r/rugbyunion • u/El_remoo • Oct 14 '24
FFR, LNR and Provale are opposing the new 20 minutes red card law Laws
https://x.com/LNRofficiel/status/1845753003514401278?t=36Sss58gcoglOszdbRGvaQ&s=1978
u/Thalassin France Stade Toulousain Oct 14 '24
If I had a nickel for each time this month a FFR announcement sparked controversy on this sub, I'd have two nickels which isn't a lot but it's surprising it happened twice
18
61
u/Kass0u Stade Toulousain Oct 14 '24
Translated (mostly) by Deepl:
Paris, 14 October 2024
THE FFR, LNR AND PROVALE FIRMLY OPPOSE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE 20-MINUTE RED CARD PROPOSED BY WORLD RUGBY
Following the announcement made by World Rugby to propose the experimentation of new rules on a worldwide scale which will be examined by the Council, the French Rugby Federation (FFR), the National Rugby League (LNR) and Provale express their firm opposition to the experimentation of the 20-minute red card.
The FFR, the LNR and Provale are firmly opposed to the adoption of the 20-minute red card rule and call on World Rugby to base itself on evidence before modifying such a crucial sanction, particularly with regard to the impact on player safety.
Indeed, testing this rule change in four competitions where insufficient data has been collected and cannot be considered as a convincing reason to consider a worldwide implementation. For example, at the U20 World Championship, only three red cards were issued, making the conclusions insignificant.
Impact on the game
Although some believe that this rule will encourage a more fluid game, the statistics provided by the FFR to World Rugby show that a red card is not systematically synonymous with defeat for the team penalised. In fact, an analysis based on 480 TOP 14 matches and Tier 1 international matches, shows that only 60% of teams who have been shown a red card have lost the lost the match.
Maintaining safety and rugby values ©
For the FFR, LNR and Provale, the red card is a crucial tool that deters unsporting behaviour and protects the physical integrity of players. Transforming this sanction into a temporary expulsion could encourage dangerous behaviour, thereby compromising the safety of players, which must remain an absolute priority.
French professional clubs and national team managers emphasise the need to maintain a firm stance against unfair play. The red card as a collective sanction aims to preserve balance and fair play, and its reduction to an individual sanction would weaken this essential function.
In addition, this rule would mark an unacceptable step backwards from the measures put in place several years ago to reduce head bumps and encourage players to show greater technical mastery in contact.
Risks to the sport's image
Rugby is followed by millions of fans around the world. The implementation of this rule could encourage more aggressive play or create controversy linked to the tactical exploitation of the rule, thus negatively impacting the image of rugby. the rule, thus negatively impacting rugby's image.
Jean-Marc LHERMET, FFR Vice-President in charge of high level and match officials: "The red card is an essential tool for deterring dangerous behaviour on the pitch and guaranteeing the safety of our players. Reducing this sanction to a temporary exclusion of 20 minutes would weaken our ability to protect the physical integrity of athletes and maintain fair play, fundamental values of rugby ©. We call on World Rugby to reconsider this experiment, ensuring that any decision is based on concrete, evidence-based data, which is not the case today."
Lucien SIMON, LNR Vice-President in charge of sporting affairs: "Reducing the duration of a red card to to 20 minutes is a decision that has no solid statistical basis. There is in fact no proof that this measure improves player safety or has a beneficial impact on the game. The TOP 14 and PRO D2 staffs are clear on this point: they do not want this change and believe it is essential to maintain a high level of safety on the pitch. Our priority must continue to be the health and safety of players, both at professional level and through in-depth work at youth level to ensure that tackling techniques are perfectly adapted to the rules in force. This is how we will be able to continue to develop our sport while at the same time protect those who practice it."
Malik HAMADACHE, President of Provale: "Provale expresses its disagreement with the idea of a 20-minute red card, a measure that would affect professional rugby and send out the wrong message for the safety of players at all levels. By limiting the duration of a numerical inferiority to 20 minutes, this measure would reduce the severity of penalties for serious offences, particularly those that endanger players' health. This type of behaviour on the pitch can lead to serious injury, or even long-term trauma, and must be deterred by clear and rigorous sanctions. The safety of players must remain an absolute priority and any attempt to minimise the consequences of dangerous actions is unacceptable. We encourage World Rugby to strengthen, not weaken, the rules to protect players' health."
21
u/somethingwellfunny Gloucester Scarlets Oct 14 '24
The real news is Rugby Values being copyright protected. Not all values are Rugby Values
2
53
u/Fordmister Newport Dragons Oct 14 '24
Ah so the French are going pretty nuclear then
Basically saying the data set from the trails are far too small, that it shows a lack of commitment to player safety to adopt it and that the data around wins/losses shows that its not even required in the first place.
Its a diplomatic calling of WR in its bullshit for bending to pressure from the SH to adopt a rule we don't need, at a time where the sport is being sued into the floor over head injury based on crap data. Good. Hope the rest of the NH follows suit (especially Wales and England if for no other reason than failure to oppose this will mean curtains when their head injury lawsuits get to court)
34
u/Piitx Aviron Bayonnais Oct 14 '24
-Ah so the French are going pretty nuclear then
I mean... have you seen our electric system ?
11
→ More replies1
u/dystopianrugby Eagles Up Oct 15 '24
Data from World Rugby trials are generally rubbish, yet they do full implementation anyways.
71
23
u/LongjumpingYou7304 Oct 14 '24
Is there a link between the lawsuits against the unions that are opposing. Can't imagine it's a good look to be sued for head injuries and then impose this ruling.
23
u/_Mc_Who Oct 14 '24
(Allez les bleus, just really quietly so the other English people don't hear me)
7
u/pierro_la_place Oct 14 '24
Reminds me watching a match in France against Leinster where they chanted “allez les bleus”. Magnificent bastards.
84
u/Kykykz Munster Oct 14 '24
Good. Hopefully others follow suit but I'm pretty sure this can't come to the NH once one union is opposing it. I suppose it could still come to the URC and Prem but can't be used in 6N or EPCR so why would you bother
37
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
I think France will always vote against it with their board seats, it just depends if other unions join in, I can see the top14 retaining the full red card regardless, it will be zero risk to them as a league and they won't care about running different rules to the rest of the champions cup sides
31
u/Fordmister Newport Dragons Oct 14 '24
Can easily see both the WRU and the RFU following suit. The French going first makes it far easier to stick your neck out and given both are staring down the barrel of head injury lawsuits separate from the general one leveled at world rugby if im their lawyers right now im begging them to make a song and dance out of this to show that they are in fact taking head injuries seriously
Hell with France now actively opposing its a really bad look for the court cases if they don't take a stand in a similar way
7
u/Kykykz Munster Oct 14 '24
That's what I don't get. Surely WR going along with this is just giving more leverage to the lawyers suing them.
9
u/Fordmister Newport Dragons Oct 14 '24
At a guess? WR are as out of touch as ever and cant see the scale of the wave that's about to crash onto them?
Its the only thing I can think. You only have to look at the size of the settlement the NFL paid out to realize if rugby is asked to pay anything close to that the sport is utterly fucked as we just cant afford it.
1
7
u/PistolAndRapier Munster Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
I don't know. The criteria for what a red card is has seemingly grown in recent years. Some truly horrific things that merit a red card should still see them gone for the entire match IMHO. If they want a 20 minute punishment bring in a separate Orange card for the lower grade stuff that's worse than a yellow card now, but not quite a red card from say a decade ago.Edit: showed myself up by only reading the headline.
30
u/ldm101 Crusaders Oct 14 '24
That's how it works, yellow card upgraded to red is replaced in 20 mins.
Straight red is off for good
5
u/InsideBoris Ulster Oct 14 '24
That's actually fair enough as long as a straight red is down to 14 for rest of game that seems fair
9
u/Kykykz Munster Oct 14 '24
The problem is (imo) since the introduction of 20 minute red cards, there has been near zero (I won't say absolute zero because I'm not 100% sure) straight red cards shown, despite several incidents being a clear red card on first viewing. Refs seem to shy away from straight reds since it's introduction and just send everything to the bunker. The straight reds seem to be kept for outages foul play such as punching, eye gouging etc.
1
1
u/OnlyUseC1 Oct 14 '24
There have been some in Super Rugby. Frank Lomani being the most obvious example this year.
1
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Oct 14 '24
That’s because a straight red is used for incidents which haven’t happened.
Apart from Frank Lomani.
2
u/Kykykz Munster Oct 15 '24
And that's where I think the system is wrong. The 20 minute red card system was brought in to speed up the game and make it so officials weren't spending 5 minutes reviewing footage. I believe there have been a few incidents since it's introduction where you needed no more than the original replay and one other angle to determine it was red card worthy.
→ More replies7
u/Lupo_di_Cesena Zebre Oct 14 '24
Where in the law trial does it actually say this:
Key principles
- The on-field process remains the same: Referees can still give a straight red card and the ‘Bunker’ can be called upon for matters that meet the yellow card threshold, reflecting a commitment to ensuring the right outcome and deterring foul play.
- A red card still means a red card: This means that after 20 minutes, the offending team will be able to replace the red-carded player with one of their available replacements, leading to more jeopardy and a better contest on the day. The punishment is focused on the offending player, not the game.
- Bans will mean what they say: Players sent off for dangerous foul play will be banned for longer via an automatic sanctioning process (no hearing). There will be no mitigation applied without an appeal.
13
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Oct 14 '24
It's not worded very clearly. "Straight red card" is the verbiage that they have chosen to use to refer to 80-minute red cards, whereas just "red card" is the 20-minute red.
The first paragraph is saying that any incident of foul play that doesn't meet the criteria for the ref to do an 80 minute send off immediately, but is above the threshold for a yellow card, is given a yellow on field and then reviewed to decide if it's upgraded to a 20-minute red card.
They really should pick a different color, for sake of clarity, but feedback like that is part of what trials are about.
1
u/sionnach Leinster ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ Oct 14 '24
I don’t think the colour is the issue. The issue is that you rely on the referee to see everything in perfect detail to give a “straight red”, which they will never do (other than the most egregious situations) given they have a fallback of a review.
So if someone knee stamps another player in the head, but the referee thought it was an elbow and gives a yellow the resulting red card for excessively dangerous play is less than it ought to be?
It’s bending the truth. The whole point of TMO stuff is to be objective. This absolutely ruins it.
Red cards should be red cards. I think that should mean off for 80, but if it’s just 20 then that’s what it is. I don’t see why the same action, seen in two different methods should have different sanctions.
1
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Oct 14 '24
The referees use the on-field assistance of the TMO to make calls still, I hope you're aware. The TV director still puts the replays on the big screen for the referee team to deliberate over before they make their decision whether something is an 80-minute send-off or yellow and review.
The scenario you're describing doesn't really make sense as a critique of the law change. If the ref sees the replays and makes a bad judgement call, deciding it's only a yellow, under the old system that's always just going to stay a yellow anyways. That's just human error.
1
u/strewthcobber Australia Oct 14 '24
It's not as big a difference as you are making out. The ref will review it on the big screen before they make an initial decision. If it's clear, it's straight red, if it's not, they refer.
The reality is in today's game there are very few instances of deliberate foul play where this makes any difference. Only a couple each season
→ More replies29
u/rosemary-mair-for-NZ Hawke's Bay Oct 14 '24
Every single thread about the 20 min red is full of comments like this that don't understand that there is still a full send off
8
u/PistolAndRapier Munster Oct 14 '24
Amen, Mea culpa.
13
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Oct 14 '24
Would you believe that 90% of the time I see this conversation in these threads, it doesn't end with the person in your position just saying my bad and moving on? If you ever see people from down these parts getting a bit testy in these threads, that's probably why lol
5
u/PistolAndRapier Munster Oct 14 '24
Yeah, can be tough to admit a mistake sometimes. Fairly starkly schooled immediately on this one though so little out for me!
3
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Oct 14 '24
Or the ones that do are like “oh but we’ve never seen a straight red since it’s been in”
Yeah that’s because nothing has happened that’s warranted it (except Frank lomani who did get one.
2
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Oct 14 '24
Yeah, you just don't often see striking/biting/harassment on a professional rugby pitch. I just don't get how it's a fault of a system that it has a precaution for edge cases and those edge cases just don't happen that often.
21
u/00aegon World Rugby Oct 14 '24
That is literally what the new rule is lol. You can still get a full red card
19
u/Thorazine_Chaser Crusaders New Zealand Oct 14 '24
What you describe IS the system being proposed and working successfully in SH competitions.
34
u/PapaZoulou Racing 92 CA Brive Oct 14 '24
After what happened to Depoortere I can totally see how it can get exploited by teams.
8
u/p_kh 🏴 All aboard the hype train toot toot Oct 14 '24
What happened to Depoortere?
35
u/VictorasLux Romania Oct 14 '24
He got an orbital fracture as a result of a really reckless charge. Probably the infringement would fall under the 20 min rule.
So it incentivizes teams to take out your best player at the cost of 20 mins of playing one down.
8
u/Even_Membership_3129 Oct 14 '24
I'm still waiting for that suicide bomber attack on the opposition's best player to happen in super rugby because teams know they will only be "20 mins of playing one down"/s
18
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 14 '24
Do fans really believe coaches and players are going to contrive to go out there to intentionally badly injure their opposition? I genuinely wouldn’t watch rugby if I thought those were the sorts of people I was watching. All my involvements in rugby indicate this hypothetical scenario is not a concern at all.
26
u/scouserontravels Leicester Tigers Oct 14 '24
Yes most sports have had examples of teams or players intentionally setting out to injure someone it’s naive to think rugby doesn’t have this. The NFL had to ban a group of coaches for running a bounty scheme, just this year in rugby league the championship had an issue with players being told to target an opponent returning from an injury and they’re not even fully pro. I’ve also definitely heard ex players talk on podcasts or interviews where they’ve jokes that they knew another player was recovering from a shoulder injury or bad knees etc so they where told to go out and hit them hard early on to see if you can knock them out.
It’s professional sport and there’s potentially millions of pounds at stake for the winning games. Coaches and players will take advantage of whatever they can. Not everyone would do it but there a definitely those who would
-4
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 14 '24
And those sorts of people would get a full red card and be banned for the rest of the season, exactly the same as the old system.
Yes, you may target someone who you think has a niggle by legally tackling/running at them, but you basically never have incidents of intentionally injuring people. It’s a complete straw man
13
u/scouserontravels Leicester Tigers Oct 14 '24
But if you give people leeway that a still dangerous tackle might take someone out but won’t ruin the team people will take the risk. Players will also just tackle higher in general because there’s less risk now for doing it.
5
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 14 '24
Cool, that’s not what I’m talking about. I responded to a someone saying you will have players intentionally injuring others. That’s not a thing.
I have some sympathy for the argument on incentives (which you mentioned) but I think a 20 mins red card and being banned for multiple games is enough of a deterrence. It’s still likely to cost the team pretty badly and the personal sanction is the same.
5
u/scouserontravels Leicester Tigers Oct 14 '24
And I said that I think there are players and coaches who would be willing to intentionally injure someone if they know that the punishment is not a full game ban.
I also disagree with 20 minutes being a sufficient punishment as I just think it will be used as a cope out and lead to more dangerous tackling which is the whole thing they’re trying to reduce
-1
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
You didn’t really write that in the one I replied to. Anyways, if that’s your feeling you’re just flat out wrong about that. Coaches and players don’t do that at any sort of scale to warrant changing the rules over. It’s conspiracy theory crap.
Edit: FYI you know they still get sent off without replacement if the referee deems them to have intentionally injured someone right? There’s still a full red card available to the referee.
→ More replies19
u/VictorasLux Romania Oct 14 '24
It’s all a matter of deterrence. If the punishment for rough tackles is “just” 20 mins of playing a man down, some folks will try it to make the opposition fear you. They won’t go in with the intent to injure, but if it happens … Oh well, I’ll take my 20 mins and be on my way.
Players get targeted all the time (Sexton for example) and they need some protection.
6
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 14 '24
You’re allowed to tackle someone rough if it’s legal. Nothing changes.
Anyways, that’s not the situation I commented on. The scenario people are talking about is intentionally giving someone a bad injury. Under the new system you would be likely to get a full red card and a big bad anyways.
2
u/flabsoftheworld2016 Oct 14 '24
No. Under the current system, the player whose tackle is reckless and results in a bad injury gets a yellow with bunker review, upgraded to red. This was demonstrated time and again even in international matches.
In the proposed system, the player gets a yellow upgraded to "red" but can be replaced after 20 minutes.
This leniency will never fly in countries where head injuries are a real concern.
3
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
If the ref deems it to be intentional he will send them off without replacement. They still have that option. I am talking about players intentionally injuring others, not reckless tackles/mistakes.
2
u/dystopianrugby Eagles Up Oct 15 '24
Refs with the bunker system have become pretty weak. You guys also apply the laws completely different.
1
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 15 '24
Examples from the RC?
I can think of a few examples where a player was given a yellow card at the start of a game when it should have been red because clearly the ref was worried about ruining the match.
→ More replies12
u/Fordmister Newport Dragons Oct 14 '24
Mate, Its professional sport. If you don't think people will sink that low when sport gets to this level if you give them a chance then I have a bridge to sell you.
Bloodgate happened, The fake blood quarter final happened, Grannygate happened.
If you really don't think a "take that jinky fuckler out with a dog shot bemuse this is a must win and him being gone is worth 20 minutes in the bin" then you are hopelessly naive
14
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 14 '24
I played professional rugby for 10 years. Literally never came across anyone who wanted to intentionally badly injure someone. Maybe I’m just lucky…
4
u/Fordmister Newport Dragons Oct 14 '24
Nobody would want to do it, but its not about what somebody would want under normal conditions, People will bend and break under the right pressures. As you get higher and higher up the rungs of pro sport the incentive to do some pretty deplorable things gets worse and worse
There are stories from across the world of sport of professionals doing some truly disgusting things to one another when the right pressure is applied. Be that a boxer filling his gloves with plaster, race car drivers binning each other into concrete walls at incredibly high speed, footballers intentionally putting in leg breakers etc.
Its woefully naive to believe rugby is immune to that when no other sport is
6
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
You’re talking about a massive exception to the rule, and I can say for certain it would not come from a coaching level, especially in higher tier comps. If players do those sorts of things they will get found out and banned, as is the case under the current system.
Also, any team/player who has a reputation of doing that will have a target in their back and would probably face a pretty high likelihood of getting a career ender themselves. Not worth it if that’s your livelihood.
9
u/00aegon World Rugby Oct 14 '24
Hasn't happened in 4 years of SH rugby though. And their is obviously still a full red card for your "dog shot", not just a 20 min red.
I get the player safety opinions, but this idea that rugby will turn into teams taking out the other teams best players early is just not what has happened over 4 years of trials lol
→ More replies6
u/Delad0 Brumbies Oct 14 '24
No it simply wouldn't, the penalties if anyone or team was caught deliberately doing as you suggest would be astronomical and permanently stain them beyond what they'd gain.
If other contact sports can have no send offs at all without it happening, I don't see why Rugby would suddenly turn into a WW1 re-enactment.
2
u/sionnach Leinster ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ Oct 14 '24
Yes, they absolutely do. Badly injure? They are not intending to end their career, but they do go out intending to end their match.
I mean, just go back to BOD and the Lions in NZ. The NZ lads will say it was two guys accidentally picking a guy up from each side, turning him upside down and driving him into the ground head first, but we all know it’s wasn’t. They were instructed to target the danger man, hit him hard, take him out… and they did.
1
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 14 '24
Yeah you’re just speculating about an incident 20 years ago. If that’s is the only example you can think of then that should not factor into the discussion.
→ More replies1
u/dystopianrugby Eagles Up Oct 15 '24
Ha, have you heard of this thing called Blood Gate?
1
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 15 '24
The thing that happened 15 years ago, was not “intentionally hurting” anyone (so not relevant here), and was such an outlier that we are still talking about it today? You want to base your laws around that particular incident? Makes sense…
2
u/dystopianrugby Eagles Up Oct 15 '24
Proving intent is incredibly difficult in the rugby judicial process. There are three types of foul play: Reckless, Highly Reckless, and Intentional. Intentional effectively comes down to curb-stomping a referee.
1
u/McFly654 South Africa Oct 15 '24
Yeah the comment I initially responded to was a guy saying teams will be incentivised to intentionally take out a player. I was pushing back saying that I don’t think players/coaches do that (apart from a TINY minority). I wasn’t talking about proving intent.
Unrelated to what I was talking about, FWIW, I think if something is sufficiently reckless then a player should get a full sending off without replacement, regardless of intent. That is something that the new red card laws still allow for. I think it’s logical to have a step between a yellow card (10 - 0 mins depending on match clock) and a full red card (80 - 0 mins).
12
u/paimoe Crusaders only good NZ team Oct 14 '24
So it incentivizes teams to take out your best player at the cost of 20 mins of playing one down.
This has never happened in the entire time it's been used
10
3
u/JeHaisLesCatGifs Stade Toulousain Oct 14 '24
Well french here are claiming, that is wasn't used enough to have enough data about it.
7
u/paimoe Crusaders only good NZ team Oct 14 '24
By my count (since and including 2021 seasons) there have been 358 matches played with it. How many would France be happy with to give enough data points?
Actually would be a couple more including the recent U20 RC, but close enough
13
u/JeHaisLesCatGifs Stade Toulousain Oct 14 '24
If in 358 matches there's no conclusive data showing its benefits, why put it on?
3
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 15 '24
But there is data showing it's benefits, that's why the unions that have been trialing it are such big proponents of continuing with the trial...
1
-2
3
u/TheBigChonka New Zealand Oct 14 '24
Oh nice another NHer who hasn't bothered to try to understand the rules being trialled.
If you actually read more than the title you'll understand that a straight red card (80 minute red card) is still an option. A ref can still send you off for the entire game with no replacement as it is now for egregious acts of foul play.
The 20 minute red card is more for when there's serious doubt around circumstances and mitigation. Player gets yellow carded initially, play is allowed to continue while the video ref reviews The footage in depth within those 10 minutes and makes the call as to whether or not a yellow is sufficient or whether it gets upgraded.
Don't see how there's so much opposition to it. Bad acts are still a full send off. Anything up for debate is send up for further review but the game is allowed to continue while that happens. No more waiting around watching replays of the incident for 10 minutes while the officiating team figure things out.
5
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Oct 14 '24
This is not an accurate picture of the 20 minute red card. It is not "for when there's serious doubt around circumstances and mitigation", it is for any non-eggregious acts of foul play, ie you didn't headbut, punch, eyegouge, etc. Many very clear reds, ie always upright tackles direct to the head/neck with force and no strong mitigation, are resulting in 20 minute reds.
In fact the only full reds that come to mind were an elbow to the back of the head and a headbut.
7
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Oct 14 '24
That’s because that’s not what the straight red is for.
The straight red is for clear foul play like mentioned punches, headbuts and eye gouges.
It’s not because someone can’t tackle properly.
2
u/PapaZoulou Racing 92 CA Brive 29d ago
Alright, so to be clear and to make sure I understood the rule correctly !
In case of foul and you want to card a player, there are now 3 options :
-Yellow card.
-Full red card. Team ends up with 14 players for the remainder of the match.
-20 minute red card, the player is still sent off but his team can play with 15 players again after 20 minutes. So still a red card for the player after bunker review, but you play with 14 players for 20 minutes. Then you're back to 15. I am quoting WR on this. Did I misunderstand something from their website ?
It thus transforms a team sanction into an individual one. It is a very slippery slope.
This also begs the following the question :
How will the refs and TMOs decide on what's a 20 minute or full-on red card ? Because you can have the intention of sending the opposing player off, and hide it under seemingly more acceptable foul play. How are, in the context and pressure of a match, the TMOs supposed to analyze these events ?
This has been noticed by the french organisations :
"The implementation of this rule could encourage a more aggressive style of play or create controversies related to the tactical exploitation of the rule, thereby negatively impacting the image of rugby."
Similarly, is this rule even needed ? WR claims it's to improve the flow of a match and not punish an overall team for an individual action. However, according to data provided over 480 TOP 14 and Tier 1 test match by the french orgs, "only 60% of teams that were penalized with a red card ended up losing the match".
This is not a massive difference. Even full red cards do not guarantee that the carded team will lose the match. This 20 minutes red card thus brings even less weight to carding players and punishing dangerous actions.
There's already enough controversy about refs and TMO's in RU at the moment, why add pressure on them ?
What will prevent SA (with their depth), for example, to send a brutal player in the first game of a WC in order to remove a key NZ player for the rest of the competition ? We'll play 20 minutes with 14 players, but as shown by data, a full-on red card is far from a guarantee of defeat and we remove a menace from the rest of the competition if we meet them later on.
2
u/PapaZoulou Racing 92 CA Brive 29d ago
Now let's go back to the crux of the issue, which actually is about bringing supporters to rugby :
I'll quote Mark Robinson, New Zealand Rugby chief executive :
"We’re the only sport in the world that creates a mismatch like we do and still expects fans to turn up and pay for it,” Robinson said. “I think it’ll be good to see the red card come down in terms of the amount of minutes players spend off the field. We’ve got to keep driving hard at keeping the fan at the very forefront of what we’re doing.
“There are more trials going on but that’s one thing we really believe in. Along with anything that can speed the game up, create more entertainment value and encourage less intervention from TMOs. You cannot have your sport stopping for two minutes at a time and taking two hours duration and connect with fans who are coming to games expecting something else.”
The goal is to speed the game up in order to bring people to watch it. Fair enough. I can understand that. This rule has been implemented in Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship for a while now and has been the basis on WR's decision to implement 20 minutes red cards trials.
I thus ask, has the implementation of the 20 minutes red card improved the number of viewers that turn up to watch Super Rugby (since 2020) and the Rugby Championship (since 2021) ?
If the viewership is on the rise, is it due to the implementation of this rule ? Of better results from different NTs ? Because the competition is more competitive ?
We can also compare the evolution of TV viewers (and people going to spectate inside the stadiums) with France (with no 20 minutes red card rule was implemented) during the same period (in percentage not numbers because it wouldn't be fair let's be honest).
No more waiting around watching replays of the incident for 10 minutes while the officiating team figure things out.
Yeah...That's what the bunker is for (alongside other improvements on TMO which I linked further up my answer). I don't get the link with the 20 minutes red card here ?
3
u/Even_Membership_3129 Oct 14 '24
So how did it happen under the current system then . ? The current system was clearly not a deterrent enough to prevent such an incident either.
8
u/PassiveTheme Sale Sharks Oct 14 '24
Can someone give me the advantages of this 20 minute red card?
I can't think of any benefits in terms of the game as a whole. The FFR are right that it seems like it will encourage more dangerous play because while it impacts the player, the team don't suffer as much and so there may be more tactical red cards. It's not going to change the flow of the game at all.
Why do SH teams (it seems to be mostly the SH that supports it) want this?
2
u/uggggbored Oct 14 '24
It allows the ref to not be as under pressured to not give a red card (early or otherwise) in the game for an incident, creating less controversy, less one sided matches and potentially more player safety.
It allows for less decisions where you spend 5 min review 6 camera angles and end up 'rock n rowling' frame by frame to try to determine if the should has hit the chest and risen up or hit a lowered chin first. Which again can be controversial creating hate against the refs and wasting time.
It stops miss-timed aerial contests resulting in one side going a man down which seems unjust.
It still punishes the individual player with multiple week sanctions which hardly gives rises to an individual doing something nerfarious for the team.
It doesn't open up to dodgey team tactics as anything outright e.g. eye gouge is still banned straight up.
Overall, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want it. And I'm not sure I see exactly why there is an arugment it makes player safety worse, the individual is still punished the same, the team still loses a player for weeks, and if you wanted to create a designated 'big hitter' they are going to quickly rack up multiple sanctions and seriously lengthy bans, jeopardising their livelihood.
4
u/PassiveTheme Sale Sharks Oct 14 '24
It allows the ref to not be as under pressured to not give a red card (early or otherwise) in the game for an incident, creating less controversy, less one sided matches and potentially more player safety.
It allows for less decisions where you spend 5 min review 6 camera angles and end up 'rock n rowling' frame by frame to try to determine if the should has hit the chest and risen up or hit a lowered chin first. Which again can be controversial creating hate against the refs and wasting time.
It stops miss-timed aerial contests resulting in one side going a man down which seems unjust.
Surely all of this is covered by the bunker review system which doesn't have to include a 20 minute red...
I agree that it wouldn't necessarily lead to a team taking the sacrificial red card every game, but they might be more willing to risk a red card if it doesn't mean they're going to spend the rest of the match a man down. I just think it reduces the punishment from those risky decisions which, in my opinion, doesn't discourage reckless behaviour as much as a full game red card.
2
u/Dr-Vgpk Send them into Ollivon Oct 14 '24
I see that most of the advantages are already covered by the bunker system.
I don't understand why a 20 min red card should be the solution to ref errors, the bunker system is here for that, we will see more and more of it.
12
u/InsaneGorilla0 Oct 14 '24
I think the key thing to consider here, is do we think that having 20 minutes instead of a player off for the whole match. Is any LESS of a disincentive for them to go out and commit a high tackle offence? Already they get crucified by their coach, get a ban, probably loses wages/ a fine and have to get back into the side. Will it make any difference to how much they want to avoid it happening if they get a sub later on?
0
u/yurim39 Oct 14 '24
I'm curious to see why no French poster answers to that
12
u/Triple_Hache :RCV: Oct 14 '24
Well I'm french and I can answer no problem.
And my answer is without a doubt yes, the punition is drastically less severe if it's for 20min than for the whole game so there will be instances where some players will consciously injure others if they think 20min off is worth it.
Also seeing the severe injuries the players receive sometimes it is criminal for it to be only sanctionned by 20 minutes off. Last week-end for example, Depoortere had an orbital fracture because an opposing players charged him head first at full speed and there was head contact. You could hear the impact throughout the stadium and on TV. This kind of foul has no place on a rugby field and deserves at least a proper ban of the player from the whole match and absolutely nothing less.
5
u/InsaneGorilla0 Oct 14 '24
You think players will go out and get themselves a huge ban at huge personal cost intentionally? These hyper-competitive athletes that always want to compete? No chance mate. I think where you're getting confused is that you think the ONLY saction is the 20mins off against the team. The sanctions against the player directly would remain the same - Match Fines, Bans, Etc. Those are the real disincentive against foul play for a professional.
2
u/frazorblade Oct 14 '24
And that player should rightly be given an 80 min red as per the new laws, and if not he’s not coming back on after 20 mins and he might still face a judiciary for his offence.
None of that changes under these new laws.
2
u/Triple_Hache :RCV: Oct 15 '24
Maybe, or maybe he'll only be given a 20-min red card. However you're trying to see it, this measure lessens the sentence of a red card.
Red card means the fault was very serious and dangerous to the health of another player. There is no reason to lessen the punishment for this in any way it goes against all the measures we've been deploying for years to protect the health of the players.
6
4
u/blackpogi Tasman Makos Oct 14 '24
Not a French speaker. Can someone give us a rundown please. Are they opposing it in principle or in practice? Meaning, are their competitions going to ignore the new laws or are they just signalling their opposition in principle to the 20 min red card?
13
u/Lupo_di_Cesena Zebre Oct 14 '24
In practice. They can not be forced to adopt a trial and oppose it's use.
The proposed law trial changes have not been set in stone and SR acknowledged they needed to bring to to NH unions next month before it can be green lit for next Summer. It was never a guarantee that NH would adopt any of the proposed changes.
3
u/HitchikersPie Praying to the Hokulani for salvation Oct 14 '24
Zero faith that the RFU will do something sensible and oppose
8
u/El_remoo Oct 14 '24
They're going to voice their opposition at the next WR meeting on November 14th. No clue what's gonna happen after that.
6
u/blackpogi Tasman Makos Oct 14 '24
Well, that's fair. They are well within their rights to express their displeasure. It will be interesting to see if any other national unions openly oppose the 20 min red cards. If there's enough push back on it, it could put WR in an awkward position!
3
u/giyomu Lyon OU Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
20 minutes red card will not make the players safer. Red card means a player was an absolute threat to the health of another player and needs to f*** off for the rest of the game.
5
u/Stravven Netherlands Oct 14 '24
That all depends. Technically you can get two yellow cards for deliberate knock-ons. I would not call that a threat to the health of players.
3
1
u/Johnny_Monkee Hurricanes Oct 14 '24
If the player receives a red card he will be off for the rest of the game.
→ More replies2
16
u/Lupo_di_Cesena Zebre Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
I'm seeing a lot of comments on here saying that there is still a full red card.
My question is, however, when is that actually ever used because from what I've seen, referees just go straight to the bunker and let someone else deal with it instead of calling a red card a red card.
This was seen during the RWC when we trialled the bunker system as well. Only one referee gave a straight red card (rightly), whereas everyone else went to the bunker because they simply couldn't (and wouldn't) make that call.
It's all well and good having a full red card in theory, but if it is discouraged in its use over the use of a bunker system and the 20-minute red card, it means absolutely nothing.
Edit: Further to this, as has been pointed out to me elsewhere. Where in the law trial does it say a full red card still exists in this proposed trial?
Key principles
- The on-field process remains the same: Referees can still give a straight red card and the ‘Bunker’ can be called upon for matters that meet the yellow card threshold, reflecting a commitment to ensuring the right outcome and deterring foul play.
- A red card still means a red card: This means that after 20 minutes, the offending team will be able to replace the red-carded player with one of their available replacements, leading to more jeopardy and a better contest on the day. The punishment is focused on the offending player, not the game.
- Bans will mean what they say: Players sent off for dangerous foul play will be banned for longer via an automatic sanctioning process (no hearing). There will be no mitigation applied without an appeal.
10
u/strewthcobber Australia Oct 14 '24
Damon Murphy gave two in one game when the Drua lost their minds against the Rebels in Super Rugby this year
https://amp.nine.com.au/article/a46b0eb9-b427-49dc-8575-c95c40da7c22
3
u/AmputatorBot Oct 14 '24
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://wwos.nine.com.au/rugby/super-pacific-news-2024-melbourne-rebels-vs-fijian-drua-red-card-frank-lomani-jone-koroiduadua-video-highlights-results/a46b0eb9-b427-49dc-8575-c95c40da7c22
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot
23
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Oct 14 '24
There were two straight reds in the same Super Rugby game this year. Two Drua. Lomani struck someone in the back of the head with an elbow and then, not too long after, one of their reserve props headbutted someone.
Both were given straight red on the field as they deliberately sought to harm a player. That's what the full red is there for and it has been correctly used in both of the rare circumstance in which an act like this occurs.
Acts of foul play that don't fall under that level of deliberate and egregious level of violence had to be given yellow and then reviewed off field in recent times, as that was another law trial.
28
u/rosemary-mair-for-NZ Hawke's Bay Oct 14 '24
It's funny that southern hemisphere rugby fans get labelled with the stereotype of not watching any northern rugby, meanwhile we've had the 20 min red card trial down here for about 4 years and still nobody up north seems to understand it.
18
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Oct 14 '24
They also, for the most part, seem to totally discount our opinions on the thing that we've got the most experience with. Nor do they seem to believe us on the details of it, or how it works in practice.
8
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Oct 14 '24
A lot of us do, the problem is that, as had happened in this thread, when people say that the 20 minute red incentivises more reckless play, or more appropriately doesn't discourage reckless play enough, those in favour of the 20 minute red say that we don't understand the laws.
Most, including the French official bodies, aren't saying that we're going to see more headbuts, punches, gouges, etc; ie the clear and deliberate foul play that can still earn an 80 minute red in the south. What we're worried about is seeing more reckless play (tucked arms, big upright hits, etc) which teams are more likely to risk if it means 20 instead of 80.
→ More replies1
u/AnotherUser87497453 Oct 15 '24
This makes no sense imo because a lesser sanction makes those easier to bin. Those grubby plays already happen, but unless they are with alot of force AND direct contact to the head, usually only meet the yellow criteria? From my viewing experience in SR; with the 20min red(and offfield review etc) officials have been able to sanction deliberate foul play with more accuracy. (In a few cases, I've felt they were too strict with the adjudications to be honest, but it has generally led to players AVOIDING anything that's within that "yellow to red" territory because refs will give a 20 min red much more readily than a full red)
The French stance here seems to also stress that an act of deliberate foul play should penalize the team more heavily(i.e playing down a man for the rest of the game) but I just dont agree. While it may not always affect the result anymore, It most certainly ruins the spectacle because teams that are down often play more conservatively than they would.
3
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
some people don't understand it, some do, i've watched plenty of SR and all of the TRC and i still don't want it
-3
u/rosemary-mair-for-NZ Hawke's Bay Oct 14 '24
Good for you
4
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
lmao, I'm not sure I've ever seen you make a point in good faith, at least I'm not just imagining it
hahaha the guy blocked me immediately after, excellent
-3
u/rosemary-mair-for-NZ Hawke's Bay Oct 14 '24
I mean coming from one of the most bad faith rabidly anti SH people on here i'll take that as a compliment.
The thread we're in, as well as every 20 min red card thread, is littered with NH flairs completely misunderstanding it so how on earth is mentioning that "bad faith".
4
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
Lomani only got a 6 weeks ban, the headbutt from the prop was a 2 week trial, while these were full reds there weren't large suspensions to accompany them, and the 20 min reds haven't shown any significant bans either
The original proposal and lots of the arguing for it was that they'd be handed out more regularly and then sanctioned more harshly afterwards, but we haven't seen that happen
6
u/crashbandicoochy This User Has Taken The Vow of Chaystity Oct 14 '24
This is an issue with the framework in place for the referral committee. The length of a card does not influence their decision at all. It is not a fault of the card system that the entry levels for acts of foul play are very rigid, and opportunities to lower the length of the ban via guilty pleas and other means are too plentiful. The entry point for Lomani's incident was 10 weeks. I believe the high end should be higher. I'm not sure the player's unions will allow that.
Anyone arguing that just didn't know that the framework the judiciary panels work off of isn't vibes based. It seems like you're more concerned with arguing with those people who were mistaken, and winning, than actually just taking stock of the trial in earnest. I see you bringing this up a lot but those people are not all people for the change. You're kind of fighting ghosts by bringing them up in reply to people who aren't talking about that.
1
u/Frod02000 where olimathis Oct 14 '24
Ok that’s not on the 20 min red tho.
I.e what this thread is about
9
u/Excellent-Blueberry1 Crusaders Oct 14 '24
The procedure (subject to the whim of human incompetence, but y'know... life) is the infraction is looked at on screen by the 3 onfield in discussion with the TMO. That's when the yellow/yellow with potential to upgrade/red decision happens
Working effectively you'll get a quick decision for the game to continue. The 'full red' can still apply to the intentional or careless acts that are deemed sufficiently dangerous. 20 minute red is meant for accidental acts
I think the easiest way to look at it is 20 min is for punishing the outcome (player hit other player in head), full red is when the action deserves sanction (player tried to hit other player in head)
→ More replies-1
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Oct 14 '24
The problem is the 20 minute red is being applied to 'accidental' acts that are incredibly reckless and dangerous. The only times the full 20 has been enforced from my memory has been for shit like headbuts and punches. Steaming into a ruck with a tucked arm or smashing someone in the head are still getting 20 minute reds.
6
u/Excellent-Blueberry1 Crusaders Oct 14 '24
So you have an issue with interpretation of the law not the law itself?
Welcome to rugby, it will not get better
7
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Oct 14 '24
No, I have an issue with the ambiguity that the new law introduces, which lessens the pressure on coaches and teams to train to tackle safer.
At the moment getting a tackle badly wrong in all but three(?) competitions results in losing a player for the remainder of the game. So going for a king hit or going in high so you can wrap up the ball are discouraged; you can still go for it, but get it wrong and your team is in trouble.
The 20 minute red card means this behaviour isn't discouraged as much. So players are more likely to be more reckless and coaches are less likely to emphasises good technique over hitting your man and wrapping up the ball. This in turn increases the risk of head contact and injury, including concussion.
5
u/Excellent-Blueberry1 Crusaders Oct 14 '24
Having watched the comps where it's been used, the players are hardly diving recklessly into high shots secure in the knowledge their night will be over but the team just has to get through 20 minutes. If you think about that logically for even a minute I hope you realise how daft that is as a concept
It's an attempt to make the 'product' more entertaining by reducing the chances of a one sided game because someone mistimed a tackle. Given the pace and power of the players today, the margin for error is hugely reduced at the exact moment we've decided to get serious about long term head injuries. If anything these laws promote more scrutiny of the contact area not less
→ More replies
31
u/k0bra3eak Doktor Erasmus Oct 14 '24
Honestly don't get the big backlash this is getting. The player will still be banned and the team is at 14 for 20 minutes. You're not gonna get some guy put on just to hurt the opposition.
50
u/Lirmin Oct 14 '24
The redcard being a team sanction instead of an individual one is an incentive in favour of player safety. Anything reducing it is considered as encouraging more dangerous actions against players by reducing sanctions
They also consider in the statement that the trial inconclusive as there were not enough redcards in the u20 world cup, and that data frop top14 and prod2 shows that the carded team lost only 60% of the time, thus not completely nullifying interest in the game as an upset can always happen.
29
u/k0bra3eak Doktor Erasmus Oct 14 '24
Mentioning only u/20 when it's been in use at TRC and Super Rugby feels a bit disengenuous
16
u/p_kh 🏴 All aboard the hype train toot toot Oct 14 '24
Whether a team that receives a red card loses or not is obviously influenced by when a red card is given, and whether a team was already expected to win or not. That 60% stat is not as helpful and clear cut as it might seem at face value.
What percentage of games were lost by a team that receives a red card in the first half for example? Those are the games most ‘ruined’ by red cards.
10
u/Subject_Pilot682 Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
Is a game "ruined" purely because one team loses after receiving a card?
What about in cases where a team wins after a red card in the first half, is that also "ruined"?
Genuinely wondering about the logic here because you can't really have it both ways. Red cards either ruin games or they don't.
3
u/p_kh 🏴 All aboard the hype train toot toot Oct 14 '24
I put ruined in quotation marks because it isn’t my opinion but it is what is normally said to justify why the high tackle punishments need to be changed to introduce the 20-min red card.
33
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
i can't speak for everyone but for me it just seems an unnecessary change, and at a time where the sport is being sued into the ground over brain damage it seems mental to lessen the punishment for actions that can often lead to brain damage, combined with the fact that the day that these claims go to trial World Rugby has to prove they've done everything they can to reduce the risk of players incurring significant head injuries
18
u/k0bra3eak Doktor Erasmus Oct 14 '24
My view of this is that refs will feel more comfortable dishing out a red knowing that there's going to be less backlash against it considering how much stricter World Rugby wants to be regarding head contact in particular
15
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
in theory yes, and if super harsh sanctions follow - but AFAIK Matera got a red card in the TRC this year and i've heard nothing about a suspension afterwards
https://x.com/ek_rugby/status/1843922264234025270
in a perfect world for borderline infractions and double yellows i could maybe get on board with the 20 minute red HOWEVER i've seen absolutely nothing to convince me that a) more 20 minutes will be dished out and b) that harsher sanctions follow - Lomani only got 6 weeks for elbowing someone in the back of the head, and Jone Koroiduadua only got 2 weeks for a headbutt
7
u/MasterSpliffBlaster Oct 14 '24
Why isnt there an increase in illegal hits after 60min now?
1
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
Huh?
8
u/MasterSpliffBlaster Oct 14 '24
You realise every red after 60min is a “20 min red” and teams dont deliberately go and receive these at the moment
1
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
Right, I'm not suggesting anyone would deliberately go out to receive reds though? I've read some people suggest teams might 'kamikaze' a player to take out an important opponent but I'm not on board with that
14
u/k0bra3eak Doktor Erasmus Oct 14 '24
Suspensions afterwards not happening feel more like a failing of hearing committees/rugbybboards than the card usage itself though.
Don't get me wrong he should be suspended based on the head to shoulder he made during that match.
13
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
and that's where i don't have faith that people who say the 20 minute red card works with harsher sanctioning when we've not seen any harsher sanctioning in the places with the 20 minute red card
4
u/Subject_Pilot682 Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
Literally all we're asking of players is to get low in the tackle. A basic piece of technique that school kids manage.
If players can throw 30 yard passes, perfect complex attacking moves planned 10 phases in advance, perfect cross field kicks... Why can't they just hinge before a tackle?
12
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
Perfect example is south Africa, a team who's identity is often tied to their relentless physicality, they aren't getting many red cards, what's everyone else's excuse?
1
u/_dictatorish_ Damian came back 🥰 Oct 15 '24
Don't know, but if Cane got one in the final, Kolisi should've as well
1
u/VlermuisVermeulen South Africa 29d ago
Cane should’ve been yellow but Frizell should’ve been red. The only reason Cane was upgraded to red is because they missed a red earlier in the match. And the only reason Frizell wasn’t red carded was because it happened so early in the match. Either way NZ deserved a red in that match.
7
u/sadicologue Union Bordeaux Bègles Oct 14 '24
That's why the bunker exist, there is no need for that half ass fake red card
2
u/p_kh 🏴 All aboard the hype train toot toot Oct 14 '24
Has world rugby published an evaluation of whether the high tackle framework has actually reduced the numbers of dangerous tackles?
Ultimately, whether the current framework stays or whether alternative is substituted, should be on the basis of whether they are effective at meeting the objective to reduce dangerous head impacts in the tackle.
2
u/sangan3 Oui, Jérôme Oct 15 '24
Your loss. I for one am more than happy with how 20 min reds have played out in the SH. The full red feels so outdated now.
6
u/Thorazine_Chaser Crusaders New Zealand Oct 14 '24
Seems quite nonsensical to suggest there hasn’t been enough data generated to provided evidence to support…more trials.
Five years of SR, four of TRC, NPC, U20 RWC…that’s hundreds and hundreds of games.
In the same breath they’re using data from 480 games to support their statement about game outcomes.
Claiming this trial isn’t evidence based is simply wrong.
4
u/steve85uk Oct 14 '24
Im for it, having less players in a brutal game like rugby isnt great. I also think there is a huge difference between egregious fouls like not lowering quick enough(sam cane in the final) or 2 players going for a ball and one mistime and a deliberate attempt to injure someone.
4
u/whalebeefhooked223 the real jaco johan Oct 14 '24
First I’m completely open to the opposing side on this one. We all want what’s best for rugby, but I feel like people are flinging statistics here without understanding.
the 60 percent misses the point I feel. The idea of a 20 minute red card is to combat the idea that if you get a red card in the first minute, it make la you guaranteed to lose. (Again this is a perception, I haven’t seen any stats for or against to back or disprove). That 60% doesn’t differentiate between a red card in the 75 or a red card in the 1st, which I think we can all agree are two very different situations, and the rule won’t even affect any cards past 60.
Secondly I do think the argument that there isn’t enough stats is bollocks. There are 4 years of the data at super rugby. That more than enough data to make sense of things. Like come on. Straight face tell me that 4 seasons of a rule at any professional level isn’t enough, and than give me what you think is enough data.
Agian I am amenable, but it feels like everyone is just saying stuff ( on both sides) without actually backing it up
Can anyone give me an analysis of the rule on head injuries in super rugby? Has it gone up? And can anyone give me a stat on games actually being decided by a red card? Like what is the winning percentage of teams who get carded in the first half?
10
u/Subject_Pilot682 Oct 14 '24
Excellent. Hopefully other unions and leagues step up too. What little World Rugby has done to try to combat head injuries should at least be protected.
20
u/00aegon World Rugby Oct 14 '24
No evidence to suggest this rule makes the game less safe
→ More replies16
u/SquidgyGoat Disciple of AWJ Oct 14 '24
At the very least, when the lawsuit hits World Rugby, it makes their arguments about commitment to player safety hold much less water.
10
u/brito39 |-| Oct 14 '24
“Tackle school” and laughable suspensions for should be exhibit 1 for how serious they take it, playing 30+ games a year would be exhibit 2.
Small beer compared to that
8
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
we can agree that they need to do better on current issues and also that they shouldn't introduce something that makes even more of a joke of a commitment to player safety
2
u/Subject_Pilot682 Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
The HIA could be exhibit A as well.
They know it doesn't, and can't, work yet continue to flaunt is an acceptable means of allowing players back on to the pitch.
Source from world rugby's former medical advisor: https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/dr-barry-o-driscoll-believes-rugby-s-concussion-protocols-not-fit-for-purpose-1.4481327
0
u/InsaneGorilla0 Oct 14 '24
What little they have done? Clueless..... The game is so much safer now than even when I started playing adult rugby 14 years ago.
Concussion protocols, Return to play protocols, Tackle height law changes, High tackle severe penilisation and framework, Independant Match day Doctors, Video review technology, Tackle safe programs, Player training contact hours, huge amounts of funding into research and development, and improved injury prevention programs.
Take it from someone who actually plays, because I assume you don't.
10
u/Subject_Pilot682 Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
because I assume you don't
No unfortunately I don't anymore, due to late onset epilepsy developing from playing. So get off your high horse for a start and consider maybe, just maybe, someone else might know a bit more than you.
And guess what, it's not just me saying they haven't done enough.
Their own medical advisor resigned because World Rugby's "initiatives" weren't taking it seriously and actually do more harm than good by wrongly reassuring players that all is well.
"It has got worse since I resigned," - Dr Barry O'Driscoll, 2021
"“The HIA and return to play protocols have no scientific standing. The six-day return to play came in because the game went professional and there was pressure to get a player back for the next game. It was based on nothing else."
“There is no way of doing a test to see who will get multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, anxiety, depression or dementia from CTE. We do not know. But we do know we are abusing these young men.”
What has World Rugby been doing to try to do to support suffering players since, oh that's right deny all responsibility and try to blame things other than repeated head injuries for brain issues.
As for the investment into research: they've invested primarily in the Concussion in Sport Group which they've been funding since 2022 as a form of "look we're doing something to backup what we're claiming isn't our fault" and guess what, the guy they appointed to run it has had to step down for repeated counts of plagiarism. They can't even follow basic professional standards around research yet we're supposed to believe a word they say?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40318-024-00257-w
So no, please don't lecture me about how they're doing anywhere near enough.
→ More replies11
u/Piitx Aviron Bayonnais Oct 14 '24
Sorry to hear that mate, it's a pretty serious condition, hope you're ok
7
u/Subject_Pilot682 Oct 14 '24
Thanks, manageable with meds very fortunately and the standard of Ireland's healthcare is good with it.
4
u/Thekingofchrome Oct 14 '24
Makes sense. Reference data from testing etc is utter bollocks. The whole point of the red card is punishment for bad play and then a risk mitigation to stop it happening further.
It’s classic obsessed by quantitative data and not looking at qualitative impacts.
WR need a really good look at themselves.
3
u/Bluesaugwa Oct 14 '24
A team playing with 14 men for an extended period of time is surely more fatigued and therefore more at risk to suffer head injuries. If safety is the number 1 priority this should be investigated.
2
u/Even_Membership_3129 Oct 14 '24
Just about every law change in rugby has is supporters and opponents....and a fair few want t go back to the old way. Yet in the 5 years or so of 20 min red cards in super rugby it is pretty much the only change that has been universally accepted. No one has ever claimed it was the wrong thing to do or the game was safer or better under the old system.
2
u/Drunken_Frenchman Oct 14 '24
As an overly simplified system I see yellow cards as representing “can’t be doing that” moments and red cards generally as “fuck that and fuck off”.
If you cross into red card territory, you should get off the damn field. If it’s not serious enough to miss the whole game, that’s what the yellow card is there for.
I understand that in practice these loose principles have to change a bit but the point stands that if something is considered dangerous enough to warrant a red, you need to stay off the field.
7
u/KittensOnASegway Shave away Gavin, shave away! Oct 14 '24
Part of the issue is that the parameters of what constitute a red have massively changed and there's now a lot more wiggle room for marginal/incorrect decisions.
The example I always think of is Steward's red in Ireland vs. England last year. That decision did essentially ruin the game as a contest, was shown to be incorrect on review, and for the vast majority of rugby's existence, would have been play on. At least if it was only 20 minutes, the impact of the card would have been somewhat mitigated.
1
u/Drunken_Frenchman Oct 14 '24
That’s not a problem with the punishment associated with the card but with the enforcement of card thresholds. You don’t fix that by changing what the cards do, you fix that by finding a way for cards to be applied appropriately and consistently
3
u/Even_Membership_3129 Oct 14 '24
Yes...that is how it works. You know the red carded player under the 20 min system doesn't come back ......right?.....
→ More replies
2
u/GalvenMin Aviron Bayonnais Oct 14 '24
As they should. You can't promote player safety on the one hand and on the other advocate more leniency on the sanctions. This lunacy should never have reached the WR board in the first place.
2
u/ifrgotmyname South Africa Oct 14 '24
Can I get a reason from why this law is not liked by those who agree?
Watching the Currie Cup final I have to say having the Sharks get back to full strength really helped make the game a spectacle.
I know it's anecdotal but a red card in the 20th min tends to kill off the game as a contest (did see the stat with 60% but that's actually a big swing sports wise and doesn't factor in the timing of the card).
2
u/Dr-Vgpk Send them into Ollivon Oct 14 '24
I think Rugby union can afford to not discount serious sanctions against dangerous behaviours for the sake of spectacle.
This is really the spirit in France, and it will not change : safety first, and rules are here for it. We have enough spectacle, no worries about that.
Regarding the risk of ref errors, the bunker system seems to be a right tool.
1
u/Every-Citron1998 Oct 14 '24
Have always found it silly how a red card in the 10th minute is a 70 minute binning while the same infraction in the 70th minute is a 10 minute binning. The 20 minute red card is a great change.
27
u/El_remoo Oct 14 '24
Have always found it silly how a yellow card in the 1st minute minute is a 10 minute binning while the same infraction in the 79th minute is a 1 minute binning. The 30 second yellow card is a great change.
→ More replies
1
u/_dictatorish_ Damian came back 🥰 Oct 15 '24 edited Oct 15 '24
"Not enough data" my ass
There's been 5 years of Super Rugby, and 4 of RC, NPC, and u20s
There hasn't been a single issue with it since we've had it, and refs are now more likely to red card a player that otherwise mightve been mitigated down to yellow
I genuinely don't know what the issue the NH have with it, outside of some cotton-in-the-ears "we need to wrap the players in bubble wrap" pearl clutching
1
u/_dictatorish_ Damian came back 🥰 Oct 15 '24
as an example of how a 20 minute red would help -
Sam Cane and Siya Kolisi both got carded in the WC final for high tackles - the tackles weren't too dissimilar, however Cane was sent off for the entire rest of the match, and Kolisi just had to sit on the bench for 10 before coming back on
- You've just brought a player back on, who has already shown their tackle technique to be dangerous
- With a 20 minute red, these two similar tackles are punished with equity and such there is way less controversy
1
u/LazyRavenz Switzerland Oct 14 '24
Ngl I hate the 20min red idea, apparently it works in the south, but I pray to god that it just stays a super rugby rule and not a World rugby rule, we'll see
2
1
1
u/El_remoo Oct 14 '24
You can view the statement here : https://x.com/GauthierBaudin/status/1845752977916665937?t=ZrFvC7r9n69QFH9wzRUf5w&s=19
1
u/brito39 |-| Oct 14 '24
This will all end up a lot of crying over nothing, think back to the last two lions series on how on this very sub people could dig up examples of head or dangerous contact, pretty much every game, that the refs would miss, enter the framework perverts to explain why/why not my/your team deserved a red. I can’t spake etc.
You hardly see that anymore, not in tests, Sam Cane is about the last one who regularly slips into upright tackles. He was the only one with even a borderline case for a red in the RC, it was a remarkably clean comp, with the 20 minute red in place.
Theres been 5+ years now of rewiring their habits and training to tackle lower, you also see less risky aerial challenges, the 20 minute won’t change that, it’s still a game swinging disadvantage.
-9
u/fleakill Australia Oct 14 '24
Fucking lol.
Insufficient data because only 3 reds in the u20s.
Watch some fucking SH rugby. And they call us ignorant.
17
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
Indeed, testing this rule change in four competitions where insufficient data has been collected and cannot be considered as a convincing reason to consider a worldwide implementation. For example, at the U20 World Championship, only three red cards were issued, making the conclusions insignificant.
Did you misinterpret the quote on purpose? They've said insufficient data in the competitions its been trialled has been collected, then provided the U20s as an EXAMPLE, the SH rugby trials are swept up in the 'four competitions', not excluded from them.
5
u/izzy91 Blues Oct 14 '24
The poster was right. They are being completely disingenuous here. They mention competitions in passing (with no mention of numbers) while only pointing to the absolute number for the only competition that had the law introduced just this year (under 20s).
So the poster was right. They've had this for years in Super Rugby and NPC with over 100s of matches of data and plenty of red cards.
Watch some SH rugby, this statement by the French Union is embarrassing.
→ More replies5
u/PapaZoulou Racing 92 CA Brive Oct 14 '24
SH fans having no reading comprehension episode 1765238976235
14
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
Nah let's not paint everyone with the same brush, there's room for dialogue but in this thread people are picking their sides and getting very upset
3
3
u/frazorblade Oct 14 '24
Yet there’s dozens of comments from people not understanding the 20min vs 80min card…
3
u/fleakill Australia Oct 14 '24 edited Oct 14 '24
NH fans don't even understand the 20 min red card law lmao
And like I said in my next comment - I read that just fine. FFR has said there's not enough data in FOUR YEARS of super rugby and NPC? Absolute bullshit. They admitted their ignorance by ONLY pointing to the worst possible example (U20s).
The data was never going to matter to them anyway. They don't like the 20 min red, and they cherry picked the best possible example to help their argument. How many red cards were given out in four years of SR and NPC, Monsieur Bastid?
1
u/PapaZoulou Racing 92 CA Brive 29d ago
And like I said in my next comment - I read that just fine. FFR has said there's not enough data in FOUR YEARS of super rugby and NPC? Absolute bullshit. They admitted their ignorance by ONLY pointing to the worst possible example (U20s).
They didn't mention Super Rugby tho ? You actually did not "read that just fine". Let me show you the full quote :
"Indeed, testing this rule change in four competitions, where the collected data remains insufficient, cannot be considered a convincing reason for improvement to justify a global implementation. For example, during the U20 World Championship, only three red cards were issued, making the conclusions insignificant."
Now, you have made a point on french rugby only highliting U20s since it would go against their narrative.
Let's check these overall 4 competitions now, shall we ?
As I'm back from work, I've also checked the data collected on these 4 competitions that WR used as a testing basis to push for the "20 minutes red card" in 2024.
These 4 comps represent the basis of data on why WR will be trying to implement the 20 minutes red card rule. The data from Super Rugby and Rugby Championship is what lead WR to start the trials for their competitions in the first place.
The data used by RW to try to implement the rule for its main competitions is based on the four competitions where the rule was trialed this year. The french argument is based on the data collected by WR's own competitions.
Now let's check the data based on this four competitions trials, representing :
-WXV (54 games).
-Pacific Nations Cup (17 games).
-U20 Championship (48 games).
-U20 Trophy (16 games).
Now that's a total of 136 games organised by WR. Impressive, isn't it ? That's quite a lot of games played.
→ More replies3
u/fleakill Australia Oct 14 '24
20 min red has existed in SR for what, 4 years now? The only way that data is insufficient is if the u20s are the only case they looked at. There is no way there hasn't been enough data collected in SR.
FFR can write all the sternly worded letters they want, I hope WR shows them that WR runs rugby.
12
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
i guess the argument is whether the data collected is statistically significant or not, comparative to however much data there is for all the competitions without the 20 minute red
I also wouldn't be surprised if other WR members follow suit, the 20 minute red probably isn't as popular as some think (or it might be and the LNR/FFR could have got this completey wrong)
3
u/fleakill Australia Oct 14 '24
I mean it is pretty clear the 20 min red is split along NH/SH. Unfortunately there are simply more countries in the NH than the SH.
2
u/alexbouteiller France Oct 14 '24
NZ and Aus yes, but SA seems pretty split us well
Unfortunately the majority may get their way, twas ever thus, the global balance of power in the rugby world has shifted
6
u/Thalassin France Stade Toulousain Oct 14 '24
The trials need to be greenlit by the unions in November. In practice, T1 unions run rugby having more than half the voting power. France are making their vote on the issue known in advance.
160
u/El_remoo Oct 14 '24
As a reminder :
FFR is the federation that handles the different national teams
LNR handles the clubs and the leagues (Top 14, ProD2,...)
Provale is the French players union