Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The should it or should it not be a red card thread.

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    sprucemoose
    Registered Users Posts: 2,236 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120390624#Comment_120390624
    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120390757#Comment_120390757

    i should be shocked that there are still people with such backwards attitudes. unfortunately im not

    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120391012#Comment_120391012

    im not too sure what you are saying the real source of the problem is?

    there is a point that it may be unfair to have all the onus on the tackler though i will admit.



  • Options
    #93
    sprucemoose
    Registered Users Posts: 2,236 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120393092#Comment_120393092

    Steward had no idea if Keenan would kick or pick up ball and had almost zero time to react - once FS wasnt going to collect the ball himself he could have done what he liked though, there was a blatant knock on by hansen so he had no need to make a hit on hansen (much as every player is told play to the whistle)



  • Options
    #94
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,154 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120393145#Comment_120393145

    I think that is an unfair interpretation of how this played out. the ball was on the ground though with advantage. He was fully entitled to go for it as play was live - a fly hack would have had great success given no one in back field. He can’t assume that Keenan will get there first as the ball is bobbling. And would be crucified if he didn’t go for it

    By the time keenan had actually gathered the ball though there is literally less than a second to react. He reacted badly and I agree on yellow but not red.

    I know many posters don’t agree with above and this has been debated at length so will try not to re-litigate this.

    I do think people are being a bit hysterical about the whole thing. (Not directed at you).


    As I said, will this ever happen again?



  • Options
    #95
    sprucemoose
    Registered Users Posts: 2,236 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120393174#Comment_120393174

    i think youre being a little generous to steward though, he was never getting the ball since keenan was much closer initially. he also jumped slightly into contact rather than just taking it/bracing. if he had been on the ground i might have more sympathy and agreed on a yellow but i think it was a fair call

    what i will revise slightly on my original post though, which gives steward a little more leeway, is that it seems that there was no call of knock-on/advantage etc, from the ref so i can understand to an extent why he was playing on. still though, the ball went very forward so it was pretty obvious it was going to be called back.



  • Options
    #96
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120393092#Comment_120393092

    His point is - presumably- that something being reckless resulting in something highly dangerous does not make the action highly reckless to which mitigation doesn’t apply according to law quoted. The reference to tackle in his post is irrelevant. I can’t comment on whether this is true under laws though.

    Yes. He's moved the "highly" to reckless rather than where it originally prefaced "dangerous" in order to dis-apply any mitigation. Below is the process from WR.

    image.png

    Fully agree on the unusual aspect of this case. Hugo Keenan expressed sympathy with Steward from the point of view of a full back facing that situation.

    image.png

    Also agree on the reductions of bans that are happening currently. Perhaps it's an "enough rope" situation where those who do the courses to get a one week reduction will be hammered if they reoffend. Time will tell.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It had no bearing on the game today because of the timing, but I feel the Harry Sheridan hit on Ross Byrne today just adds to my confusion around what is a yellow or red card in the modern game.

    Sheridan was fully upright at the point of the tackle and hits Ross Byrne square in the head with his shoulder. It’s mitigated down to yellow because “not a high degree of danger”.

    Does the other guy need to be split open or concussed for the tackle to have a high degree of danger?



  • Options
    #98
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,519 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120429211#Comment_120429211

    pretty much.

    if theres a head on head collision and both players are completely fine afterwards, common sense says that its not a dangerous collision.

    rugby is a collision sport, there will be head contact no matter how much they litigate against it. Not every head contact should be a red card.



  • Options
    #99
    gameoverdude
    Registered Users Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭gameoverdude


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120429406#Comment_120429406

    I agree and disagree.

    A head on head collision ,with force...not necessarily huge force, is potentially very dangerous.

    Watch world rugby crack down further when more money is on the line. (Unless some sh teams kick up a fuss before the wc)

    How to solve it, I really don't know. I still think it was a red on keenan, although no malice involved.



  • Options
    #100
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120429406#Comment_120429406

    I get what you’re saying, but it still seems wrong to have the outcome having such an influence on the decision rather than the act.

    Innocuous or totally inadvertent head contact I agree shouldn’t be a red, but there was little to no mitigation for Sheridan’s tackle today and just because thankfully Ross Byrne wasn’t split open or didn’t roll around the floor shouldn’t be a deciding factor in whether or not it’s a red.

    I just find it hugely confusing when watching games now.



  • Options
    #101
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,519 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120429450#Comment_120429450

    It's not really the outcome though, as the action has a large bearing on the outcome. Had Sheridan ploughed into Byrne at high speed and knocked his head and body backwards in a reckless act, id certainly be calling for a red card, however he didn't. It was telling at the games that even with the replays it drew no reaction from there crowd, not even a "oouuhhhh". It didn't seem like there would have been any action at all other than Ross make a bit of a commotion about it.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,418 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Had Sheridan ploughed into Byrne at high speed and hit him a few inches lower he'd be lauded for a fantastic tackle.

    The fact that the difference between a red card and a great piece of play is so minimal is a problem. There should be more space between perfection and expulsion.



  • Options
    #103
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120430298#Comment_120430298

    The difference is something that should be manageable though. Get lower, it’s not that difficult.



  • Options
    #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The Mercer red card in the Exeter Montpelier game just adds to the confusion on this issue - and tbf I think even the referees and TMOs are a little confused and clearly inconsistent in terms of how they see these incidents.

    Hard to know what distinguishes that Mercer hit from Sheridan’s yesterday.



  • Options
    #105
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,418 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120430731#Comment_120430731

    Why doesn't the law require something that's an easy fix instead of encouraging the borderline plays?



  • Options
    #106
    Former Former Former
    Registered Users Posts: 5,919 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120431099#Comment_120431099

    "Don't hit guys in the head" would seem to be the easiest fix of all, yet guys can't seem to manage it. I genuinely don't know how we could make it simpler.



  • Options
    #107
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120432073#Comment_120432073

    Enforce the laws and hand out substantial bans.



  • Options
    #108
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,519 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120432250#Comment_120432250

    Yep



  • Options
    #109
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,418 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120432073#Comment_120432073

    Oh yeah, why didn't anyone think of that...

    Very hard to have a conversation with such a binary outlook on what's obviously a complex issue.



  • Options
    #110
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120432390#Comment_120432390

    The fact is that the punishments are not severe enough to enforce behavioral change. It’s not binary or simple. What is simple though, is head on head contact is the most dangerous hit in terms of concussion. What’s not simple is enforcing the change, as managers, players, clubs and even countries don’t want to do it. That doesn’t change the answer though.



  • Options
    #111
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,418 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    They don't want to change behaviour because landing on the right side of borderline actions is beneficial.

    Making a clear distinction between good play, sending off offence and in between (penalty, yellow) would be a start

    Systematically penalising entering rucks without binding, regardless of whether or not someone gets injured or hit in the head, would be a start.

    Penalising dominant, shoulder height tackles would make a clear distinction between an acceptable tackles and a cardable offence with a bit of leeway for players genuinely attempting to hit lower and misjudging.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Ben Bailey
    Registered Users Posts: 645 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/65261316

    Rob Baxter's take



  • Options
    #113
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120474501#Comment_120474501

    That really is a BS suggestion. Then teams would be encouraged to start a sacrificial lamb. To target an opposition key player.



  • Options
    #114
    TheRona
    Registered Users Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭TheRona


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120474802#Comment_120474802

    You really think a professional rugby player is going to go out there and deliberately try to injure another professional through illegal play? I'm obviously very naive.

    Even if they did, I'd expect them to get an extremely lengthy ban.



  • Options
    #115
    Ben Bailey
    Registered Users Posts: 645 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120474820#Comment_120474820

    ".. and I know we're trying to talk about trying to change player behaviour and head injuries and all this kind of stuff,"

    If Baxter is typical of modern coaches, and I think he is, then the game is fecked.



  • Options
    #116
    flatty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭flatty


    My word there’s some screaming Marys on here.



  • Options
    #117
    sprucemoose
    Registered Users Posts: 2,236 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120474501#Comment_120474501

    '"I'm not belittling the concussion issues at all'.......

    then proceeds to belittle concussion issues for the rest of the article



  • Options
    #118
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120474820#Comment_120474820

    No, coaches would never instruct players to try injure other players. We have never seen anything like players deliberately targeting standing legs of scrumhalves. In a professional sport like rugby it has been proven time and again, that coaches will do whatever it takes to win. That player welfare takes a firm backseat to winning. If it didn’t, we would seen a marked change in tackle height by now.



  • Options
    #119
    Former Former Former
    Registered Users Posts: 5,919 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    Baxter is an absolute arse



  • Options
    #120
    sprucemoose
    Registered Users Posts: 2,236 ✭✭✭sprucemoose


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120474820#Comment_120474820

    id argue the clear out on BOD in 2005 was somewhat premeditated, maybe not the exact act itself but id say there was some sort of plan to rough him up as much as possible a feck the consequences

    also, i would never have expected a player to bite a fake blood capsule to try and allow a blood sub to be used either

    striving for success makes people do strange things



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    TheRona
    Registered Users Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭TheRona


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120475616#Comment_120475616

    Rough him up? Maybe. With illegal play, without any care for consequences? Not a chance. The All Black's would have backed themselves to win that series fair and square, there wouldn't be a need to resort to anything underhanded.

    Needing to go back nearly 20 years for an example probably tells you something.



Advertisement