General Rugby Discussion 3

At the very least, players see an opportunity to get a hit on a vulnerable player and soften him up a bit. Whether they actively think "I'm going to injure this guy and put him out of the game" is another question but you often see guys going into tackles where they know they haven't a hope of getting man and ball, but they think they'll get the hit in anyway and they'll get away with it.

And then if you look at things like stamping or gouging, what else are they doing only trying to injure the other guy?

No its not premeditated in the sense that people say "Im gonna injure that guy" I said that already but when a coach says lets target Sexton and minutes later he and the captain roaring and screaming with all the fire and brimstone stuff what do you think is gonna happen as soon as a fella locks sights on Sexton. Its often implied that the injury prone player should be hit extra hard. I wonder why ?

First off I quite clearly said implied by the coach. A culture exists where player x getting injured wouldn't be a bad thing. No one says it out loud or even admits to themselves that's the plan but that is what targeting players and certain previously injured parts of a players body is.

The pitch is a strange place where people commit all sorts of assault they never would off it. This is rugby league and probably one of the more severe cases but this guy committed sexual assault on the pitch

I already addressed that. They don't go out to deliberately get sent off. They go out and know they are willing if needs be to commit red card offenses and try get off with it.

A player isn't sure he is going to be in that position on any given day but if the opportunity arises and they think it could be the difference between winning and losing your damn right they will risk it.

Deliberate knock on is not premeditated but the player still does it of his own free will and can get a card for it, that isn't the same as the player making a conscious decision to get themselves a card. Same applies to any situation really - if a player tackles in a dangerous way they may get red carded, they didn't decide to get sent off but their deliberate actions did result in them getting one. Surely, in the laws of the game at least, everything you do is "deliberate" (even if not what you intend) but the actions of others also play a part in outcomes, hence mitigation.

Very very few red cards these days are given out for malicious play, the overwhelming majority are clearly accidental or at worst foolish

Ah we still plenty of instances of good old fashioned dirty play, in spite of the overwhelming probability of getting caught.

We have collected a serious amount of words for dancing around injure in this conversation. It's always "targeting" "rattling" "frustration" "softening" "rush of blood" "heat of the moment" another great one "letting him know you are there" is the usual GAA one.

People asked for examples and when they got them there was always a lovely turn of phrase to deny it.

Can't stand the proposed 20 minute red card rule myself.

Don't want to ruin the spectacle? Don't get yourself red-carded. It's not the ref's fault, it's not someone's fault for getting high-tackled or whatever, it's not anyone's fault bar the player who gets red-carded. While a red card is primarily a player punishment, it's (or should) also a team punishment. One of your team has done something worthy of you losing them for the rest of the match.

If you get to put another player on after 20 minutes, and the player gets harsher bans after the game, that's almost like other teams reap nearly as much of a benefit as the team that is infringed upon. The England example, Ireland lose Ryan for the whole game and then others afterwards due to HIA protocols. England lose Ewels for the rest of the game and whatever he's banned for (three weeks was it?). It's a bad example because Ewels wouldn't be first choice for England perhaps. France then get to play England without Ewels, whereas Ireland have to play without Ryan, and England can bring someone on after 20 minutes? That doesn't sit right with me at all.

Lastly, can we stop f*cking with the game so much just to appease Australians who prefer watching League? (Yes, I know NZ are also into this a lot).

100%. The idea that it's the red card that ruins the game and not the ape who gets the card is totally bananas.

The "mitigating circumstances" already gives the ref plenty of discretion.

That’s laying down a marker, nothing illegal or untoward

Yeah that's fine - no one is objecting to tackling. It's hitting guys late or high that's the problem.

We simply can't have a game that is soft on dangerous play and not end up with major concussion and brain damage issues.

Watching it here on TnaG. It's like RTE Gold with the ridiculous music being piped in. Neil Diamond and Sweet Caroline as a scrummis being set.

Sharks are playing great though.