Red Card - New laws?

[Torquemada 1420]

It doesn't matter if they're not all regular starters, it's a 23 man game now - witness the success of the SA "bomb squad" and having that size available makes a big difference. It's a pretty long list of players!

I'm not moaning about the French, I'm pointing out a contradiction to the idea mooted by my friend that everything's okay because apparently player sizes have diminished recently: the most successful teams right now have a surfeit of absolute mutants. Rugby as a pro sport values sheer size very highly indeed. Right now, SA and France have that size. England have had it in the past. NZ have had it in the past. One of the reasons why Scotland's not been able to win a 6N is because for all their talent, they've rarely been able to field a properly beefy side. Size gets you out of trouble and can cause teams problems even when skill is letting you down. Size gives you more space to play with, gives you front foot ball, a big set-piece advantage, and (ironically) means that the game is less physically demanding for the side with the size advantage, so fitness is more of a concern for the smaller team. Size makes rugby easier.

England would definitely pick gigantic players if we had them. We have big guys - the front row is hefty (though not Mauvaka/Atonio giants), Dombrandt is a unit, Tuilagi when fit is obviously a powerhouse, and Steward is very tall - but we don't really have the sheer size of an Atonio or a Mauvaka or a Danty or a Willemse or whoever right now. We're left hoping that a mediocre player like Joe Cokanasiga can show some form and fitness, because he's massive, or hoping that Ollie Lawrence (5'9", about 97kg) can be our Ma'a Nonu or Danty or De Allende (108kg, 110kg, 105kg respectively). Quins' Esterhuizen would be a godsend to England, because he's a 12 that's actually big and good, not pretend big like Lawrence - 6'4" and 113kg. It's been true for a while now that our coaches think we develop massive blokes all the time and want us to play like that, but we don't. Hence the idiocy of building a gameplan around a sicknote like Tuilagi, when there's no ready-made replacement. Hence hanging on to Billy Vunipola no matter how bad his form got, because the alternatives meant a different game plan. Christ, it's why Mike Tindall's career carried on so long. He was Actually Big, unlike Jamie Noon or whoever we tried to shoehorn into that position post 2004. It's why Matt Banahan got 16 caps. There are players who buck the trend just by having physicality and athleticism far beyond the raw stats of their physical form - the likes of Itoje or Dupont are good examples of this - but being a gigantic bastard gets you a long way in rugby.

Size really does cover up a multitude of sins in rugby, and the more giant players you have, the more likely it is you're gonna win. The more of them you have available to you, the higher the chance you'll get some that are also really good and talented rugby players who are also fit enough to survive at international level. French rugby is full of players like this, from what I've seen. Ditto Saffer rugby.

We are probably arguing the same thing here for the sake of arguing. Of course, Eddie does have orcsbut he has dropped the Vunipolas, one of whom Eng's entire fwd game plan revolved around or they have become injured or past it.

France does have mutants in abundance at the moment and it's not just the size but the skill sets that come with it. When you watch Bourgarit last week or Chat earlier this season before injury, you see big guys (not Mauvaka large for props) who can motor and handle.......... and can't get near selection. The most athletic, fast, skilled freak of the lot is Macalou who is nowhere near the side. Not far behind in those stakes are Jordan Joseph and Demba Bamba. You also may have seen the hooker Montgaillard and wing Jefferson Joseph in the U20s. The one who is sailing under radar at the moment is SH Le Garrec at Racing who is not a million miles from Dupont but also has a 90%+ kicking game and bar injury will be a selection certainty by the time of the RWC.

2 things have changed in French rugby
1) Finally, the sorts of kids from rough, immigrant backgrounds are finding pathways into the game.
2) The very belated attempts to restrict foreign players

[Torquemada 1420]

I had this discussion very recently from a slightly different angle with a former pro, who himself was a gigantic unit. He doesn't like the idea of weight limits because apparently the size of players has come down since the 2015 world cup. I pointed out that the most successful teams in the world right now are absolute units - France and South Africa - and that sheer size still dominates in most situations.

Rugby being a game for all sizes and shapes has always been a bit of an aspirational goal anyway, especially when you get anywhere near pro level. Not many 85kg tightheads around, or 120kg scrum halves, eh.

I'm not sure that's true for France. It's the perennial commentator's line about "giant French packs" whereas the reality is that rarely has a French pack been materially bigger than comparable opponents for 2 decades. If you look at the current, typical 1st team selection, the only real monsters are Atonio (whose selection presence is questionable) and Willemse. Danty/Vakatawa, Fickou and Penaud are big men in the backs but then Villiere is a midget and Aldritt very light for an 8.

1m91, 115kgs is not light in my books.

It's nowhere near trad 8s like Picamoles, Chabal etc

[JM2K6]

I'm not sure that's true for France. It's the perennial commentator's line about "giant French packs" whereas the reality is that rarely has a French pack been materially bigger than comparable opponents for 2 decades. If you look at the current, typical 1st team selection, the only real monsters are Atonio (whose selection presence is questionable) and Willemse. Danty/Vakatawa, Fickou and Penaud are big men in the backs but then Villiere is a midget and Aldritt very light for an 8.

1m91, 115kgs is not light in my books.

It's nowhere near trad 8s like Picamoles, Chabal etc

According to stats, It's pretty much the same as Chabal - same height, and the listed weights for Chabal are 115kg or less. I think it's likely Chabal was a bit heavier but it's not like comparing Sam Simmonds to Billy Vunipola, Aldritt is in the same ballpark as Chabal.

[Torquemada 1420]

1m91, 115kgs is not light in my books.

It's nowhere near trad 8s like Picamoles, Chabal etc

According to stats, It's pretty much the same as Chabal - same height, and the listed weights for Chabal are 115kg or less. I think it's likely Chabal was a bit heavier but it's not like comparing Sam Simmonds to Billy Vunipola, Aldritt is in the same ballpark as Chabal.

That's interesting because Chabal is not that long ago and guess this reinforces the whole idea that modern players are getting larger. Aldritt really does not look big to me.

[Paddington Bear]

Not sure weight is the best metric - again in that 02 game there are big hits but they're the kind of hits a normal person in decent shape could take. Even serious rugby players playing, say, National 1/2 would get crunched by today's pros. One of the things is the speed and intensity with which people are hitting the line in both directions.

[Jimmy Smallsteps]

When will they stop messing with the rules? Red should stay as it is.

It smacks of changing the rules to stay relevant.

When they go back to deciding accidental contact with the head is not worthy of a red?

The change to the red rule in Super Rugby Pacific is a sensible reaction to the extremely strict head contact protocols that have been introduced.

Previously reserved for the most egregious acts on the rugby field, a guy can now find himself red carded for accidentally making contact with an opponent's bonce, such as when driving over a ruck or joining a maul.

Has that happened?

The most debatable ones seem to be those defenders stood still having the carrier fall into his head, but the framework is designed to say "You MUST attempt to bend at the waist and be conscious of what could happen. If you arrive into a potential contact situation upright, that's on you because that's what we're trying to correct."

Plenty of times.

[Jimmy Smallsteps]

I seem to remember that a good while ago you couldn't actually get sent off in Aussie Rules, but if you did commit some atrocious acts you got banned for two games.
When I used to watch it on Channel 4 there was a player that played every third match.

Must be where this guy came from?

Fuck me, fancy Neil Treacy holding that view and being from the NH. Wonders will never cease.

[Guy Smiley]

If a player is getting that many cards then a citing commissioner should be taking care of that.

[Margin__Walker]

If a player is getting that many cards then a citing commissioner should be taking care of that.

Yeah, as arguments against 20 minute reds go, it's a crap one.

If he's getting lots of them, he should be banned out of the game. That's the deterrent.

[sockwithaticket]

If you get 3 yellows for foul play in a season you can cop a ban in the Premierhsip. Could one of our bored Frenchies enlighten us about the Top 14?

[Yr Alban]

I think the restricting of subs idea definitely has merit, Nigel Owens i believe suggested this last year. Make more players play the full 80 mins will result in lighter players, i am fully against being able to sub your entire front row after 60 mins. Perhaps consider injury subs only with the independent doctor assessing the injury to minimise sharp practice?

I genuinely think this would be the best solution. If the expectation is that a player who starts a game finishes it, then players will have to focus more on fitness and endurance than on size and strength. Allowing a complete front row replacement at 50-60 mins is basically saying ‘bulk them up as much as possible, they’ll never have to play a full game’.

[JM2K6]

I think the restricting of subs idea definitely has merit, Nigel Owens i believe suggested this last year. Make more players play the full 80 mins will result in lighter players, i am fully against being able to sub your entire front row after 60 mins. Perhaps consider injury subs only with the independent doctor assessing the injury to minimise sharp practice?

I genuinely think this would be the best solution. If the expectation is that a player who starts a game finishes it, then players will have to focus more on fitness and endurance than on size and strength. Allowing a complete front row replacement at 50-60 mins is basically saying ‘bulk them up as much as possible, they’ll never have to play a full game’.

Fewer subs means it's more likely players will have to play on with injuries, make some types of injury more likely, and, as Toga says, tired players make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes lead to injury.

[GogLais]

I think the restricting of subs idea definitely has merit, Nigel Owens i believe suggested this last year. Make more players play the full 80 mins will result in lighter players, i am fully against being able to sub your entire front row after 60 mins. Perhaps consider injury subs only with the independent doctor assessing the injury to minimise sharp practice?

I genuinely think this would be the best solution. If the expectation is that a player who starts a game finishes it, then players will have to focus more on fitness and endurance than on size and strength. Allowing a complete front row replacement at 50-60 mins is basically saying ‘bulk them up as much as possible, they’ll never have to play a full game’.

Or do you focus on even more strength and size to batter the smaller faster team in the first 60 minutes?

[TheFrog]

It doesn't matter if they're not all regular starters, it's a 23 man game now - witness the success of the SA "bomb squad" and having that size available makes a big difference. It's a pretty long list of players!

I'm not moaning about the French, I'm pointing out a contradiction to the idea mooted by my friend that everything's okay because apparently player sizes have diminished recently: the most successful teams right now have a surfeit of absolute mutants. Rugby as a pro sport values sheer size very highly indeed. Right now, SA and France have that size. England have had it in the past. NZ have had it in the past. One of the reasons why Scotland's not been able to win a 6N is because for all their talent, they've rarely been able to field a properly beefy side. Size gets you out of trouble and can cause teams problems even when skill is letting you down. Size gives you more space to play with, gives you front foot ball, a big set-piece advantage, and (ironically) means that the game is less physically demanding for the side with the size advantage, so fitness is more of a concern for the smaller team. Size makes rugby easier.

England would definitely pick gigantic players if we had them. We have big guys - the front row is hefty (though not Mauvaka/Atonio giants), Dombrandt is a unit, Tuilagi when fit is obviously a powerhouse, and Steward is very tall - but we don't really have the sheer size of an Atonio or a Mauvaka or a Danty or a Willemse or whoever right now. We're left hoping that a mediocre player like Joe Cokanasiga can show some form and fitness, because he's massive, or hoping that Ollie Lawrence (5'9", about 97kg) can be our Ma'a Nonu or Danty or De Allende (108kg, 110kg, 105kg respectively). Quins' Esterhuizen would be a godsend to England, because he's a 12 that's actually big and good, not pretend big like Lawrence - 6'4" and 113kg. It's been true for a while now that our coaches think we develop massive blokes all the time and want us to play like that, but we don't. Hence the idiocy of building a gameplan around a sicknote like Tuilagi, when there's no ready-made replacement. Hence hanging on to Billy Vunipola no matter how bad his form got, because the alternatives meant a different game plan. Christ, it's why Mike Tindall's career carried on so long. He was Actually Big, unlike Jamie Noon or whoever we tried to shoehorn into that position post 2004. It's why Matt Banahan got 16 caps. There are players who buck the trend just by having physicality and athleticism far beyond the raw stats of their physical form - the likes of Itoje or Dupont are good examples of this - but being a gigantic bastard gets you a long way in rugby.

Size really does cover up a multitude of sins in rugby, and the more giant players you have, the more likely it is you're gonna win. The more of them you have available to you, the higher the chance you'll get some that are also really good and talented rugby players who are also fit enough to survive at international level. French rugby is full of players like this, from what I've seen. Ditto Saffer rugby.

We are probably arguing the same thing here for the sake of arguing. Of course, Eddie does have orcsbut he has dropped the Vunipolas, one of whom Eng's entire fwd game plan revolved around or they have become injured or past it.

France does have mutants in abundance at the moment and it's not just the size but the skill sets that come with it. When you watch Bourgarit last week or Chat earlier this season before injury, you see big guys (not Mauvaka large for props) who can motor and handle.......... and can't get near selection. The most athletic, fast, skilled freak of the lot is Macalou who is nowhere near the side. Not far behind in those stakes are Jordan Joseph and Demba Bamba. You also may have seen the hooker Montgaillard and wing Jefferson Joseph in the U20s. The one who is sailing under radar at the moment is SH Le Garrec at Racing who is not a million miles from Dupont but also has a 90%+ kicking game and bar injury will be a selection certainty by the time of the RWC.

2 things have changed in French rugby
1) Finally, the sorts of kids from rough, immigrant backgrounds are finding pathways into the game.
2) The very belated attempts to restrict foreign players

Le Garrec is heading for Japan with Les Bleus i read somewhere. Hope they give Dupont a rest and that the kid shows his worth.

France depth at scrum-half is ridiculous, though Dupont is so much ahead of the lot, especially by his defensive work now, that his absence will be felt.

I haven't see Chat recently but I don't have memories of his hNdling skills. Rather he reminded me Swarsewsky for his ability to drop the ball in contact after a storming run and 20m gain.

[Torquemada 1420]

Le Garrec is heading for Japan with Les Bleus i read somewhere. Hope they give Dupont a rest and that the kid shows his worth.

France depth at scrum-half is ridiculous, though Dupont is so much ahead of the lot, especially by his defensive work now, that his absence will be felt.

I haven't see Chat recently but I don't have memories of his hNdling skills. Rather he reminded me Swarsewsky for his ability to drop the ball in contact after a storming run and 20m gain.

Le Garrec is not Dupont but I think he'll be No2 in the world if he progresses. His ability of the tee is a huge advantage too.

Agree Chat was like that but he'd cut that out more recently: I think he carried too often with one hand like Pica used too. He does have a very soft offload too.

[Kawazaki]

Whether by design or as a heuristic development, the set-piece elements of Rugby Union introduce significant jeopardy into the game that variations (like League) have lost. A 6'8" man will have different physical advantages and limitations to a 5'9" man. Height, reach, weight, speed, agility, power etc are the obvious differences but the set-piece also requires that forwards have to spend significant time learning and training for these specific elements. That is time they aren't practicing skills like running, evasion, passing and kicking. A combination of these physical advantages/limitations and restrictions on practicing open-play skills (for the forwards) is what should help create space through mismatches. Teams could forgo some set-piece practice in favour of their forwards developing more open-play ability but then their set-piece would suffer. In short, it's a trade-off. This for me is the essence of Rugby Union - a balance and trade-off. Fatigue is very much a part of that jeopardy that the set-piece demands. The 'finishers' strategy diminishes that significantly to the detriment of the game.

[TheFrog]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/why-nige ... law-trial/

There. Nigel Owens said it.

The same man who said Thierry Dussautoir was the best captain he came across during his refereeing years.

[Kawazaki]

How about instead of a red card being 20 minutes and then the player can be replaced, the rule is changed to replace after a minimum of 20 minutes? Here's how that would work; if a player is sent off after 86 seconds like Ewels was then his replacement can't come on until the start of the second half. The player getting the red card misses the rest of the match and his replacement misses the quarter they got sent off in plus the one after it.

Do I win £5?

[Torquemada 1420]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/why-nige ... law-trial/

There. Nigel Owens said it.

The same man who said Thierry Dussautoir was the best captain he came across during his refereeing years.

Yeah. It's bollox. Either rugby gives a sh*t about safety and players adapt, or it doesn't. It's as binary as that.

[Margin__Walker]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/why-nige ... law-trial/

There. Nigel Owens said it.

The same man who said Thierry Dussautoir was the best captain he came across during his refereeing years.

Yeah. It's bollox. Either rugby gives a sh*t about safety and players adapt, or it doesn't. It's as binary as that.

It's all back to the '20 minute reds aren't a deterrent' though.

Double the bans. The disciplinary process should be the deterrent.

[GogLais]

Not that it decides anything but there’s no debate in football about doing away with red cards is there?

[Woddy]

I agree with Owens. If something merits a red card, it does so in the 2nd minute just as much as the 75th. Match-management of cards, to the extent it matters at all, should be the players’ responsibility not the ref’s.

And I also agree that fewer subs would help sort out the side/impact issue, which I think is the biggest problem
facing rugby right now. Too many players getting injured, concussed and having to give up the game. That’s at amateur level.

Make the forwards tired. Get them leaner. Less physical impact across the field. There may be instances of injuries suffered because a player was tired, but I would bet my house they are outweighed, significantly, by those suffered because players hit each other with full intensity right through a game. In my experience, fatigue meant falling off tackles.

[JM2K6]

I dunno what game you're watching but the majority of the giant fuckers, outside of a handful of front rowers, regularly play 80 minutes.

[GogLais]

So the aim is to have a quicker game with fewer and shorter interruptions with players that will be a bit lighter and faster. Tbh I can’t see that in itself making much difference to the safety issue. More entertaining, probably yes.

[Kawazaki]

So the aim is to have a quicker game with fewer and shorter interruptions with players that will be a bit lighter and faster. Tbh I can’t see that in itself making much difference to the safety issue. More entertaining, probably yes.

Lighter players will get injured less, everything becomes easier when you're lighter. Look at 7s, some of the hits look huge but the energy dissipated will be far less and also the disparity of energy exchanged is far less. However, there is something magical in seeing a 140kg prop make a break or throw a dummy...

[JM2K6]

Just returning to the "fewer subs" suggestion - let's walk through this a little bit. Currently we have to have a full replacement front row on safety grounds. Are people proposing we bin that off? If so I hope you like uncontested scrums. Otherwise, the front row stays and guys like Atonio are unaffected. Then we have to think about the impact on players' careers. With fewer subs allowed, that means fewer playing opportunities. Specialists will be less likely to get games if they're not undisputed first choice, because "utility" players will be conversely far more important to have on the bench to cover injuries. Older players - who might be good for 60 or the occasional 80 - would be far less likely to get picked. Players who pick up knocks who would otherwise come off would be pressured to stay on (or try and hide the impact of injuries themselves).

I really think there has to be a different approach if you want the game to reward lighter players. The reduction in subs might help, but there's plenty about it that would be detrimental.

[GogLais]

So the aim is to have a quicker game with fewer and shorter interruptions with players that will be a bit lighter and faster. Tbh I can’t see that in itself making much difference to the safety issue. More entertaining, probably yes.

Lighter players will get injured less, everything becomes easier when you're lighter. Look at 7s, some of the hits look huge but the energy dissipated will be far less and also the disparity of energy exchanged is far less. However, there is something magical in seeing a 140kg prop make a break or throw a dummy...

Speaking as a layman where brains and concussion are concerned - aren’t we going to get smaller but more collisions? Does that help much? And I suspect some teams would still go for size in the expectation of crushing the smaller one in the first 60 minutes. Possible unintended consequence - the size differential increases.

[Kawazaki]

So the aim is to have a quicker game with fewer and shorter interruptions with players that will be a bit lighter and faster. Tbh I can’t see that in itself making much difference to the safety issue. More entertaining, probably yes.

Lighter players will get injured less, everything becomes easier when you're lighter. Look at 7s, some of the hits look huge but the energy dissipated will be far less and also the disparity of energy exchanged is far less. However, there is something magical in seeing a 140kg prop make a break or throw a dummy...

Speaking as a layman where brains and concussion are concerned - aren’t we going to get smaller but more collisions? Does that help much? And I suspect some teams would still go for size in the expectation of crushing the smaller one in the first 60 minutes. Possible unintended consequence - the size differential increases.

Look at Exeter, a massive pack who like (or liked) to consolidate possession and play one out hit ups over and over and over again. There would either be fewer tackles with lighter teams or no difference to when the team is huge imho.

[Biffer]

This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

[GogLais]

Lighter players will get injured less, everything becomes easier when you're lighter. Look at 7s, some of the hits look huge but the energy dissipated will be far less and also the disparity of energy exchanged is far less. However, there is something magical in seeing a 140kg prop make a break or throw a dummy...

Speaking as a layman where brains and concussion are concerned - aren’t we going to get smaller but more collisions? Does that help much? And I suspect some teams would still go for size in the expectation of crushing the smaller one in the first 60 minutes. Possible unintended consequence - the size differential increases.

Look at Exeter, a massive pack who like (or liked) to consolidate possession and play one out hit ups over and over and over again. There would either be fewer tackles with lighter teams or no difference to when the team is huge imho.

I stopped reading when you said “Look at Exeter” . Fair point, the game might be played differently, it’s just that I don’t see it changing that much. But who knows?

[Margin__Walker]

This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

It's a good point. I think you pretty much have to murder someone (and contest it) to get the full tariff. It just doesn't seem happen.

[Lobby]

This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

I think a major factor is the obsession with making ‘dominant’ tackles. This is why players are still going into tackles upright, with all the dangers for head contact that entails. Until coaches change their focus on dominating tackles we will continue to see red cards being issued.

The answer isn’t to remove or reduce the consequences of a red card, or to try other changes that are just as likely to have other unintended consequences, but to continue to insist that dangerous tackles are unacceptable and will be punished by red cards. Eventually coaches and players will realise that it’s not worth tackling players head high.

[Kawazaki]

This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

It's a good point. I think you pretty much have to murder someone (and contest it) to get the full tariff. It just doesn't seem happen.

Depends which disciplinary body you sit in front of. Brendan Venter got a 14-week (FOURTEEN WEEKS) ban for "making an inappropriate gesture" to spectators (and Leicester ones at that!) and then had the temerity to eat a biscuit that was laid out on the table in front of him!

“We are disappointed that Dr Venter does not seem to understand the seriousness of this case,” Blackett said.

“Knowing how the crowd was reacting he should not have waved, bowed and blown kisses before halftime and at the end of the match. He showed no sensitivity or awareness of the ethos of rugby but instead continued knowingly to provoke the crowd.”

I'd say Venter knows exactly what the ethos of rugby is which is why he bowed and blew them a kiss rather than giving them the bird and telling them to fuck off.

[sockwithaticket]

This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

I think a major factor is the obsession with making ‘dominant’ tackles. This is why players are still going into tackles upright, with all the dangers for head contact that entails. Until coaches change their focus on dominating tackles we will continue to see red cards being issued.

The answer isn’t to remove or reduce the consequences of a red card, or to try other changes that are just as likely to have other unintended consequences, but to continue to insist that dangerous tackles are unacceptable and will be punished by red cards. Eventually coaches and players will realise that it’s not worth tackling players head high.

Dominant tackles and preventing the offload being valued more than the safety of the opposition. Everyone in the game pays lip service to player safety being paramount, but, fundamentally, players aren't willing to go lower and coaches aren't willing to tell them to if it means offloads and tackles that result in ground being lost.

I don't know what can be done about that mindset.

[Niegs]

Simple solution... 13 on 13. More space, fewer collisions. Red cards stay = even more space if you're a dumb, careless twat who's too lazy to adjust technique or predict how something will play out despite your 15+ years playing experience. We get the excitement of more tries.

[Kawazaki]

This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

I think a major factor is the obsession with making ‘dominant’ tackles. This is why players are still going into tackles upright, with all the dangers for head contact that entails. Until coaches change their focus on dominating tackles we will continue to see red cards being issued.

The answer isn’t to remove or reduce the consequences of a red card, or to try other changes that are just as likely to have other unintended consequences, but to continue to insist that dangerous tackles are unacceptable and will be punished by red cards. Eventually coaches and players will realise that it’s not worth tackling players head high.

Dominant tackles and preventing the offload being valued more than the safety of the opposition. Everyone in the game pays lip service to player safety being paramount, but, fundamentally, players aren't willing to go lower and coaches aren't willing to tell them to if it means offloads and tackles that result in ground being lost.

I don't know what can be done about that mindset.

The weird thing about all that is that if you're running hard and flat out then a low chop tackle hurts you far more than running into an upright defender. I know this from bitter experience!

[sockwithaticket]

I think a major factor is the obsession with making ‘dominant’ tackles. This is why players are still going into tackles upright, with all the dangers for head contact that entails. Until coaches change their focus on dominating tackles we will continue to see red cards being issued.

The answer isn’t to remove or reduce the consequences of a red card, or to try other changes that are just as likely to have other unintended consequences, but to continue to insist that dangerous tackles are unacceptable and will be punished by red cards. Eventually coaches and players will realise that it’s not worth tackling players head high.

Dominant tackles and preventing the offload being valued more than the safety of the opposition. Everyone in the game pays lip service to player safety being paramount, but, fundamentally, players aren't willing to go lower and coaches aren't willing to tell them to if it means offloads and tackles that result in ground being lost.

I don't know what can be done about that mindset.

The weird thing about all that is that if you're running hard and flat out then a low chop tackle hurts you far more than running into an upright defender. I know this from bitter experience!

Quite. Unexpectedly being chopped to the ground without your hands free to break your fall can take its toll on noses, teeth and shoulders as primary impact points.

Also, you don't even need to go that low, it's possible to tackle people relatively high without entering the risk zone. Taking a big hit at the base of your ribs can hurt like a bitch and wind you. It's a high enough tackle that keeping arms free for the offload is tricky, but it also keeps the tackler away from hard spots like knees and hips which could do them harm while providing a margin for error that aiming at the shoulder line doesn't.

[Monk]

This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

It's a good point. I think you pretty much have to murder someone (and contest it) to get the full tariff. It just doesn't seem happen.

Depends which disciplinary body you sit in front of. Brendan Venter got a 14-week (FOURTEEN WEEKS) ban for "making an inappropriate gesture" to spectators (and Leicester ones at that!) and then had the temerity to eat a biscuit that was laid out on the table in front of him!

“We are disappointed that Dr Venter does not seem to understand the seriousness of this case,” Blackett said.

“Knowing how the crowd was reacting he should not have waved, bowed and blown kisses before halftime and at the end of the match. He showed no sensitivity or awareness of the ethos of rugby but instead continued knowingly to provoke the crowd.”

I'd say Venter knows exactly what the ethos of rugby is which is why he bowed and blew them a kiss rather than giving them the bird and telling them to fuck off.

as far as I remember that all kicked off as the coaches - i.e Venter - were seated with home spectators in front and behind them and Venter stood up to follow play which attracted the ire of some ducks seated behind him and he told them to bugger off by mocking them.

[Kawazaki]

It's a good point. I think you pretty much have to murder someone (and contest it) to get the full tariff. It just doesn't seem happen.

Depends which disciplinary body you sit in front of. Brendan Venter got a 14-week (FOURTEEN WEEKS) ban for "making an inappropriate gesture" to spectators (and Leicester ones at that!) and then had the temerity to eat a biscuit that was laid out on the table in front of him!

“We are disappointed that Dr Venter does not seem to understand the seriousness of this case,” Blackett said.

“Knowing how the crowd was reacting he should not have waved, bowed and blown kisses before halftime and at the end of the match. He showed no sensitivity or awareness of the ethos of rugby but instead continued knowingly to provoke the crowd.”

I'd say Venter knows exactly what the ethos of rugby is which is why he bowed and blew them a kiss rather than giving them the bird and telling them to fuck off.

as far as I remember that all kicked off as the coaches - i.e Venter - were seated with home spectators in front and behind them and Venter stood up to follow play which attracted the ire of some ducks seated behind him and he told them to bugger off by mocking them.

Yes, do you think the Leicester fans asked him politely to sit down? He didn't swear at them, he applauded and bowed. He got 14 weeks for that.

Spoiler

Show

Leicester 23 Saracens 32
Mark Baldwin
Monday May 10 2010, 1.01am BST, The Times
Venter plotted the victory that put Saracens in good heart for play-offs

If English rugby union was looking for a few extra spicy ingredients to stir into the simmering pot of this season’s Guinness Premiership play-offs, events at Welford Road on Saturday certainly provided them.
Indeed, the RFU seems likely to investigate two incidents, on and off the pitch, that accompanied the seismic sporting sight of Leicester losing at home for the first time since September 2008 and Saracens winning there for the first time. Leicester had gone 31 matches unbeaten in front of their own supporters, while Saracens had endured 32 previous winless visits.
It was members of the Crumbie Road stand who were involved in the off-field pantomime surrounding Brendan Venter, the Saracens director of rugby, who later made complaints to the club.
Venter, sitting with the rest of his coaching and support staff in a front area of the stand, repeatedly jumped up from his seat either to bend the ear of Brian Campsall, the referees’ assessor sat in the row behind him, or to celebrate a Saracens score.
This enraged a number of nearby Leicester supporters who claimed that Venter was blocking their view of the action. Even when Campsall moved to another seat after half-time, Venter sought him out for a further discussion of the interpretations of Andrew Small, the referee.
Stewards were called during the first half, first to ask Venter to stay seated, and then to sit in the aisle between him and the nearest Leicester fans. When Venter refused to stay glued to his seat, there were more outbursts of anger towards him. Minutes before the game’s end, with a Saracens victory secure, Venter left to go to the touchline with a theatrical bow to the crowd. Cue more catcalls.
On the field, Schalk Brits, the Saracens hooker — who four minutes earlier had scored the interception try from near halfway that took his side ten points clear — gave a section of the crowd behind the visiting dugout a one-fingered gesture, in clear reaction to something that had been said as he was led off after treatment for a head injury.
Later, Brits sought to defuse the situation, saying: “I was a bit groggy so I can’t remember exactly what was said, but it was not acceptable to do what I did and I went to the crowd afterwards to apologise to them. I am sorry for what I did and they accepted my apology.”
Whether the RFU will also do so depends on Small’s report or if there is an official complaint about either incident from Leicester. Peter Tom, chairman of both Leicester and Premier Rugby, may decide to recommend the moving of coaching staff from prominent positions in the stand. Once during the second half, Richard Cockerill, the Leicester head coach, was heard by hundreds of supporters when he shouted at Small: “Come on ref, the game’s not about you!”
Cockerill, however, conceded afterwards that Saracens fully deserved their victory and that his team will lose to Bath, in Sunday’s play-off semi-final at Welford Road, if they do not improve.
Saracens, for whom Chris Wyles scored an opportunist try when Alesana Tuilagi, who claimed Leicester’s first try, dropped a high kick, meet Northampton in the other semi-final at Franklin’s Gardens, where, a fortnight ago, they annoyed the home side by celebrating too noisily.
“We were not being arrogant or disrespectful,” Venter said. “We simply want to enjoy all our wins, like this fantastic one today, by singing our team song. Beating both Northampton and Leicester away has given us the added self-belief we needed.”

[Line6 HXFX]

Rugby is fucked as a sport, in ten years we will be wondering what the we were doing supporting a game where like hundreds of people are getting diagnosed early onset dementia.
And for what? 80 minutes of entertainment a week?
I could fly a helicopter in VR , or play guitar or collect watches.. or dance around the front room in my underpants, with a VR headset on whilst playing guitar and browsing the Internet...a million ways to entertain on3s self.. in 2022..and no one gets dementia.
No one gets hurt.

I am feeling incredibly queasy about the game of rugby tbh. We can call them players..but they are real human beings, putting themselves at terrific risk at the end of the day, just for our entertainment...there is something wrong about the sport...and I don't even like half the f'ckers.

Most rugby players don't play to entertain you. They play because they love the game. Go down to your local club and watch the 4th team play, as much passion as the pros..

This 100%, Rugby is going nowhere

Oh right so rugby doesn't need supporters and would carry on regardless?
Seriously..
WTF?