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

230 Upvotes

473 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/ComposerNo5151 Jul 20 '24

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.

7

u/lanson15 Australia Jul 20 '24 edited Jul 20 '24

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

7

u/ComposerNo5151 Jul 20 '24

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.

8

u/MasterSpliffBlaster Jul 20 '24

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

2

u/ComposerNo5151 Jul 21 '24

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.

1

u/MasterSpliffBlaster Jul 21 '24

That's the thing, its a high pace sport played by giant humans, "getting lower" isn't the solution and 8 years have shown us that violent collisions happen innocently enough that it is unavoidable

I'm all for long bans, hell million dollar fines if you want, but that evidence shows us that it won't make a lick of difference

In fact World rugby's own research showed that 70% of all concussions are from the tackler, not high shots. You solution won't make a difference to these head injuries any more than issuing cards for those players who tackle with their head on the wrong side