France v Uruguay - Friday (Thurs GMT)

[Galfon]

.. Also re-enforces my view that the 20 min red card should come in - some officials are so wary of giving a red as it is seen as so game ruining and is so controversial that they find any excuse not to. I think the 20 mins and then being replaced (and likely a ban) is a sufficient punishment for the team and the player to encourage change..

agree something needs to change to a more balanced punishment like this- they're caught between a rock and a hard place with essential player safety/permissable tackling, against nullifying a fixture as a competitive match and spectacle - especially so for clumsy technique in split-second secenarios where no intent/malice is evident.
The inconsistencies in bunker decisions are bringing a lottery feel to outcomes on the pitch which could nobble the tournament ultimately.
I thought Uru's back play, skill level and approach (borne largely by the need to keep the ball alive) was refreshing.

[francoisfou]

Now there's an idea - if we have to have pre-recorded anthems, why not record the crowd microphones at each team's home ground, and play that back as the RWC anthem?

That’s far too sensible a suggestion and will have no chance of being implemented

[Son of Mathonwy]

.. Also re-enforces my view that the 20 min red card should come in - some officials are so wary of giving a red as it is seen as so game ruining and is so controversial that they find any excuse not to. I think the 20 mins and then being replaced (and likely a ban) is a sufficient punishment for the team and the player to encourage change..

agree something needs to change to a more balanced punishment like this- they're caught between a rock and a hard place with essential player safety/permissable tackling, against nullifying a fixture as a competitive match and spectacle - especially so for clumsy technique in split-second secenarios where no intent/malice is evident.
The inconsistencies in bunker decisions are bringing a lottery feel to outcomes on the pitch which could nobble the tournament ultimately.
I thought Uru's back play, skill level and approach (borne largely by the need to keep the ball alive) was refreshing.

Definitely. And if people say 20 minutes isn't enough, okay, make it 25 or 30, just not the arbitrary 'from whatever time it is now till the end of the match' sanction.

The gulf between yellow and red is made worse by the fact that a red also automatically (or pretty much so) attracts a ban whereas a yellow does not. This would be helped if the citation system regularly looked at yellows and upgraded them to red (as should be the case for yesterday's).

[Son of Mathonwy]

Elsewhise, at least the anthems were improved (especially when they turned the volume way down on the recording, and just gave us the crowd singing La Marseillaise.
Now there's an idea - if we have to have pre-recorded anthems, why not record the crowd microphones at each team's home ground, and play that back as the RWC anthem?

Yeah or just have the recording made at the right tempo. I mean there are musicians involved in this, they have heard of tempo, right?

As it is now, turning the volume down as the anthem goes on is the best workaround.

[Sourdust]

I think the 20 mins and then being replaced (and likely a ban) is a sufficient punishment for the team and the player to encourage change.

Not quite sure of the logic here, given that the "overly harsh" punishments still seem to be struggling to achieve this?

The idea is to get players tackling lower, which means coaching players to tackle lower. If being a man down for 77 minutes isn't enough to encourage teams to "risk" lowering tackle height, I can't see how 20 is going to do it.

Perhaps losing a man in any circumstances, for any stretch, is just something coaches accept as a risk now? Which to me indicates that we should not just keep the severe sanction, but increase it. Tricky to work out how, though. An automatic points award (e.g. Red card = Penalty try) might work but would be very clumsy. Or we could put more pressure on the individual, leaving them between a rock and a hard place; red card = 6 month ban, if your coach drops you for "passive" tackling then tough luck. Even clumsier, TBH.

Nevertheless, it's becoming obvious that the deterrent isn't working. Coaches are simply factoring-in red cards. A sanction needs to be found that CAN'T be factored-in. Any ideas (apart from "You automatically lose the match")?

[Which Tyler]

Nevertheless, it's becoming obvious that the deterrent isn't working. Coaches are simply factoring-in red cards. A sanction needs to be found that CAN'T be factored-in. Any ideas (apart from "You automatically lose the match")?

I think the idea is the lowered tackle height we're just starting to see in the amateur game, and will soon see in the professional (don't need to be Nostradamus to see that one coming).
Any Upper torso hit = penalty.
Any top of shoulder hit = yellow.
Any head hit = red.

No mitigation, no debate.
IMO, then follow that up with increased bans (make the entry point the minimum and build from there, not the maximum and look to reduce). If that's unpalatable, then any previous reductions are counted as 5-year suspended sentence. Repeat the offence again within 5 years, and your previous reduction is added to your sanction, and that 2nd sanction has no option for reduction.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think the 20 mins and then being replaced (and likely a ban) is a sufficient punishment for the team and the player to encourage change.

Not quite sure of the logic here, given that the "overly harsh" punishments still seem to be struggling to achieve this?

The idea is to get players tackling lower, which means coaching players to tackle lower. If being a man down for 77 minutes isn't enough to encourage teams to "risk" lowering tackle height, I can't see how 20 is going to do it.

Perhaps losing a man in any circumstances, for any stretch, is just something coaches accept as a risk now? Which to me indicates that we should not just keep the severe sanction, but increase it. Tricky to work out how, though. An automatic points award (e.g. Red card = Penalty try) might work but would be very clumsy. Or we could put more pressure on the individual, leaving them between a rock and a hard place; red card = 6 month ban, if your coach drops you for "passive" tackling then tough luck. Even clumsier, TBH.

Nevertheless, it's becoming obvious that the deterrent isn't working. Coaches are simply factoring-in red cards. A sanction needs to be found that CAN'T be factored-in. Any ideas (apart from "You automatically lose the match")?

There shouldn't be so great a gulf between the yellow and red on-pitch sanctions that refs (or bunker TMOs) are reluctant to give red. So I'd say a penalty try is out. Also I'd say this is one reason why the 20 min etc sanction is better.

What can be made a lot more harsh are the ban periods. I'd say we need to be at least tripling the current bans. Think more in terms of months rather than weeks. So, unless it's a really borderline red, the player will miss the tournament completely, or a big chunk of the season. Mitigation is fine, all evidence must be taken into account, but the average ban will be considerable.

This way games won't be ruined but players will make themselves useless to their teams and wreck their careers unless they clean up their act.