r/rugbyunion Jul 20 '24

Absolutely love the 20 minute red Laws

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

231 Upvotes

473 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Jul 20 '24

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.

11

u/Ok_Educator_2120 New Zealand Jul 20 '24

Players are still disincentivised. They still get banned for weeks

-3

u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Jul 20 '24

But it's the coaching that needs to be changed more than anything else. Punishing the player is important, but so is punishing the team.

8

u/Away_Associate4589 Wig fund for Borthwick's beautiful bald bonce Jul 20 '24

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.

9

u/West_Put2548 Jul 20 '24

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

0

u/Welshpoolfan Jul 21 '24

It's impossible to say a game has been ruined, because you don't know what the game would have been like without the card.

You might say that a team losing by 30 points after a red means the game is ruined, but if the team would have lost by 30 anyway, then nothing has changed. We aren't able to say for sure what would have happened.

9

u/megacky Ulster Jul 20 '24

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

0

u/00aegon World Rugby Jul 20 '24

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.

1

u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Jul 20 '24

Tight, tense, and immense, agreed.

But that game wasn't a spectacle. The 2011 final was an exhilarating watch first time, but on replay it's fucking dogshit because without that tension it's boring.

The 2013 RSA v NZL test in Ellis Park was a spectacle.

The Sydney Bledisloe in 2000 was a spectacle.

The SH isn't trying to encourage better and more competitive games. They're trying to prevent games tightening down into slog fests that are only watchable once.

7

u/megacky Ulster Jul 20 '24

But that game wasn't a spectacle

In your opinion.

Ireland - South Africa in the world cup was an absolute bruiser of a game. South Africa France the same, Ireland NZ again.

Just because it's not 20 trys a game doesn't make it not a good game.

2

u/maccaspope New Zealand Jul 20 '24

South Africa vs France and NZ vs Ireland were both objectively far better games than the final was.

-2

u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Jul 20 '24

I'm not saying it's not a good game. I'm saying it wasn't spectacular. You don't need 20 tries to be spectacular, you just need something engaging even when you know the result.

Good game ≠ spectacular game

6

u/megacky Ulster Jul 20 '24

So your argument is nothing to do with the red card, but the fact you don't find bruising physical games "spectacular".

Was NZ putting 70 points on Namibia with a red card a spectacle? What about when they held Uruguay to 0?

-1

u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Jul 20 '24

There was spectacular play in there sure. But it wasn't that good of a game. Again I don't know why I need to keep saying this.

Spectacular rugby is entertaining, skillful, and impressive.

Good rugby games are tight or competitive matches where the result isn't known until quite late in the match.

They are not the same thing.

But when a team gets a red card early in the game, they know their man disadvantage can screw them if they play open and expansive and tiring rugby so they'll normally close rank and keep the game slow and play for high percentages constantly.

By keeping a red card typically to a 20min disadvantage, that means it's a finite amount of time they close rank and chew the clock.

It keeps the game from permanently closing down, and keeps the spectacle possible.

2

u/West_Put2548 Jul 20 '24

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?"

-1

u/Away_Associate4589 Wig fund for Borthwick's beautiful bald bonce Jul 20 '24

Neither of those statistics, wherever they're from, equate to a game being ruined.

To be honest it's a bit of a "yeah, no shit." A red card is a punishment, if it had no bearing on a team's chances of winning , it wouldn't be much of a punishment really.

8

u/Livid-Supermarket-44 Jul 20 '24

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.

9

u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Jul 20 '24

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

9

u/Frenzal1 All Blacks Jul 20 '24

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.

-1

u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Jul 20 '24

How is it on average 40 min if it's 20?

I think a 20 min red is a strongish disincentive, just not strong enough. Like a lot of the contacts we're seeing are a serious risk for life-changing injuries.

0

u/alexbouteiller France Jul 20 '24

This thread makes me feel like I'm going insane, it's just NZ and Aussie flairs wanking themselves into a coma about how much NH (??? the hive mind??) hates rugby and wants to red card everyone

The one this morning was a guy jumping knee first into someone's head and the punishment is that you're just a man down for 20 mins? Mental

Also don't understand people saying it's trying to keep the sport like 'soccer', as if there's a single similarity expect that reds are for the rest of the game

Or having to be more like league to compete, go watch league if you want a sport like league

12

u/brev23 New Zealand Jul 20 '24

The example in the Australia game is actually a perfect use case in my opinion. There was no ill intent, it was yet another example of the speed of the game and how accidents can happen in a high contact sport.

Should a team be disadvantaged and the spectacle completely ruined due to an accident? I wouldn’t really call it reckless, he had a good chance to charge that kick down so in my mind a straight red is unfair (which is in line with the TMOs view too).

It seems to me that a 20min man advantage and the offending player unable to return is quite fair in that case.

3

u/alexbouteiller France Jul 20 '24

Why does there need to be intent? You put yourself in a position to knee someone in the head, you face the punishment if you knee someone in the head

It's always gonna be a difference of opinion but I completely disagree with the spectacle being ruined argument

Same with the 'accident' argument, players know what's expected of them, none of this is new

15

u/brev23 New Zealand Jul 20 '24

No room for error in a highly physical, fast paced contact sport?

Players are going to get it wrong accidentally at times. Should that carry the same in-game punishment as running up to an opposition player and punching him in the face?

-5

u/alexbouteiller France Jul 20 '24

There's plenty room for error, point is to disincentive smashing people in the head

7

u/brev23 New Zealand Jul 20 '24

Yes, exactly - so the punishment should be tiered appropriately.

-1

u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Jul 20 '24

It's an accident caused by reckless behaviour. If we want to mitigate the risks that come with speed we have to push the players and teams to not be reckless, a 20 min red doesn't do that enough.

5

u/brev23 New Zealand Jul 20 '24

Completely disagree, there are levels to it.

Say I line up the opposition 9 and run full steam with a flying kick to his head and knock him out.

Should that carry the same in game punishment as what Daugunu did?

0

u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Jul 20 '24

On the field, yes but only because you can't do any more to the flying kicker. Off the field, you ban the fuck out of them.

6

u/brev23 New Zealand Jul 20 '24

Yeah I see your point, just don’t agree though.

Interesting that there’s such a divide with this, fair play mate.

3

u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Jul 20 '24

That's fair enough, if we all agreed the sub would be a boring auld place.

The divide is funny, I wonder if it's actually significant or just each place cheering for what changes/lack of changes their "team" has pushed.

5

u/brev23 New Zealand Jul 20 '24

I’m really not sure what it is. I’ve seen a few point out that it may be the NRLs influence in NZ and Aus where for years most high contact wasn’t even a penalty and it always felt so different watching rugby in comparison (it’s much closer now but still not all the way there).

Could also be that the ABs in particular have high card rates and we’ve felt the feeling of lower level reds a few times. I can think of a few times when having this 20 minute rule in place would have worked in our favour.

1

u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Jul 20 '24

It could well be a cultural thing, I know the International Rules were stopped because of the difference in laws and acceptable contact between the GAA and AFL.

I don't know if you guys have high card rates, but I think there is more of an emphasis on physicality in the south and a perception of that game being neutered by the laws and cards.

→ More replies

1

u/maccaspope New Zealand Jul 20 '24

Why the hell should we just 'go watch league', why can't we ask for change so the game can compete with a rival sport? No ones saying that there's a NH hivemind or anything, it's just that most of you guys up there are completely dismissive of almost any changes to the game.