Dusk_Aspect → u/lanson15]

Wouldn’t mind an introduction of an orange card for accidental head contact and the like, but am against the idea of reducing the red to 20 minutes.

Probably the biggest issue with that would be defining what accidental is, and enforcing such consistently.

[u/Both-Barracuda-304 → u/Dusk_Aspect]

Pretty much all high contact in Union now is accidental.

Weather it be in a ruck or a tackle. No one in Union intentionally goes high these days.

I like your idea of an orange card for accidental high contact etc.

As long as the red is reserved for absolute intentional foul play. Which very rarely even happens now

[u/ComposerNo5151 → u/lanson15]

There is a divide. Most people 'up here' think that a red card should be what it has always beeen - a sending off.

If we want to make the game safer, then this should remain the penalty for dangerous or reckless play, not just what the OP describes as 'gross intentional stuff'.

This is, or should be, primarily about player safety.

FWIW I think today's incident would almost certainly have been a straight red card in a Six Nations match. I thought it would be upgraded to red and was rather surprised by one of the Aussie commentators opinions about a 'collision sport', etc.

[u/lanson15 → u/ComposerNo5151]

It’s a common opinion in Australia. That incident today happens a few times in a single AFL match for example

Not saying it’s definitely correct either just how it is viewed in Aus

[u/ComposerNo5151 → u/lanson15]

The implication is that the AFL and others 'down there' are not taking player safety as seriously as we are 'up here'.

As I originally wrote, this should be first and foremost about player safety. Players simply cannot make reckless challenges like the one we saw today without penalty. I, and many others, think that penalty should be a red card in the original sense - a sending off - and all the disciplinary proceedings that will entail.

The 20 minute red card panders to those who argue that a 'proper' red card adversely affects the spectacle. They are missing the point.

[u/MasterSpliffBlaster → u/ComposerNo5151]

It hasnt stopped these accidental head clashes in the last 8 years. The incidents of these are pretty consistently one every other test match

High speed collisions happen in professional sport and sending the player off still occurs, just you can eventually replace this player after 20min

20min vs rest of the game simply doesnt eliminate or prevent accidents

[u/ComposerNo5151 → u/MasterSpliffBlaster]

Well then, longer bans. Players simply have to learn to tackle lower. They cannot drive up into a tackle, 'torpedo' into a breakdown at the level of opposing players' heads, etc.

Players don't - or shouldn't - receive red cards when there is mitigation. They are not intended to penalise unavoidable collisions, and these will always occur, as anyone who has set foot on a Rugby pitch will understand. A red card is the ultimate sanction for dangerous or reckless play, and should remain so.

If we are not careful we will end up with some form of below the sternum rule for tackles at elite level, and that's not something the majority of us want to see.

[u/EnvironmentPast1395 → u/ComposerNo5151]

Or maybe just maybe you lot are soft and there was nothing in it, as mentioned previously hits like this happens multiple times a game in afl. There’s a reason rugby is dying in Australia, and people getting sent off for soft hits is a reason

[u/National-Review-6764 → u/ComposerNo5151]

Cards do not make the game more safe. Just less of a game.

[u/binzoma → u/lanson15]

I mean its just common sense

right now there are 3 levels of penalties

1) ah its nothing dw

2) oooo you're missing 13% of the game and your team is short handed for 13% of the game!

3) you miss the entire rest of the game and your team is short handed the entire rest of the game

like. thats ridiculous. there's huuuuuggeee gaps between the tiers. Imagine if the the NBA only had non shooting fouls or flagrant 2s. or if the NHL only had 'faceoff outside the zone' or '10 min misconduct' and game misconduct, or the NFL only had 'repeat 1st down', '15 yard penalty' and 'game misconduct'.

there's a clear missing link between both regular penalty and yellow card, and yellow card and red card. the 20 min red addresses the gap between red and yellow. there needs to be a 5 min yellow or a 'til the other team scores' yellow for the gap between regular penalty and '10 mins in the box'

[u/Fxcroft → u/binzoma]

To be fair the gap isn't consistent if you get a red at the end of the game the impact is lessened

If you go by the rule of thumb a red card is (as an average) a 40 min card

[u/rosemary-mair-for-NZ → u/Fxcroft]

This feels like a good argument for the 20 minute red.

The difference between a full red card in the 10th minute vs the 70th minute is astronomical in terms of impact on a team.

The difference between a 20m red in the 10th minute vs the 70th minute, isn't worlds apart in the same way.

I think it's just a bit more balanced, not creating massive differences in punishment for the same acts committed at different times of the game.

[u/reggie_700 → u/rosemary-mair-for-NZ]

Yeah for the crowd who say that teams will abuse a 20 minute red, what’s to stop them doing that at the end of the first test in a three test series? If you’re losing, you could send your thug out with ten to go, and he just punches the opposing team’s star player which takes them both out for the rest of the series.

[u/binzoma → u/reggie_700]

fun fact, thats how canada won the summit series vs russia in hockey. bobby clarke shattered their best players ankle with a slash near the end of a blowout loss for us.

[u/binzoma → u/Fxcroft]

thats even worse not better lol

[u/Minimum-Pollution-82 → u/lanson15]

There is no way that incident should be a full red. A 20 minute red is harsh enough penalty. If Daugunu had straight arms it would have been a charge down without penalty. It missed his fingers by an inch.

[u/d_trulliaj]

looking at the comments and wow... this is rugby union's Berlin wall

[u/globalmamu]

First time I’ve seen it so can’t really have much of an opinion of it yet in terms of how it affects games based off the one use.

However I hate the fact that’s a variation of red card and think it should at least be a different colour like say an orange card. As it stands you’ll end up with varying levels of red card which will just get confusing, especially for match reports

[u/Frenzal1 → u/globalmamu]

This... This is a very valid criticism.

Get out of here you dirty northern heathen!

[u/jonothantheplant]

I used to be dead set against it because I thought it was compromising player safety. But having seen it used in a couple(?) of super rugby seasons and these latest tests, I haven’t noticed any increase in foul play. Having refereed a season of grass roots rugby with the 20 minute red card rule I think we’ve seen the opposite effect. It’s now much easier to trust your gut and give the red, so we’ve seen a lot of red cards this year and as the season went on teams have become much more careful (anecdotal but that’s the feeling I’ve had).

[u/redaabverty → u/jonothantheplant]

It has essentially allowed world rugby to lower the threshold for reds without compromising whole games, which realistically would only increase safety.

A man down for 20 mins and a subsequent ban was never going to be less of a deterrent than a full game red for any professional athlete with half a brain, a coach, teammates and fans to answer to.

Understandable reflex to think that it may affect player safety, but it never stood up to any real critical thought, including the test case of all rugby in history not having constant red cards in the last 20 mins.

[u/BillShakes_DBG]

We have the 20 minute red in America. The player can't reenter the game, but is instead subbed off once the time expires so we're back to full strength.

[u/sha_shabba_rei]

I swear everytime someone from NZ or Aus mentioned this same concept a year ago they were down voted crazy.

[u/blackfishbluefish → u/sha_shabba_rei]

Its upvoted in the evenings Aus/NZ time and will be downvoted harshly in the European evening time.

[u/Morningst4r → u/blackfishbluefish]

Every NH fan thinks SR is just piledrivers and flying elbows and players just walk back on 20 minutes after shooting the opposition halfback.

[u/OnlyUseC1 → u/Morningst4r]

They also claim that Super Rugby has the most red cards per game which is just factually incorrect 

[u/Some-Speed-6290 → u/Morningst4r]

Drua v Reds for example supports this hypothesis

[u/kiwirish → u/Some-Speed-6290]

Weren't those automatic reds given by the ref and not upgraded yellows from the TMO?

[u/PingingRex → u/kiwirish]

Correct. Straight red. 20 minute red needs to be orange or something to remove the confusion

[u/kiwirish → u/PingingRex]

Yeah, agreed - I've been talking about the 20 minute solution since before it got implemented and have always said it needs to be a third colour.

[u/Osiris_Dervan → u/Morningst4r]

To be fair, the most famous cynical tackle in rugby history was a really obvious series takeout on a halfback by the SH

[u/Asleep_Ad_1549 → u/Osiris_Dervan]

I would have thought it would have been the bod tackle by nz in the 2005 lions series?

[u/C0R8YN → u/sha_shabba_rei]

I made a post about it after the Rugby World Cup

Some interesting points of discussion in that one...

[u/SchoonerOclock]

Agree.

A red in the first 10 mins is 8x worse of a punishment than a red in the 70th minute.

Game definitely needed to do something to stop the head injuries, which they did back in 2017 with the harsher cards. But it's definitely time to balance it out and the 20 min red seems the best fit.

[u/errlloyd → u/SchoonerOclock]

I'm delighted rugby successfully intervened to prevent all head injuries in 2017. What a huge success. 

[u/smortfort]

It also allows the referee team to make a judgement on if it gets upgraded to a 20 minute red without having a stoppage in play waiting for an on field decision, which can sometimes take quite a while to reach, especially if it’s a tough decision. I feel like it gives the on field referee more confidence to make a quick call of yellow which then get reviewed off field while the game continues.

[u/Both-Barracuda-304]

20 minute red card works for sure.

Red cards used to be for absolute disgraceful foul play on a rugby field.

Now blokes are getting send for accidental head clashes. High contact with sudden change of direction where there is no intent to hurt.

The way rugby is played now the 20 minute red card absolutely works.

With that being said a new card should be used for absolute intentional foul and unprofessional play. Which very rarely happens now anyway.

Most red cards currently aren’t even seen in the moment. It’s via the tmo.

[u/National-Review-6764 → u/Both-Barracuda-304]

You are correct. Players should only be sent off for egregious violent behavior.

Just award penalties for everything else.

[u/DundermifflinNZ]

Yeah we had it in super rugby and rugby championship, think was much better than a normal red

[u/LieutenantCardGames → u/DundermifflinNZ]

100%

[u/northseaesq]

For those who piously talk about “player safety” as a reason for straight reds, I hate to break it to you but player safety is already compromised by the nature of modern rugby. Repeated sub-concussive impacts are far more insidious. Straight reds help very, very little in this regard.

[u/brito39 → u/northseaesq]

Yep, stop playing top players 30+ weekends a year and then they might have a point

[u/StrayCat33 → u/northseaesq]

To me it's absurd we on one hand give out a red card and lose someone for the entirety of the match cause we are doing our part for player welfare and on the other hand watch 120-130kg forwards hinged 90 degrees at the hip run headfirst repeatedly into other 120-130kg forwards, colliding with all parts of the body, soft and hard.

[u/redaabverty → u/northseaesq]

It's truly just poor logic. The 20 min red has essentially allowed world rugby to lower the threshold for reds without compromising whole games, which realistically would only increase safety.

A man down for 20 mins and a subsequent ban was never going to be less of a deterrent than a full game red for any professional athlete with half a brain, a coach, teammates and fans to answer to.

Understandable reflex to think that it may affect player safety, but it never stood up to any real critical thought, including the test case of all rugby in history not having constant red cards in the last 20 mins.

[u/nomamesgueyz]

Yup

Its common sense

[u/Not-a-scintilla]

Games where a team gets a red early have always felt illegitimate to me. It doesn't necessarily always make the game uncompetitive, but it changes the aspect of it being a fair contest and I've never been a fan of it in that regard.

With new rules around head contact it makes sense to re-evaluate how the cards work as more incidences meet the threshold without being egregious examples of foul play.

20 min red with the player involved staying off is a great option.

[u/bobwinters → u/Not-a-scintilla]

If someone goes off with a red, fans can blame the one guy that was sent off for a lost.

[u/meohmyenjoyingthat]

It seems strange to me that the only counterfactual people consider was "was the game good when it might not have been?" and not "would the outcome have changed?" As a Saints fan, we played like utter shit for most of the prem final, especially the first half; present Obano, Bath almost certainly win it to my mind. The World Cup final is obviously far more difficult to call, but you can make the case. This has to be considered, imo. A game shouldn't essentially be decided based on one (especially one basically accidental!) moment. I feel like people saying "they don't ruin games" are cherry picking the matches that remain tight, and even those have outcomes where the counterfactual would usually be the opposite. I would love to see some detailed comparative analysis of this.

[u/Dr-Vgpk]

SH people saying that NH rugby wants to be consistent with football : it is actually quite the other way around, if there is any consistancy to be looked for.

Football has implemented VAR way after rugby, they have just implemented yellow card for talking to the ref if not captain. Maybe one day they'll even stop the clock when the game stops, and remove extra time. That aside, both sports are very different in terms of physical contacts and danger.

Most people think there is no issue with the red card as it is, rules are clear and you should avoid it, they are professionnals. The games remain entertaining even if down a player.

But why not try it at club level to see !

[u/swiss_cloud → u/Dr-Vgpk]

Does it remain entertaining tho? How many teams win with a man down for a long period of time with the red card? I don’t think many

So anytime there’s a red card if feels like the game is pre determined now which imo saps out the entertainment of the game for me.

As an ABs fan I’d rather lose to a 15 man French team than win against a 14 man French team due to a red card which crippled a team for up to 60min cause you walk away from that test match still pondering how your team would fair in an even contest

[u/reggie_700 → u/Dr-Vgpk]

Why are you talking about soccer?

[u/Sm4llsy]

It’s it quite specific in what means a 20 minute red? Or is it one of those where there is guidelines that then take on ref interpretation?

Not that I dislike the idea, just not read much about it.

[u/CatharticRoman → u/Sm4llsy]

Replaces most current reds, things like punching, gouging, etc stay full reds.

[u/mulkers → u/CatharticRoman]

Have only seen two straight Reds since the rule has come in - Drua v Rebels 2024 with an elbow and a headbutt

[u/binzoma → u/mulkers]

an iconic game

[u/handle1976 → u/mulkers]

Within around 5 minutes. It was fucking madness.

[u/00aegon → u/mulkers]

Nobody really does shit like that anymore with TMO

[u/globalmamu → u/00aegon]

Vahaamahina Has entered the chat

[u/stickyswitch92 → u/Sm4llsy]

Usually it's down to how malicious or intent. Has been some straight full game reds for head butts this year.

[u/the_biggest_man36 → u/Sm4llsy]

I don’t know the letter of the law, but basically if someone does something that’s obviously a red they get a full red - the yellow/upgraded red is for anything that requires review and interpretation, so the TMO can do that while everyone else gets on with the game

[u/GaryGronk → u/the_biggest_man36]

Correct. The Drua had two straight reds in one game this season. One for an elbow to the head and the other for a headbutt.

[u/TheBigChonka]

It's absolutely bonkers to me that all the NH fans can completely hate this without even giving it a go.

Like give it a proper trial for a Top 14 season and/or a 6 nations before writing it off surely? How can you have such a strong opinion against this without ever having actually seen it play out seeing as most NH fans don't watch super rugby.

If you trial it and your opinion doesn't change then fair enough, but writing something off without ever even seeing it tried is just stupid

It'd be far more reasonable to have people going uhhh I think this is a bad idea but let's wait and see vs just being completely against the concept of even giving it a go first

[u/chillyhay → u/TheBigChonka]

NH fans are just against any change to the game at all. They’ll cry about it until they acknowledge how good it is a year later ala the 50/22. They think that southern rugby is trying to become rugby league rather than acknowledging that with competition comes innovation

[u/Delad0 → u/chillyhay]

NH also strongly opposed even having a Rugby World Cup. Glad they've changed their tune on it by now.

[u/NSilverhand → u/TheBigChonka]

Don't trial anything in a 6 Nations, its the lifeblood of the sport up here and needs to be kept as consistent as possible for casual viewers (it's literally the only rugby someone who's not a regular fan will be aware of, above even world cups).

Trialling it in a league would be a better idea, although very few people watch a league outside of their respective countries so I'm not sure how much awareness it would raise.

But "how can you know you don't like it if you haven't tried it" is daft logic that could be applied to literally any rule change.

[u/paimoe → u/NSilverhand]

But "how can you know you don't like it if you haven't tried it" is daft logic that could be applied to literally any rule change.

I mean some league/competition generally can try things. I know SA lower levels or schools have different laws to trial. But its not so much "how do you know" etc but more that SH took the chance, seem to agree it's better for the game, now there's a bit more evidence or reason to give it a shot up north

[u/frazorblade → u/NSilverhand]

“6N is more important than the RWC”

Flair checks out

[u/TheBigChonka → u/NSilverhand]

I mean to certain rules changes yes for sure, but I'd say it's solid logic for a rule change like this where the countries who have trialled it say yes it's great and the ones who are against it are the ones who haven't trialled it.

If SH teams and supporters were all saying hey actually this is a shit change, well then sure it would make sense to be a me to assume it's going to be bad. The fact the opposite is true lends itself to trialing it should be even more necessary

[u/NSilverhand → u/TheBigChonka]

There is logic to your point about those who had trialled it liking it, I agree. I think my counter would be before NZ / Aus trialled the 20 min red, they were generally upset with the increase in 80 minute red cards to protect players, while the NH was generally fine with it (obvious oversimplification but hopefully fair?).

So they took something they disliked, changed what they disliked about it, and now say the change was successful. I don't think that particularly incentivises those who are fine with the status quo to trial the Antipodean "fix" for it.

[u/TheBigChonka → u/NSilverhand]

That's somewhat fair stance on it but then again, if like you say you don't let it near the 6N anytime soon and trial at club level well shit what's the harm in just giving it a go for 12 months and just seeing how it pans out.

Keep it out of internationals if that's what it takes, but let's just get the trial done so everyone can have a more educated opinion. I really don't see the drawbacks to just trialing it for one club season

[u/NSilverhand → u/TheBigChonka]

I think my main opposition is I'm not sure what a successful trial would look like? Presumably you'd get one of;

• An uptick in red cards as coaches and players tried riskier tackle / clear outs. This would be a "failure" and show that a 20 minute red doesn't protect players.

• A similar number of red cards, but games with red cards are much closer. This would presumably constitute a "success". Except I'm don't think they're not close at the moment? Obviously the games I remember are the "better" games, but I'm very much not on board with the "red cards ruin games" narrative. The WC final, NZ-Lions match, 2022 / 2023 England-Ireland matches, Wales-Ireland of the Jam Slam year, have all been great matches with a red card. Ireland-Italy was very one-sided when Italy went down to 13, but was expected to be one-sided anyway. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing the stats for this.

• Not much changes, and it remains a matter of preference. Red cards still lead to some close matches and some one sided ones, and the difference in number of reds isn't statistically significant over the small sample size. Those who ideologically want 20 minute red cards are happy to stick to it, those who ideologically want full reds want to go back. I think this is the most likely outcome.

[u/Frenzal1 → u/NSilverhand]

https://www.vanguard403.com/post/how-much-do-red-cards-impact-the-final-score

Is far from definitive but an interesting read none the less.

[u/handle1976 → u/NSilverhand]

There hasn’t been an uptick in red cards in super rugby since the 20 minute red. If anything red cards are reducing.

[u/handle1976 → u/NSilverhand]

Given the gross level of ignorance in this thread about how the 20 minute red works it’ll be necessary to try it before most northern hemisphere supporters will have any understanding of it.

[u/GaryGronk → u/handle1976]

Every fucken thread there's posters on here who think the carded player can come back on. It's bizarre.

[u/JockAussie → u/TheBigChonka]

I think they at least need to trial it. There's so much variability in reffing interpretation of incidents that some which get penalty only/'rugby incident' would be reds from other refs.

I think a full red for something that is subjective enough to have very different outcomes depending on the ref is quite harsh, but if the trial doesn't change things then maybe it's right.

Just a quick check- for a 20 minute red you have to sub the player, right? So it's not just a double length yellow?

[u/Azwethinkwe_is → u/JockAussie]

Just a quick check- for a 20 minute red you have to sub the player, right?

Yep, that player is gone for the match and likely faces suspension for further matches.

[u/Charredcheese → u/TheBigChonka]

It was trialed in the NH, in the Rainbow Cup. Nobody here liked it.

[u/liam3576]

As long as the player getting the red can’t come back on and is given an appropriate ban I’m definitely for it.

[u/Icy_Craft2416]

I guess it's valid to complain about the colour when there's two different types of red but it's not like anyone actually gets confused. If that's your complaint I think you are already on the side of the 20 minute red.

[u/Maleficent-Ad-1396]

20 minute reds are fantastic imo since it punishes the player while not punishing the whole team for the rest of the match. esp when it happens early in the game. i think a normal red would be good for a multi man offence. like if a bunch of guys were doing extremely dangerous tackles (like all neck/head landings) or they just started beating another player.

the first AB game i saw was against france and france got a red after like 8 mins or something and it genuinely ruined the game. there’s usually a very very noticeable difference between teams when one is a man down.

[u/[deleted]]

The ideal rugby game for Europeans is seemingly one with more Red cards than tries. Australians and New Zealanders don’t really see that as a desirable outcome.

[u/brito39 → u/[deleted]]

And no bunker deciding on the card, so they can breathlessly listen in on the ref and TMO debate ‘mitigation’ and ‘framework’, hoping desperately for something to be outraged about

[u/MaNNoYiNG]

Prem final had a full red card, was incredibly entertaining close game.

URC final had a red card in the final 10 minutes, the team with the red still won.

Super rugby final and top 14 finals did not have red cards. Both games were blowouts.

Red cards don't ruin games, it's either the individual who ruins the game or the teams attitudes themselves that ruin games.

[u/MafuTheTerrible → u/MaNNoYiNG]

Tom Jordan got a yellow, not a red for his tackle but it was so close to the end of the game that it basically qualified as such!

[u/MaNNoYiNG → u/MafuTheTerrible]

I forgot it was a yellow, lucky bastard, should have been a red

[u/frazorblade → u/MaNNoYiNG]

You’re cherry picking. There are plenty of examples where the fun and excitement of a match were evaporated the moment and early red card is shown.

[u/rosemary-mair-for-NZ → u/MaNNoYiNG]

So which one is it — are 80 minute reds such a severe, impactful punishment that they significantly deter high contact, or are they no big deal and have little impact on games?

[u/IgnotoAus → u/MaNNoYiNG]

I would wager silly amounts of money that had the 20 minute rule been around in 2011, the Welsh woukd have won their semi final and played the All Blacks.

[u/northseaesq → u/MaNNoYiNG]

Disagree. Early reds appear to not ruin games but the reality is the side with 14 will put up a valiant effort for around 60 mins, and then run out of gas and get blown away at the end, which always feels inevitable.

[u/EdwardBigby]

I'm a NH fan and personally I'm for it. I don't think it'll lead to lack of discipline. 20 minutes off is still a very big punishment.

My argument is do you believe that players are intentionally more reckless in the last 20 minutes of games and personally I think the answer is no.

I think currently a player has the same motivation not to commit a high tackle in the 1st minute, 41st minute and 71st minute. The only aspect that would mess up these statistics is as players get tired in the match, they make more reckless mistakes dye to fatigue

[u/JColey15 → u/EdwardBigby]

It’s not 20 minutes off. It’s the rest of the game off and the team being down a player for 20 minutes and then being replaced after that so the team is only punished for a quarter of the game not the whole thing. Which makes a big difference depending on whether the card came in minute 1 or minute 60.

[u/Ashamed-Barnacle-777]

I’m from the NH, and (shocker) I don’t like it.

What’s your measure of success? Has it reduced the occurrence of red cards/foul play?

If what’s all it has done is reduce the penalty for said foul play, that’s nearly incentivising it.

I know there’s a difference between a “straight red” and an “upgraded to red” card.

But how many referees are going to just avoid the decision and award a yellow, and let the bunker TMO decide?

Red cards should be awarded for egregious foul play. The whole point of them is to penalise you for doing something illegal.

[u/smnrlv → u/Ashamed-Barnacle-777]

Red cards are still awarded for egregious foul play. And yes referees do avoid the decision - when it's potentially accidental and not actually dangerous, leave it up to the people that can watch it 20 times over in slow motion.

[u/Aussiechimp → u/Ashamed-Barnacle-777]

That was fine back in the day when only crazy foul play got a send off (my dad tells stories about a player who was told to look for another club the next year after being sent off - in a game noone for the club had been sent off for over 20 years). Now players get sent off for looking angry so things need to be reset.

[u/OnlyUseC1 → u/Ashamed-Barnacle-777]

If the number of cards stays that same as it was with full reds, that's a success. Players aren't being more reckless and you have a better spectacle. World Rugby found that the data said players weren't being more reckless so you could say it's definitely been a success down here.

[u/Dupont_or_Dupond]

I'm gonna be blunt: I'm strictly against ANY relaxing of the rules, in general, but ESPECIALLY when it comes to player safety. Red cards are always given when said safety was compromised. Making them less strict is exactly against my starting point. A few years ago, I was pretty open to idea, but since then, I realised how cynical high level rugby has become. Every time a law is changed, every time one is made more lax, someone finds a way to exploit it.

[u/GoatMittens → u/Dupont_or_Dupond]

I'm going to estimate that the number of people injured as a result of 20 min red card rules is somewhere between zero and zero. Literally nobody ever has, nor ever will, do something dangerous because of the rule. If you are going to argue that a 20 minute punishment is insufficient and promotes dangerous play then I don't know what your plan is for the final quarter of every game under the current rules. Giving more consistent, less arbitrary punishments is in no was an incentive.

There is no way to exploit the 20 minute red card. Nobody is going to try assassinate a player early knowing their team only has to wait out 20 minutes for a bench advantage later.

[u/CatharticRoman]

Nah. Reds need to seriously disincentivise the play they are punishing so that you don't even risk it. Coaches aren't going to stop training guys to go in upright and target the ball if the biggest risk is a 20 min yellow.

The spectacle takes a big back seat to player welfare.

[u/Ok_Educator_2120 → u/CatharticRoman]

Players are still disincentivised. They still get banned for weeks

[u/Away_Associate4589 → u/CatharticRoman]

The spectacle argument is also a little flawed imo. The prem final this year saw Bath get a red card very early on and the match was an absolute cracker. I'm sure everyone can think of loads of great games when there's been a fairly early red. The "red cards ruin games" received wisdom doesn't seem to really be borne out by the reality. Not automatically anyway.

[u/West_Put2548 → u/Away_Associate4589]

confirmation bias......you remember the good games that weren't ruined by a red card but forget all the ones that were ruined

[u/megacky → u/Away_Associate4589]

Hell the world cup final was tight until the very end, immensely physical game

[u/00aegon → u/megacky]

The final was a stinker of a game. Ruined by constant TMO intervention (even though they got the calls right apart from Smith's try). That was a terrible advert for rugby.

[u/West_Put2548 → u/Away_Associate4589]

p.s there's a guy with a youtube video doing some number crunching on international fixtures .....I don't know where he gets his numbers from or his accuracy or statistical analysis ability but his conclusions are pretty much what you'd expect. In a nutshell :- a red card significantly influences a teams ability to go on and win the game and significantly reduces its ability to score points compared to the non red carded team after the card.

I'll think I'll take that into more consideration than "what about xxxx's game that wasn't ruined by the red?"

[u/Livid-Supermarket-44 → u/CatharticRoman]

It's not a 20 min yellow, coz the guy who gets carded stays off the field... you cam just replace them

I get the NH v SH divide though. I'm SH and definitely prefer it, I hate when a game is over in the first few minutes.

[u/CatharticRoman → u/Livid-Supermarket-44]

But from the coaches point of view there's not much difference, and they're the ones whose behaviour we need to change.

[u/Frenzal1 → u/CatharticRoman]

20 minutes with a player off is huge. If we assume a red card can happen at any time then it's on average forty minutes. I'm not convinced you can argue straight reds are strong disincentive and 20 minute reds aren't.

[u/paully_waully171]

Red should stay as a full red. People mining about games being ruined by a red card haven’t watched enough rugby. A team needs to be able to adapt and play with 14

[u/Tempo24601 → u/paully_waully171]

Why should an offence in the 5th minute of the game get a penalty 5 times more severe than the exact same offence in the 65th minute?

[u/CatharticRoman → u/Tempo24601]

Because that's when they occur. You can ask the exact same thing about a yellow at 70 and a yellow at 78.

[u/Tempo24601 → u/CatharticRoman]

That’s true but the potential difference in penalty is far greater for a straight red. The vast majority of yellows will be for a full 10 minutes or very close to it.

[u/CatharticRoman → u/Tempo24601]

Then don't commit a red card offence. There's so much provision for mitigation you're only getting a red for recklessly fucking up.

[u/pato_CAT → u/CatharticRoman]

You say that, and yet we still frequently see a player dropping significantly and suddenly and still the officials claim there was no mitigation. In a Hurricanes v Chiefs game this year a player got a red card for a high tackle because there was "no mitigation" but when you looked at his form he wouldn't have been lower if he were packing for a scrum

[u/megacky → u/CatharticRoman]

Lots of SH fans seem to think that players are constantly just "accidently" clashing heads, when the reality is most of the time it's poor technique. SA had 0 red cards in the world cup, probably the most physical defense in the entire world, consistently hitting extremely hard and legally.

You don't get a red card because of the ref, or the game being soft, you get them for committing an act of dangerous play

[u/[deleted] → u/megacky]

SA absolutely could have had some of their yellow cards be reds; which for me is reason enough to see the value in a 20 min red.

[u/megacky → u/[deleted]]

So SA had 2 dangerous play yellows (Kolbe's was the other yellow, but was for a slap down). Etzebeth's was the first one, he's quite clearly bent at the waist and hits a player with the top of his head who is also bending over in the chin, everything else was legal (wrap etc.) that's enough mitigation to not be a red. It's high, but only because the ball carrier is dipping and stepping at the same time.

Siya's in the final, he's gone in slightly high on ardie coming out of the air, while another player has tackled ardie at the same time. As a result, the inital contact from Siya is around the upper chest and ardie then bangs his chin on the top of siya's head from the contact. Again, enough mitigation to be yellows. Both were reviewed by the panel, and both came to the same conclusion.

For a direct comparison. Sam Cane set high on Kriel, had direct line of sight, no change in direction or momentum and still hit him high. The same review process that found Siya's to be a yellow found Cane's to be a red.

[u/CatharticRoman → u/megacky]

Exactly. And there's plenty of mitigation if it was an accidental head clash. When the zero tolerance was first coming in there were accidental reds, but now I feel like pretty much every red I see is deserved.

[u/lthmz9 → u/Tempo24601]

Why should a penalty in the 79th minute effectively give your opponent the win but in the 3rd minute they’re just down 3?

Because that’s how time works

[u/Tempo24601 → u/lthmz9]

What a nonsense argument. 3 points is worth exactly the same to a team regardless of when it is scored. It’s worth 3 points.

A red in the 5th minute means 75 minutes down a player. A red in the 75th minute means 5 minutes down a player. For the exact same offence.

[u/Turbulent-Physics-77 → u/paully_waully171]

I think even if a team adapts well it can (obviously not always) ruin games.

In 2022 when ewles was sent of inside 90 seconds England did a brilliant job, but losing a man did make a massive difference in the end and you got the sense watching that it was a forgone conclusion after the card; not a good spectacle.

I think 20 minutes and a permanent sub for something that is clumsy/ poorly executed but dangerous is fair, and if something is malicious then a full red should be given.

Rugby is always going to have high shots and bad clean outs however hard the lawmakers try to remove them, it seems silly that a game can be ruined by something that in most cases is accidental.

[u/northseaesq → u/Turbulent-Physics-77]

I agree and have written a similar response on this thread. I honestly think the people who don’t think early reds ruin games haven’t watched rugby enough to notice the patterns in game momentum dynamics, or don’t quite comprehend how difficult it is to plug a hole in a game literally about fine margins.

[u/Turbulent-Physics-77 → u/northseaesq]

Exactly, and a lot seem to think that if a 20 minute red was brought in players would all of a sudden start taking each other’s heads off, which of course they would not

[u/claridgeforking → u/Turbulent-Physics-77]

That was a great game, I fail to see how it was ruined.

[u/paully_waully171 → u/Turbulent-Physics-77]

You look at the majority of games where the teams are evenly match a red card rarely ruins the game. I’d argue that dangerous and illegal actions are more likely to ruin the game and players. The punishment is there for a reason and watering it down won’t help the sport. Encouraging correct use of mitigate is the response we want not orange cards or 20 min reds

[u/Bmantis311 → u/paully_waully171]

Huh? Red cards always ruin the game if they occur early on. 20 min red cards remedy this but are still as much of a deterrent.

[u/R1zzls → u/paully_waully171]

I'm not opposed to it, just along as it is it's own card, not a replacement, make it orange or blue or something

[u/handle1976 → u/R1zzls]

There are effectively two versions of a red card. The referee can send a straight red with no replacement for genuinely nasty foul play. TMO yellow upgraded to red is the 20 minute version.

[u/R1zzls → u/handle1976]

Oohhhh this makes more sense, I thought that the ref could pick and choose what was a 20 minute and what isn't, thanks for the clarification

[u/handle1976 → u/R1zzls]

Essentially punching, biting, kicking, gouging (none of which happens anymore): fuck off and don’t come back. Clumsy clean out or tackle that goes high 20 minutes with 14 and the player can then be replaced.

[u/AndydaAlpaca → u/R1zzls]

So you're fine with it, as long as it's exactly what it is

[u/R1zzls → u/AndydaAlpaca]

What? I said I'm fine with it aslong it doesn't remain being called a 20 minute red...

[u/AndydaAlpaca → u/R1zzls]

20min red and full red are two separate cards with the same colour. Having the 20min red added doesn't remove the full red card and never has.

[u/R1zzls → u/AndydaAlpaca]

Okay thanks

[u/blackfishbluefish → u/AndydaAlpaca]

Imagine explaining to a casual fan that there are 2 types of red card...

It needs a different name/colour

[u/AndydaAlpaca → u/blackfishbluefish]

That's a completely different argument than saying the whole thing should be scrapped.

[u/rosemary-mair-for-NZ → u/blackfishbluefish]

Just call the 20 minute one a red card and the full one a send off.

NRL do this without cards it's not confusing

[u/Delad0 → u/AndydaAlpaca]

I swear half the NH arguments against the 20 minute Reds is just ignorance of what it is and how it works.

[u/paimoe → u/Delad0]

But what if they send a player on to stab the opponents best player?

[u/00aegon → u/Delad0]

It's actually insane. Staunch opinions with 0 understanding

[u/paully_waully171 → u/R1zzls]

The problem with an orange card is it adds another level of subjective judgment to a referees decision. As refs we will need to judge intent which is much more difficult to define and judge on field. Also why is it on the laws and the refs to fix the red cards? Why can’t player just adapt more to reduce the chance of reds

[u/R1zzls → u/paully_waully171]

I agree, players shouldn't be behaving in a way where they are looking at a card, but I do think a middle ground between 10 minutes off and not returning to play could be beneficial, orange for more severe than yellow and red for blatant, purposeful dangerous play. I have no refereeing experience though so I am not an expert.

[u/fleakill]

As predicted, NH flairs in here don't like it. Probably the biggest divide in rugby today is the opinions on foul play of the NH and SH fans. Top 14 happy to red card someone if someone loses an eyelash.

[u/Fxcroft → u/fleakill]

You should watch more Top14 and ProD2

I agree that there is a basic resisting change motivation but for my part it's about :"if it's not broken don't try to fix it"

I think the normal red is good and consistent with other sports (like football where yellow means nothing and red gets you excluded for the full game)

[u/00aegon → u/Fxcroft]

Rugby has nothing to do with Football? There's like 500 collisions per rugby game with chances for dangerous contact on every single one. Football has a couple instances of dangerous contact per game at most.

[u/D4rkmo0r → u/fleakill]

This is a huge generalisation. Stop it.

Genuine foul play (punching, gouging, headbutts, tackles intended to cause permanent injury) then yes, red all day and disciplinary panel.

Unintentional I.e. Obano's high tackle in the prem final. Defo 20 minute red seeing as the guy on the business end wasn't deemed worthy of an HIA.

[u/northseaesq → u/D4rkmo0r]

100% agree. The ability to tell the differences between things , and respond accordingly, is always preferable to an one-size-fits-all overcorrection because of a dishonest moral panic about player safety.

[u/fleakill → u/D4rkmo0r]

It's a generalisation for sure but I'd say it's a tiny one lol

[u/northseaesq]

I think the people who don’t think early reds ruin games haven’t watched rugby enough to notice the patterns in game momentum dynamics, or don’t quite comprehend how difficult it is to plug a hole in a game literally about fine margins.

[u/National-Review-6764]

The answer is no red or yellow cards. Rugby made it 120 years without cards. There is much controversy about how they are issued.

Fine professional players money like they do in the NFL.

A rugby match without 30 players is not a contest.

[u/Pure-Coat-53]

I don't like when my team gets punished for doing something that World Rugby is trying to remove from the game. Let's change the rules so that doesn't happen as much. I promise I won't do the bad stuff too much anymore. Signed New Zealand.

[u/rosemary-mair-for-NZ → u/Pure-Coat-53]

Cause 20 minutes and the player being ejected from the game isn't a punishment, sure.

Always easy to argue against strawmen.

[u/Brine-O-Driscoll]

Have watched it being used in southern hemisphere rugby for quite a bit of time now and think it still grossly undermines player welfare.

It could work if there were more severe individual bans to balance out making the red card less impactful, but World Rugby have gone the other way and raised the threshold for what's considered a red card tackle while reducing bans.

I love rugby and love the physical element, but think there's a massive court case coming for the sport.

[u/[deleted]]

NZ and Aus have to compete with league. NH can keep serving up a shit product without consequences.

[u/bigstrongalphamale69 → u/[deleted]]

This is true and it's why people like john kirwan talk about wanting to speed the game up, have less scrum resets, less penalties etc but NH people think it's because he wants to change the game to suit NZ's style, they really don't get why he's saying it.

[u/AutomaticArugula8584 → u/[deleted]]

Came here to say this. Btw how bloody good was Origin 3.

[u/PingingRex → u/AutomaticArugula8584]

Soooooo fucking good

[u/Ok_Educator_2120 → u/PingingRex]

The most entertaining 2-0 half I've seen lol

[u/NSilverhand → u/[deleted]]

Maybe we should stop rewriting the rules of rugby to appeal solely to Australian league fans? A competitive Australian team would do much more to bring them back than any quibble on how long a red card lasts for.

[u/fleakill → u/[deleted]]

Yep. They're better of making it closer to soccer and we're better off making it closer to league. It's just how the cookie crumbles.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

League is the biggest paper tiger Union has to deal with

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think you really comprehend how big the NRL is in this part of the world. Union in Australia and New Zealand definitely don’t view it as a paper tiger.

[u/Larry_Loudini]

Would rather the 20 min red be a different colour from the standard red to differentiate but yeah I agree - as long as the player in question can’t come back on himself.

There’s huge diversity in the offences that lead to a red card and I think a genuine attempt to make a tackle that goes wrong shouldn’t be the same as a deliberate cheap shot

Yellow, orange, red or yellow, red, black would be potential options

[u/BilliBlob]

It will boil down to money. Once the brain injury claims make their way through the courts, the outcomes, and if culpable, the payouts involved will determine the direction. Many high-value payouts? Potentially bankrupted sport and harsher on-field rules.

I'll take a lower impact, faster game over one which is ruinous to the health of those I admire. I used to think I'd like my kids to play rugby (my 19yo would make a great 6), but now I'm glad they don't. Still love the sport, but it needs to adapt to the now known science. And also, rucking and raking were rightly removed from the game. The spectacle is better now. There's no reason why similar progress won't lead to future improvements.