Team for Ireland

[Mikey Brown]

Especially after dropping that early highball. With such a buzz going in to the game you worried his head might drop after an early error that killed momentum.

It will be interesting to see if you continue with that backrow setup.

[Tuco Ramirez]

20 min Red is an absolute joke.

[Mikey Brown]

20 min Red is an absolute joke.

The concept or specifically for Ringrose’s missile headbutt?

I feel like given the endless back and forth around player safety, TMO interventions, the bunker, and people’s love of abusing referees online it feels like a fairly decent compromise.

[Tuco Ramirez]

20 min Red is an absolute joke.

The concept or specifically for Ringrose’s missile headbutt?

I feel like given the endless back and forth around player safety, TMO interventions, the bunker, and people’s love of abusing referees online it feels like a fairly decent compromise.

The concept, Red card should be for match and not 20 mins

[Numbers]

20 min Red is an absolute joke.

The concept or specifically for Ringrose’s missile headbutt?

I feel like given the endless back and forth around player safety, TMO interventions, the bunker, and people’s love of abusing referees online it feels like a fairly decent compromise.

The concept, Red card should be for match and not 20 mins

I agree, the detterent should be severe if they are taking the concussion issues seriously.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The concept or specifically for Ringrose’s missile headbutt?

I feel like given the endless back and forth around player safety, TMO interventions, the bunker, and people’s love of abusing referees online it feels like a fairly decent compromise.

The concept, Red card should be for match and not 20 mins

I agree, the detterent should be severe if they are taking the concussion issues seriously.

I disagree.

I've no problem with it being longer eg 25 or 30 minutes, or a points penalty applying as well, eg a penalty try. Or longer bans for players.

The problem with being sent off for the rest of the match is that it makes the severity of the punishment vary dramatically due to something that is nothing to do with the severity of the act - ie the time in the match. The unlimited red card means the punishment is worth anything from 1 yellow card to 8* yellow cards, simply due to which minute of the match the act is committed. It makes no sense (IMO) to punish an early red card many times more than a late red card.

* 8 and a bit, for added injury time.

[Tuco Ramirez]

The concept, Red card should be for match and not 20 mins

I agree, the detterent should be severe if they are taking the concussion issues seriously.

I disagree.

I've no problem with it being longer eg 25 or 30 minutes, or a points penalty applying as well, eg a penalty try. Or longer bans for players.

The problem with being sent off for the rest of the match is that it makes the severity of the punishment vary dramatically due to something that is nothing to do with the severity of the act - ie the time in the match. The unlimited red card means the punishment is worth anything from 1 yellow card to 8* yellow cards, simply due to which minute of the match the act is committed. It makes no sense (IMO) to punish an early red card many times more than a late red card.

* 8 and a bit, for added injury time.

Don't commit the act of foul play then? Simple really

[Numbers]

The concept, Red card should be for match and not 20 mins

I agree, the detterent should be severe if they are taking the concussion issues seriously.

I disagree.

I've no problem with it being longer eg 25 or 30 minutes, or a points penalty applying as well, eg a penalty try. Or longer bans for players.

The problem with being sent off for the rest of the match is that it makes the severity of the punishment vary dramatically due to something that is nothing to do with the severity of the act - ie the time in the match. The unlimited red card means the punishment is worth anything from 1 yellow card to 8* yellow cards, simply due to which minute of the match the act is committed. It makes no sense (IMO) to punish an early red card many times more than a late red card.

* 8 and a bit, for added injury time.

In what other sport do they have 20 minute red cards? It's a joke and the time argument is frankly ridiculous. The reason the punishment is severe is to act as a deterrent if that punishment is not severe enough then no-one will change their habits. This 20 minutes nonsense is World Rugby trying to fix the issue of players getting carded and the game becoming one-sided, if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences, it's a half arsed effort to try and fool people into thinking they give a shit about player welfare when the evidence would suggest that's not the case.

[Mikey Brown]

I agree, the detterent should be severe if they are taking the concussion issues seriously.

I disagree.

I've no problem with it being longer eg 25 or 30 minutes, or a points penalty applying as well, eg a penalty try. Or longer bans for players.

The problem with being sent off for the rest of the match is that it makes the severity of the punishment vary dramatically due to something that is nothing to do with the severity of the act - ie the time in the match. The unlimited red card means the punishment is worth anything from 1 yellow card to 8* yellow cards, simply due to which minute of the match the act is committed. It makes no sense (IMO) to punish an early red card many times more than a late red card.

* 8 and a bit, for added injury time.

In what other sport do they have 20 minute red cards? It's a joke and the time argument is frankly ridiculous. The reason the punishment is severe is to act as a deterrent if that punishment is not severe enough then no-one will change their habits. This 20 minutes nonsense is World Rugby trying to fix the issue of players getting carded and the game becoming one-sided, if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences, it's a half arsed effort to try and fool people into thinking they give a shit about player welfare when the evidence would suggest that's not the case.

I totally agree with the thinking. There have been several changes that were just starting to make the desired impact before refs (seemingly across the board) started backtracking on the severity of punishment.

If this is about the sustainability of the game, in addition to immediate player safety, then it should be for the long-term good to “ruin” a few matches in the short term. Annoyingly they went half way, got some generic media/fan backlash then retreated.

At the same time though, do you not agree there were a ton of instances that weren’t so clear cut? The fact this was so difficult to implement in a way that everyone agreed on makes me think that a 20 min (plus enforced replacement of the infringing player) card might be about the best we can do on this? Is that dealing in half-measures or is it just being realistic?

Like it or not, entertainment and keeping people watching in the short term is always going to be deemed a priority by the people making the decisions up top. I don’t actually agree that red cards necessarily “ruin” a game, but maybe that’s a different topic.

I still wonder if the clear Jesse Kriel head contact in the Scotland game in the World Cup (for instance) was properly looked at or not, because I would think throwing Scotland a lifeline (of sorts) would have been great for the entertainment value. Absolutely galling as a Scotland fan.

[Tuco Ramirez]

I disagree.

I've no problem with it being longer eg 25 or 30 minutes, or a points penalty applying as well, eg a penalty try. Or longer bans for players.

The problem with being sent off for the rest of the match is that it makes the severity of the punishment vary dramatically due to something that is nothing to do with the severity of the act - ie the time in the match. The unlimited red card means the punishment is worth anything from 1 yellow card to 8* yellow cards, simply due to which minute of the match the act is committed. It makes no sense (IMO) to punish an early red card many times more than a late red card.

* 8 and a bit, for added injury time.

In what other sport do they have 20 minute red cards? It's a joke and the time argument is frankly ridiculous. The reason the punishment is severe is to act as a deterrent if that punishment is not severe enough then no-one will change their habits. This 20 minutes nonsense is World Rugby trying to fix the issue of players getting carded and the game becoming one-sided, if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences, it's a half arsed effort to try and fool people into thinking they give a shit about player welfare when the evidence would suggest that's not the case.

I totally agree with the thinking. There have been several changes that were just starting to make the desired impact before refs (seemingly across the board) started backtracking on the severity of punishment.

If this is about the sustainability of the game, in addition to immediate player safety, then it should be for the long-term good to “ruin” a few matches in the short term. Annoyingly they went half way, got some generic media/fan backlash then retreated.

At the same time though, do you not agree there were a ton of instances that weren’t so clear cut? The fact this was so difficult to implement in a way that everyone agreed on makes me think that a 20 min (plus enforced replacement of the infringing player) card might be about the best we can do on this? Is that dealing in half-measures or is it just being realistic?

Like it or not, entertainment and keeping people watching in the short term is always going to be deemed a priority by the people making the decisions up top. I don’t actually agree that red cards necessarily “ruin” a game, but maybe that’s a different topic.

I still wonder if the clear Jesse Kriel head contact in the Scotland game in the World Cup (for instance) was properly looked at or not, because I would think throwing Scotland a lifeline (of sorts) would have been great for the entertainment value. Absolutely galling as a Scotland fan.

The tmo can check it thoroughly - red is red.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I agree, the detterent should be severe if they are taking the concussion issues seriously.

I disagree.

I've no problem with it being longer eg 25 or 30 minutes, or a points penalty applying as well, eg a penalty try. Or longer bans for players.

The problem with being sent off for the rest of the match is that it makes the severity of the punishment vary dramatically due to something that is nothing to do with the severity of the act - ie the time in the match. The unlimited red card means the punishment is worth anything from 1 yellow card to 8* yellow cards, simply due to which minute of the match the act is committed. It makes no sense (IMO) to punish an early red card many times more than a late red card.

* 8 and a bit, for added injury time.

In what other sport do they have 20 minute red cards? It's a joke and the time argument is frankly ridiculous. The reason the punishment is severe is to act as a deterrent if that punishment is not severe enough then no-one will change their habits. This 20 minutes nonsense is World Rugby trying to fix the issue of players getting carded and the game becoming one-sided, if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences, it's a half arsed effort to try and fool people into thinking they give a shit about player welfare when the evidence would suggest that's not the case.

Why does it make sense to punish identical foul play with radically different sanctions? A red card given at the start of the match is equivalent to 8+ yellow cards and in the last 10 minutes if the match, equivalent to 1 yellow card. This is the problem. Please don't just call this argument ridiculous - explain why you think it's wrong.

You think that 20 minutes is not a severe enough punishment? You may be right - I'm absolutely open to a longer sanction. Why not 30? Or a penalty try in addition to the 20 minutes? Or increase the length of bans players get afterwards? The punishment can be as severe as you like. What is wrong with this way of making the punishment severe?

You say 'if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences' but the full red card has always been in place. It has not stopped players committing red card offences and probably never would.

It's quite possible that the 20 minute card isn't severe enough but I'd hope that World Rugby would look at different ways of upping the punishment (ie with points sanctions and/or longer bans) rather than going back to the old 'full' red.

[Numbers]

I disagree.

I've no problem with it being longer eg 25 or 30 minutes, or a points penalty applying as well, eg a penalty try. Or longer bans for players.

The problem with being sent off for the rest of the match is that it makes the severity of the punishment vary dramatically due to something that is nothing to do with the severity of the act - ie the time in the match. The unlimited red card means the punishment is worth anything from 1 yellow card to 8* yellow cards, simply due to which minute of the match the act is committed. It makes no sense (IMO) to punish an early red card many times more than a late red card.

* 8 and a bit, for added injury time.

In what other sport do they have 20 minute red cards? It's a joke and the time argument is frankly ridiculous. The reason the punishment is severe is to act as a deterrent if that punishment is not severe enough then no-one will change their habits. This 20 minutes nonsense is World Rugby trying to fix the issue of players getting carded and the game becoming one-sided, if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences, it's a half arsed effort to try and fool people into thinking they give a shit about player welfare when the evidence would suggest that's not the case.

Why does it make sense to punish identical foul play with radically different sanctions? A red card given at the start of the match is equivalent to 8+ yellow cards and in the last 10 minutes if the match, equivalent to 1 yellow card. This is the problem. Please don't just call this argument ridiculous - explain why you think it's wrong.

You think that 20 minutes is not a severe enough punishment? You may be right - I'm absolutely open to a longer sanction. Why not 30? Or a penalty try in addition to the 20 minutes? Or increase the length of bans players get afterwards? The punishment can be as severe as you like. What is wrong with this way of making the punishment severe?

You say 'if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences' but the full red card has always been in place. It has not stopped players committing red card offences and probably never would.

It's quite possible that the 20 minute card isn't severe enough but I'd hope that World Rugby would look at different ways of upping the punishment (ie with points sanctions and/or longer bans) rather than going back to the old 'full' red.

Ok, why would rugby be different to every other sport? The reason they have bought in this 20 minute red card is to keep the games competitive and the reason that this is wrong is because it flies in the face of player safety, the part of the match that the offence occurs in is irrelevant if they commit an act deemed to be worthy of a red card then that is that imo. You say that your punishing the same offence with different sanctions but this is typical of red cards in all sports that use that system. What I don't like is the fact that due to weak refereeing and TMO reviews, offences that should be red cards have been yellow cards and it seems as though World rugby are pandering to the referees to me with the 20 minute red instead of prioritising player safety.

[Son of Mathonwy]

In what other sport do they have 20 minute red cards? It's a joke and the time argument is frankly ridiculous. The reason the punishment is severe is to act as a deterrent if that punishment is not severe enough then no-one will change their habits. This 20 minutes nonsense is World Rugby trying to fix the issue of players getting carded and the game becoming one-sided, if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences, it's a half arsed effort to try and fool people into thinking they give a shit about player welfare when the evidence would suggest that's not the case.

Why does it make sense to punish identical foul play with radically different sanctions? A red card given at the start of the match is equivalent to 8+ yellow cards and in the last 10 minutes if the match, equivalent to 1 yellow card. This is the problem. Please don't just call this argument ridiculous - explain why you think it's wrong.

You think that 20 minutes is not a severe enough punishment? You may be right - I'm absolutely open to a longer sanction. Why not 30? Or a penalty try in addition to the 20 minutes? Or increase the length of bans players get afterwards? The punishment can be as severe as you like. What is wrong with this way of making the punishment severe?

You say 'if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences' but the full red card has always been in place. It has not stopped players committing red card offences and probably never would.

It's quite possible that the 20 minute card isn't severe enough but I'd hope that World Rugby would look at different ways of upping the punishment (ie with points sanctions and/or longer bans) rather than going back to the old 'full' red.

Ok, why would rugby be different to every other sport? The reason they have bought in this 20 minute red card is to keep the games competitive and the reason that this is wrong is because it flies in the face of player safety, the part of the match that the offence occurs in is irrelevant if they commit an act deemed to be worthy of a red card then that is that imo. You say that your punishing the same offence with different sanctions but this is typical of red cards in all sports that use that system. What I don't like is the fact that due to weak refereeing and TMO reviews, offences that should be red cards have been yellow cards and it seems as though World rugby are pandering to the referees to me with the 20 minute red instead of prioritising player safety.

Let's not bring other sports into it - different games, different circumstances. Who cares what football does, justify this on its own own merits not on what some other sports do.

Agreed, we should be tough on dangerous play and punish it enough to deter it. It's the variability that I don't like.

How would you feel if it was 20 minutes plus a 7 point penalty try? Or 10 point penalty? Or even more? What would be wrong with this? Honestly I'd just like to understand what you think about these alternatives.

[Numbers]

Why does it make sense to punish identical foul play with radically different sanctions? A red card given at the start of the match is equivalent to 8+ yellow cards and in the last 10 minutes if the match, equivalent to 1 yellow card. This is the problem. Please don't just call this argument ridiculous - explain why you think it's wrong.

You think that 20 minutes is not a severe enough punishment? You may be right - I'm absolutely open to a longer sanction. Why not 30? Or a penalty try in addition to the 20 minutes? Or increase the length of bans players get afterwards? The punishment can be as severe as you like. What is wrong with this way of making the punishment severe?

You say 'if they persisted with the full red card then after a while players would adapt their technique to avoid potential foul play or their teams would suffer the consequences' but the full red card has always been in place. It has not stopped players committing red card offences and probably never would.

It's quite possible that the 20 minute card isn't severe enough but I'd hope that World Rugby would look at different ways of upping the punishment (ie with points sanctions and/or longer bans) rather than going back to the old 'full' red.

Ok, why would rugby be different to every other sport? The reason they have bought in this 20 minute red card is to keep the games competitive and the reason that this is wrong is because it flies in the face of player safety, the part of the match that the offence occurs in is irrelevant if they commit an act deemed to be worthy of a red card then that is that imo. You say that your punishing the same offence with different sanctions but this is typical of red cards in all sports that use that system. What I don't like is the fact that due to weak refereeing and TMO reviews, offences that should be red cards have been yellow cards and it seems as though World rugby are pandering to the referees to me with the 20 minute red instead of prioritising player safety.

Let's not bring other sports into it - different games, different circumstances. Who cares what football does, justify this on its own own merits not on what some other sports do.

Agreed, we should be tough on dangerous play and punish it enough to deter it. It's the variability that I don't like.

How would you feel if it was 20 minutes plus a 7 point penalty try? Or 10 point penalty? Or even more? What would be wrong with this? Honestly I'd just like to understand what you think about these alternatives.

I don't think it should have changed at all, if you committ an offence that's deemed a red card then that should be the punishment, I don't think allocating points is a good idea. The only reason they've changed it is to even things up but teams should be punished if one of their players is sent off imo. It sometimes actually has a galvanising effect on the team down to 14 and they still win anyway i.e. 2011 world cup semi which we should have won despite being down to 14 men for 60 odd minutes.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Ok, why would rugby be different to every other sport? The reason they have bought in this 20 minute red card is to keep the games competitive and the reason that this is wrong is because it flies in the face of player safety, the part of the match that the offence occurs in is irrelevant if they commit an act deemed to be worthy of a red card then that is that imo. You say that your punishing the same offence with different sanctions but this is typical of red cards in all sports that use that system. What I don't like is the fact that due to weak refereeing and TMO reviews, offences that should be red cards have been yellow cards and it seems as though World rugby are pandering to the referees to me with the 20 minute red instead of prioritising player safety.

Let's not bring other sports into it - different games, different circumstances. Who cares what football does, justify this on its own own merits not on what some other sports do.

Agreed, we should be tough on dangerous play and punish it enough to deter it. It's the variability that I don't like.

How would you feel if it was 20 minutes plus a 7 point penalty try? Or 10 point penalty? Or even more? What would be wrong with this? Honestly I'd just like to understand what you think about these alternatives.

I don't think it should have changed at all, if you committ an offence that's deemed a red card then that should be the punishment, I don't think allocating points is a good idea. The only reason they've changed it is to even things up but teams should be punished if one of their players is sent off imo. It sometimes actually has a galvanising effect on the team down to 14 and they still win anyway i.e. 2011 world cup semi which we should have won despite being down to 14 men for 60 odd minutes.

I get that you like the red card the way it's always been, but why? What is the reason?

You don't think allocating points is a good idea, but why?

[Sandydragon]

Let's not bring other sports into it - different games, different circumstances. Who cares what football does, justify this on its own own merits not on what some other sports do.

Agreed, we should be tough on dangerous play and punish it enough to deter it. It's the variability that I don't like.

How would you feel if it was 20 minutes plus a 7 point penalty try? Or 10 point penalty? Or even more? What would be wrong with this? Honestly I'd just like to understand what you think about these alternatives.

I don't think it should have changed at all, if you committ an offence that's deemed a red card then that should be the punishment, I don't think allocating points is a good idea. The only reason they've changed it is to even things up but teams should be punished if one of their players is sent off imo. It sometimes actually has a galvanising effect on the team down to 14 and they still win anyway i.e. 2011 world cup semi which we should have won despite being down to 14 men for 60 odd minutes.

I get that you like the red card the way it's always been, but why? What is the reason?

You don't think allocating points is a good idea, but why?

For me, a red card is permanent. Forget points and focus on punishing a team for ill discipline. If an act is worthy of a red the. The player is off and his team mates can be extra pissed off at playing a man down for the rest of the game. A team can survive for ten minutes potentially even twenty without conceding too much. Mean while the other side could be without a key player due to a failed HIA

[Puja]

Frankly, if we want to change player behaviour, we need to change the tackle height in the same way as has happened for the community game. Right now, there is a miniscule line between "completely legal" and "red card", which also moves about with player movements, and hitting someone hard just on the right side of that line is incredibly advantageous, so players aren't going to change their technique and coaches aren't going to make them - they'll just accept occasional red cards when it goes wrong as part of the cost for doing business

Bring max tackle height down to the base of the sternum, make any high tackle above that a penalty and contact with the head a red card. If someone hits the head, they've gone so badly off target that they deserve a red, and defences will have to change tackle technique because no upright tackle will be valid. Plus, more offloads.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Yup - and it needs to be done by World Rugby. Quite honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already.

[Sandydragon]

Apparently WR are worried about the legal blowback from head injuries. So, do something proper and reduce tackle height and take the grey line out of the equation.


And ban tactical subs.

[Graigwen]

With regret, I agree that the tackle height should be lowered.

I accept that this will be a major change to the game, but it might actually improve the spectacle.
.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Ringrose effectively banned for one test. Another deterrence fail from World Rugby. They just aren't willing to do what needs to be done.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... r-31096768

[Puja]

Ringrose effectively banned for one test. Another deterrence fail from World Rugby. They just aren't willing to do what needs to be done.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... r-31096768

Comedic inconsistency, considering Ntmack's ban specifically excluded a French club game, despite the fact that he's not currently part of the French equivalent of the EPS and actually stood at least half a chance of playing, whereas Ringrose's explicitly includes a Leinster game that you'd have to be a blithering idiot to genuinely believe he'd've been released for.

Puja

[paddy no 11]

Ringrose effectively banned for one test. Another deterrence fail from World Rugby. They just aren't willing to do what needs to be done.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... r-31096768

Comedic inconsistency, considering Ntmack's ban specifically excluded a French club game, despite the fact that he's not currently part of the French equivalent of the EPS and actually stood at least half a chance of playing, whereas Ringrose's explicitly includes a Leinster game that you'd have to be a blithering idiot to genuinely believe he'd've been released for.

Puja

No defending that unless your a legalese

[Sandydragon]

Ringrose effectively banned for one test. Another deterrence fail from World Rugby. They just aren't willing to do what needs to be done.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... r-31096768

Comedic inconsistency, considering Ntmack's ban specifically excluded a French club game, despite the fact that he's not currently part of the French equivalent of the EPS and actually stood at least half a chance of playing, whereas Ringrose's explicitly includes a Leinster game that you'd have to be a blithering idiot to genuinely believe he'd've been released for.

Puja

That’s a particularly bad look.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Ringrose effectively banned for one test. Another deterrence fail from World Rugby. They just aren't willing to do what needs to be done.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... r-31096768

Comedic inconsistency, considering Ntmack's ban specifically excluded a French club game, despite the fact that he's not currently part of the French equivalent of the EPS and actually stood at least half a chance of playing, whereas Ringrose's explicitly includes a Leinster game that you'd have to be a blithering idiot to genuinely believe he'd've been released for.

Puja

That’s a particularly bad look.

Club games should count as half a match for these bans.

Or ...

A red card ban at test level only applies to test matches. A 3 match ban is a ban from the next 3 test matches, whenever they occur. So eg you could risk your place on the Lions tour if you get banned at the 6N.