How long a ban?

[Which Tyler]

I agree with this. If the TMO and bunker people are intervening we need to see refereeing as a panel or group activity. Sending the images back to the ref is a waste of time.

I'd be happy with that - we already get it from clear and obvious TMO interventions, and from TJ interventions. Though I guess they do review everything that's card-worthy.

I think the idea that someone here mooted about an orange card for a 20 min sit down could work well with this system too.

Nope, hate it. If the sanction isn't changing behaviour the way it should, the solution isn't to reduce the sanction.
The solution is to change the risk/reward in favour of tackling lower - which means sanctioning more of them - which we know works from the previous changes on lifting / spear tackles, and playing the man in the air (both examples of previously text-book actions being made illegal, and the latter being an example of accidental not being an excuse).

Now, I'll entertain the idea of the orange card if, and only if, it means that ref.s actually have the balls to show the right card, and every instance gets picked up on and banned. If it's just that though, you'd think they'd currently be issuing yellows, rather than nothings, and we wouldn't be seeing red cards rescinded.

Red card every instance of a high tackle, and they'll soon start aiming lower. when the risk is 1 in 10 chance of being penalised, then the percentage play is to go high - this is especially so if you can just argue your way out of further sanction later on.

For the time being, I favour lowering the tackle height, and then simplifying things.
Tackle below the sternum - not a high tackle
Tackle between sternum and armpit - high tackle, penalty, no nuance
Tackle between armpit and top of shoulder - very high tackle, yellow, no nuance
Tackle on neck/head - dangerous tackle, red card, no nuance

Every yellow card for dangerous play (such as high tackles) automatically sited for the disciplinary panel on Tuesday, nuance allowed at this point.
Yellow was correct = low-end ban.
Red was correct = medium-end ban if passive tackle, high-end ban if forceful.
Hit shoulders and rode up to hit head - allow nuance.

Oh, and my long-standing complaint - any previous reduction on a ban is a suspended sentence, any repeat offending within 5 years and that reduction is added to the new ban.

[Oakboy]

It seems to me that if you have the 8 minute assessment of yellow/red there is no basis whatever to consider orange.

The red card should not be 'challengeable' at the disciplinary panel. Maybe, another reasonable step that would give the process more teeth (and accelerate players adjusting), is to have an automatic red card sanction of a 4 match ban with the panel deciding how many extra matches (say, up to six) should apply depending on seriousness, repeat offences etc. I dislike the 6 match business with mitigation reducing etc. As a simple matter of fairness, there should be no possibility of the rich player using fancy lawyers to get less than the poor player.

[Which Tyler]

I can see a point for mitigation in bans - but it seems like it's already taken account of with low- mid- and high- end entry points. I certainly don't see the point in mitigation for good behaviour (more the opposite, additional weeks for being an uncooperative twat).

Mitigation for things like "bent at the waist, but should have bent further" "started low and rode up" "other tackler changed the dynamics of the intended tackle too late to adjust for" or even "player admitted guilt so we only need to clarify rather than litigate this case".

"He said sorry after he'd calmed down and had an hour to think about it" "nice suit" etc, should NOT be mitigation for anything at all.
I'd allow immediate remorse, on the pitch, at the time, but not after someone's had a word in his ear and told to go say sorry.

As for the bunker - only repeal the card if they've made an actual error - for which we need to see their decision at each stage of the flow chart - which really should be in the public domain by the time the decision is made anyway for the studio guests to walk us through.

[Oakboy]

I just think the bunker has to be the final say on upgrading from yellow to red. Otherwise, I can't see the point in it. 8 minutes is sufficient time to review all angles. Effectively, that means the bunker guy, IMO, should be applying an automatic 4 match ban with no comeback. All subsequent arguments should simply relate to how many extra matches are applied to the ban period.

The emphasis should be on a player avoiding getting the cross-arm yellow in the first place IF the game is serious about removing head contact from play. The technique contrast between Daly/Curry should be the fallback defence of the protocol.

[canta_brian]

Read all those and I agree with the sentiments

How about this:

On field yellow - player sent to bunker for review.
If upgraded to red then there is a judgement on the basis of consequences as follows.
1) player on receiving end has been forced off- Standard red as now.
2) player in receiving end was fine - Orange card. 20 mins with a player down, but after that a different player (not the one sent off) can return to the field

- We don’t get matches being completely ruined as often
- The sent off player faces a suspension as normal
- Because the decision re yellow/red is made in the bunker, there is little chance of players choosing to fake an injury and get the full match man advantage. If the yellow remains you could be sitting in the bench 10 mins later as the player who didn’t injure you comes back on.

[Oakboy]

That has merit for the audience who want a match of 15 v 15. Might any watering down of current consequences reduce the seriousness of the quest, though? Maybe, the game has to be seen to demonstrate how important removing head injury is. In later litigation cases it could matter perhaps.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I've never understood the mindset the games are ruined by red cards. Generally what people mean is "The team I wanted to win got a red card because one of the players couldn't follow a simple instruction and I don't like the fact they lost."

[Mikey Brown]

I've never understood the mindset the games are ruined by red cards. Generally what people mean is "The team I wanted to win got a red card because one of the players couldn't follow a simple instruction and I don't like the fact they lost."

Yeah. I've really enjoyed a bunch of games featuring red cards in the last few years actually.

Even so, "ruining" single games in the short-term vs rugby being deemed unsafe as a sport in general in the long-term seems like an easy decision.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

In any event I'd happily accept the odd game being "ruined" rather than, say, the tournament losing probably the best player in the world because of a broken jaw caused by someone going too high