Barret's high foot and 20 minute Reds

[Gloskarlos]

Did any of you see the red card B Barret got at the weekend? did you agree it was red? and the new law being trialled in the tournament is a 20 minute sin bin for said red. Thoughts on this? The red has since been rescinded by the powers that be, as 'accidental'.

My personal view:-

It was a 100% red. it may have been accidental, and he 'may' have been trying to counter rotate on landing by putting a foot out. But a high boot at head height with studs showing is beyond reckless, intentional or not, and the red should have stood review. Player welfare is being paid lip service to in these circumstances. A high knee? absolutely fine - protect yourself from being taken out on the air and having some balance lever for landing well, but a foot up that high has no place. Arguing otherwise to rescind the card is risible.

Is 20 mins sufficient? no. Not for me. 40 mins as a bare minimum, but i'd still prefer the full 80. I understand the desire to eliminate 'dead rubbers' with an early red, but if you take an extremists view, a player could potentially target the oppositions best player, absolutely nobble him so he is inured for weeks, get a red, and then be back on again in 20 mins time, his target out of action for weeks or months. This is wrongly educating players that foul play is not as bad as it used to be.

[Raggs]

Without going through disciplinary logs etc, anyone know an easy way to see top level games with red cards in? The whole "game ruined" thing annoys me a lot, and I wanted to see how many games there were out there that finished within 10 points, or the team with the card won.

[Mikey Brown]

Completely agree I think.

I like the idea of being able to account for the ‘unlucky’ reds, there have been a few for shoulders hitting heads where the carrier basically flies directly in to a static shoulder, but there is often still something that could have been done to avoid the situation.

Barrett’s karate kick was not one of those situations for me. I get his argument if protecting himself but it was pretty wild and fully deserved a red.

[Gloskarlos]

Without going through disciplinary logs etc, anyone know an easy way to see top level games with red cards in? The whole "game ruined" thing annoys me a lot, and I wanted to see how many games there were out there that finished within 10 points, or the team with the card won.

Not that I am aware of - would be an interesting stat to look at.

https://www.vanguard403.com/post/how-mu ... inal-score

This is the only article I can find which is not conclusive, but at least has some data and analysis behind it.

Also I made a gaffe in my opening post, the red carded player cannot return to the pitch after 20 minutes, but can be replaced by another player.

[fivepointer]

The red was fully justified.
Does every red involve the offending team to be down a man for 20 minutes? Even for something like clear foul play, stamping or punching for instance. Just seems a bit out of proportion that something like that gets a 20 minute rest (admittedly with a different player coming on) and 10 minutes for a team offence or a marginal, technical call.
On the whole I think a red should mean you are off and are not replaced at any time.

[16th man]

Do we reckon that gets rescinded if it's say an Argentinian or Italian boot to someone's face?

The precedent I saw brought up was Odogwu who had his red upheld and a 6 match ban for similar in Wasps vs Sale.

Its absolutely a red. Its one of those things where intention etc should be irrelevant. You stud someone in the face and you're gone.

As fur the 20 mins, it absolutely opens up the option for cheap shotting to take one for the team.

[Puja]

I guess it depends what you think the purpose of a red card is - is it primarily to punish the entire team for one player's cock-up/dirty play or is it primarily to punish the player?

If it's the former, then the old style of red card = being disadvantaged for the whole game is definitely the way to go. If it's the latter, then removing the player from the pitch, having some team penalty in the double yellow card, and then having the guilty player get replaced is more appropriate. Not to mention that having a less draconian punishment might encourage refs not to bottle it if they're faced with a red card decision early in a game/a second yellow offence.

I don't get the logic of "Players can cheapshot to take one for the team". What opposition player is outstanding enough from the rest of his teammates that solely removing them from the pitch is worth your team going down to 14 for 20 minutes and having to use a sub early? Not to mention the very real risk that you could cheap shot them, get red carded, but fail to do enough damage to take the superstar off.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I guess it depends what you think the purpose of a red card is - is it primarily to punish the entire team for one player's cock-up/dirty play or is it primarily to punish the player?

If it's the former, then the old style of red card = being disadvantaged for the whole game is definitely the way to go. If it's the latter, then removing the player from the pitch, having some team penalty in the double yellow card, and then having the guilty player get replaced is more appropriate. Not to mention that having a less draconian punishment might encourage refs not to bottle it if they're faced with a red card decision early in a game/a second yellow offence.

I don't get the logic of "Players can cheapshot to take one for the team". What opposition player is outstanding enough from the rest of his teammates that solely removing them from the pitch is worth your team going down to 14 for 20 minutes and having to use a sub early? Not to mention the very real risk that you could cheap shot them, get red carded, but fail to do enough damage to take the superstar off.

Puja

Agree with most of this. One of the commentators said at the time that he wondered whether the ref would’ve gone for red under the old laws given how early in the match it happened.
20mins didn’t seem long enough but that may have been the fact NZ were, at worst, equal to Oz despite being a man down - iirc, NZ actually scored more points during the period.
Thinking about it a little bit but not thoroughly enough to find the obvious flaw(s), I think it should be 20mins plus a % of the remaining time. Far easy to cover the extra hole in d after 15/20/25 mins than later on. I also quite like the jeopardy of the replacement player not being allowed on until the other team bring on their first tactical sub - no doubt there’s more flaws in this idea than The Shard.

[Gloskarlos]

Think Adam Hastings had a similar offence upheld and a ban. Many factions on twitter etc. believe the overturn to be as a result of BB being an AB.

Perhaps we are looking at the semi-mooted introduction of an orange card. Yellow for technical/repeat infringements, orange = 20 mins in the bin for dangerous but unintended foul play, and red = out for the remainder of the game for dirty and reckless foul play or a double orange (appreciate that does open up a grey area requiring a lot more definition than I have just given it)

[paddy no 11]

Clear cut red card

[Digby]

You don't tend to get red cards for the full 80. Even the worst teams can avoid calling the ref a cunt before kickoff so they at least start with 15. Which means the impact of a red varies depending on how long a side has to cope being down to 14, so in many ways a limited 20 minute sanction means the red card will have the same meaning across more games

[Raggs]

I think a red card is meant to be a huge deterrent from doing whatever it is that you did. And hurting your team as well as yourself, is a bigger deterrent than either/or.

[CunningPunter]

I guess it depends what you think the purpose of a red card is - is it primarily to punish the entire team for one player's cock-up/dirty play or is it primarily to punish the player?

Neither. It's to deter dangerous play so that players alter their behaviour and make the sport safer.

Weakening the sanction undermines this and, as another poster said, pays lip service to player safety.

[Mr Mwenda]

Red card. Howling online is/was absurd. Very disappointed it was rescinded. Rugby in farcical disciplinary system shock.

[Digby]

It is basically the ending of the Karate Kid, but with the claim he bears no responsibility.

The norm is for the front knee to come up, sometimes the player jumping does start to over rotate in the air and that lead knee gets extended, it's not that common but it does happen, and when it happens typically it doesn't connect with anything and nothing is done about nothing happening.

So there's a question here again around what happens with players in the air. The jumping player has created the chance for something to go wrong, and they've in this instance kicked a player in the face, but it's overwhelmingly unlikely to have been other than unintentional. For it to be rescinded you'd have to think they're saying it's not only unintentional but also not reckless, which is interesting as to how that line of thinking might be applied to other scenarios

Mind it's being observed in here it was Beauden, and I'll be honest I thought it was Jordie, so already I'm an unreliable witness to anything.

[Spiffy]

Red card. Howling online is/was absurd. Very disappointed it was rescinded. Rugby in farcical disciplinary system shock.

That would have been have been a full red under the current laws. Planting a bootfull of studs in an opponent's face is dangerous/reckless and just plain dirty. The 20 min red penalty seems stupid for something that serious. If it is going to be adopted after a trial period then I'd like to see additional actions e.g. 20 mins off the pitch, no return for that particular player, and a penalty kick under the posts for the opposition, no matter where on the pitch the offence took place. Perhaps the notion of actually leaking points would cause potential offenders to think twice.

[Cameo]

I think it was a red but an unlucky one as it was a bit of a freak accident. I don't like that the red was overturned but a one week ban would have been enough for me (taking into account the fact he was punished at the time).

To me, it shows exactly why the 20 min red is a good idea. As Puja says, the idea that it would make sense to nobble an opposition player on the basis that you can be replaced after 20 mins is nonsense. You might easily fail to put them out of the match and, if you go hard enough to be sure, you are likely to face a serious ban. In any case, 20 minutes is a decent chunk of the game. I also think it makes it easier for refs to give reds for reckless rather than malicious actions, which I want to see. We've all seen loads of cop outs where technically it is a red but it feels harsh. I also don't like the yellow, orange, red idea - just makes life even harder for refs.

[Puja]

I think it was a red but an unlucky one as it was a bit of a freak accident. I don't like that the red was overturned but a one week ban would have been enough for me (taking into account the fact he was punished at the time).

To me, it shows exactly why the 20 min red is a good idea. .... I also think it makes it easier for refs to give reds for reckless rather than malicious actions, which I want to see. We've all seen loads of cop outs where technically it is a red but it feels harsh. I also don't like the yellow, orange, red idea - just makes life even harder for refs.

Absolutely agreed. It's a red, but for an accidental head contact, not for an active act of foul play. We've seen those not given (and the fact that qualified referees struck down this one in the citing hearing suggests that other refs may not've given it) and the fact that it was only going to leave NZ at 14 for 20 minutes probably helped the ref make the right decision.

Mind it's being observed in here it was Beauden, and I'll be honest I thought it was Jordie, so already I'm an unreliable witness to anything.

It was Jordie, so what little of your reputation remains is still intact.

Puja

[Digby]

Was it a freak accident?

It's more about the technique going up for a high ball. And more specifically it's more about the technique going up for a high ball when jumping into the skill point. So rugby needs to clarify can you jump thusly into a skill point, and actually what does giving space mean, because Koroibete was careful not to run into Barrett when the receiver was in the air, but he didn't leave space for a receiver adjusting once his body rotated slightly out of control, that's not perhaps wrong, but it is how it is. Normally you're not going to have the combination of events which results in studs to the face, but to actually set out the laws/expected practices they need to decide what they want to allow and be specific about it

[Mellsblue]

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2021/09/12/jo ... ibete/amp/

[Digby]

Okay, so an accidental high tackle is no longer a red, and we all understand this simple clarification

[Digby]

Which I say because high tackles tend to come from getting your feet in the wrong place and that leads you into being reckless. And here Barrett gets his body in the wrong position leaping for the ball, which causes him to tip, which causes his foot to come up in reckless fashion, but now some reckless acts don't mean reckless

[Mr Mwenda]

"In the past, similar incidents have resulted in red cards and lengthy bans.[4] However, each case turns on its own precise facts and cannot easily be equated. In situations where a catcher has seen an opponent coming and deliberately stuck out a leg, or where they have deliberately kicked out to ward off potential tacklers, there is no difficulty in finding that they have been reckless. Nonetheless, this author is concerned that, in the past, disciplinary panels have been willing to find make such a finding somewhat too readily,[5] and it is hoped that the Barrett decision will encourage panels to examine such incidents more closely in future."

Basically saying that rugby disciplinary procedures are an inconsistent mess. What a surprise. Still galling that of course it is an All Black who gets to set the new precedent rather than any of the other players punished for reckless behaviour... I wonder how long until the next about face. Two weeks?

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, I'm still not understanding the "deliberate action = recklessness" versus "unintentional but deliberate action = A okay"

Sounds like a load of bollocks to me

[Digby]

yep, he's saying he's happy for the game to be consistently inconsistent. I wonder what other rare reckless acts might not need a follow up?

ETA I can say for a fact the reversal of Barret's red card isn't thought a good decision across all those involved in the IRB disciplinary panels, at least 3 people have commented on that to me in the last few days, all 3 of them took the view the red card should stand but no further ban was required, 2 of them thought I was taking the piss it'd been reversed, and they sit on the blinking things