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

They could afford to be a lot less careful though when making big chest high hits which will have the same effect when one inevitably ends up higher than intended.

Only problem with your theory is that you're assuming that it was deliberate, both in the intent, and how they chose to do it. I know it's still a sore point in these parts all these years later, but to think that these professional players would go out and deliberately try to harm a particular player in a premeditated way through illegal play, risking a red card and a lengthy ban in a series that they should (and did) easily win is just ludicrous. What could they possibly hope to gain?

Surely there's better more recent examples? A lot has changed in the sport in the last 20 years.

The 'spear tackle' was legal in 2005. WR did not specifically outlaw this type of tackle until 2009. The example cited was particularly notable as it occurred in a high profile game, and that it happened 41 seconds into the game. Even after so many years have elapsed it remains in the memory, and not just in Ireland.

The problem is in deciding when a red is a red. It has such a major bearing on a game, you want to make sure you're making the right decision.

Look at the Steward incident. A wrongly issued red has a major bearing on the result of a game. On the flip side, look at SOB punching Pape in the 2015 RWC. A missed red card also had a major bearing on the result of a match. At the end of the day, you can only assume they're trying to make the right decisions.

Look at the Steward incident. A wrongly issued red

Hang on now. The citing committee disagreed with the match officials. That isn't the same thing.

Imagine I came on here arguing a point and said "well Frank Hadden agrees with me" or "John Langford doesn't think so". I'd be laughed out of it, but that's exactly your argument.

There's a weird set-up in rugby whereby a former barrister who's well into his 70s, a retired coach who hasn't been involved in the game for 15 years and a retired player who's been gone for 20 years are considered better judges of the rules of the game than four current elite referees, all of whom said it's a red. It's a bit mental.

Well whatever suits your point of view, I guess.

You could equally argue that the decision made by the 'four current elite referees' in front of a baying crowd is a weird set-up, especially when the decision making is often led by one person, with none of the other officials wanting to disagree, as it would clearly be a bad look otherwise. I guarantee that if you asked all 4 officials at the Ire v Eng 6 Nations match what the punishment for Steward should have been independently, they wouldn't have all said red.

Is it your opinion that all decisions made by disciplinary committee are invalid?

They do use former officials at times but nearly all people on these committees have some form of legal background at this level which could be factor. its solicitors

Langford former pro player and Hadden a pro coach alongside a KC is a good mix on a committee. It can be case sometimes that more have a legal background.

You are not going to get current refs on these committees. just isnt workable IMO.

Intentional or not determines if it's a penalty.

Potential line break determines if it's a yellow.

as per the recent clarifications: Players must endeavour to catch the ball. Referees are asked to show good judgement when deciding if a player has a reasonable expectation of catching and gaining possession, and then in determining a sanction. There is no formula for determining a Yellow Card sanction in these situations.

i dont see line-breaks coming into that really