Law Changes trial from 1 January

[Tichtheid]

I'll preface this with saying I'm a Connacht fan, after Edinburgh and Glasgow, they are the team whose results I look for.



That was deemed correctly as a red card offence. If you do that your team should be down a player for the remainder of the match, you've let them down on top of everything else.

To add insult to that, Murphy will miss just two URC games after it being looked at as a mid point entry of a six week ban.

The disciplinary committee deemed the incident was deserving of a red card, with a mid-range entry point of a six-week suspension, two weeks of which were cut due to his apology to McCormick, engagement in the disciplinary process and his previous clean disciplinary record.

While Murphy was given a four-week suspension, that ban will be reduced by a further week if he completes the World Rugby Coaching Intervention Programme – more commonly known as 'Tackle School’.

The Wexford man will now miss Connacht’s URC games against Leinster and Dragons, while he will also be suspended for Connacht A v Leinster A on 16 November.

Edit, ach they're asking you to sign in to watch it. It's a flying shoulder straight to the head way off the ball

[Biffer]

The 20 minute red card is about the most stupid idea since, well I don't know when, maybe since getting rid of rucking.

Are we really going down the road where the occasional watchers who might bring in sponsorship via tv or whatever are more important than player safety or the integrity of the game itself?

The game has always about playing hard but fair, you step over the line then you get sent off, for the duration of the game - it's not a difficult thing to comprehend.

Learn to tackle low you dolts.

And coach them to tackle low you sphincters.

Irfu have said no.

Good. With the Irish and the French loudly saying no, this is unlikely to pass.

[Big D]

The 20 minute red card is about the most stupid idea since, well I don't know when, maybe since getting rid of rucking.

Are we really going down the road where the occasional watchers who might bring in sponsorship via tv or whatever are more important than player safety or the integrity of the game itself?

The game has always about playing hard but fair, you step over the line then you get sent off, for the duration of the game - it's not a difficult thing to comprehend.

Learn to tackle low you dolts.

And coach them to tackle low you sphincters.

Irfu have said no.

Good. With the Irish and the French loudly saying no, this is unlikely to pass.

"The IRFU welcomes the variation to World Rugby’s closed law trial, which will be adopted in the upcoming Autumn Nations Series, whereby Match Officials will retain the ability to award a permanent red card for acts of foul play which are deemed deliberate and dangerous."

We are going to see nonsense arguments over intent. "He didn't mean to nearly take his head off".

[Biffer]

The whole 'intent' thing annoys me as well - I didn't intend to break his leg, I was just recklessly slamming shoulder first into the side of a ruck.

Reckless is every bit as bad as intentional in my opinion. If you didn't intend to make a legal tackle, then any damage you do is intentional and on you - so that includes upright head to head contact, no arms tackles, tip tackles, taking someone out in the air.

[Guy Smiley]

The whole 'intent' thing annoys me as well - I didn't intend to break his leg, I was just recklessly slamming shoulder first into the side of a ruck.

Reckless is every bit as bad as intentional in my opinion. If you didn't intend to make a legal tackle, then any damage you do is intentional and on you - so that includes upright head to head contact, no arms tackles, tip tackles, taking someone out in the air.

Agreed... similar issues in the AFL disciplinary process where players face a tribunal after the games and lawyers are involved in arguing vagaries like intent.

The offence is defined within the Laws of the game. Let's use high contact as an example as protection for the head is paramount...

Contact is made. Ref looks for involvement by other players... did the offender act alone or were other players contributing to the action.

No other action contributing, RC.

Other possible factors at play, YC with TMO review and possible elevation to RC.
(I like the YC review to RC system already being used, it works)

Then the player faces a hearing post game where suspension is decided... as I outline earlier, no mitigating down from a starting point. Only upwards depending on degree of offending.

The bottom line is protection of health and safety... that is the priority, so my attitude is don't undermine that with jiggery pokery arguments about intent or dilute punishment with discounts for meaningless gestures.

Make offending hurt the offender and have that based on simple, clear parameters that can be applied cleanly.

[Enzedder]

Nobody is disagreeing with the Irish - Red Card and full send off for "deliberate and intentional" acts of foul play.

Let's move on.

[Biffer]

Nobody is disagreeing with the Irish - Red Card and full send off for "deliberate and intentional" acts of foul play.

Let's move on.

Does reckless count as deliberate?

[Slick]

The 20 minute red card is about the most stupid idea since, well I don't know when, maybe since getting rid of rucking.

Are we really going down the road where the occasional watchers who might bring in sponsorship via tv or whatever are more important than player safety or the integrity of the game itself?

The game has always about playing hard but fair, you step over the line then you get sent off, for the duration of the game - it's not a difficult thing to comprehend.

Learn to tackle low you dolts.

And coach them to tackle low you sphincters.

Well said

[Uncle fester]

The whole 'intent' thing annoys me as well - I didn't intend to break his leg, I was just recklessly slamming shoulder first into the side of a ruck.

Reckless is every bit as bad as intentional in my opinion. If you didn't intend to make a legal tackle, then any damage you do is intentional and on you - so that includes upright head to head contact, no arms tackles, tip tackles, taking someone out in the air.

As refs, we're instructed to take "intent" out of the decision making. Just look at the facts. The disciplinary committee can make a decision on the overall act including intent.

[Jethro]

It's so weird that the same offence can lead to a side losing a player for 1 minute or 75 minutes.

Make the deterrent in the sentencing at the judiciary hearing.

Rugby losing supporters, I know lets make the rules even more complex for the sometime watcher and supporter, and they wonder why League, Soccer, and AFL are powering on while rugby is in decline in Australia. Having said that not entirely sure Auckland FC was a good idea, though the U.S backer is talking title within three or so seasons, something the Phoenix have failed at, and hey the dude has the runs onboard to make the claim.

I still hold the TMO is a blight on the game, with some decisions seemingly taking an Eon to make. To be honest have switched over to other sports on occasion due to this fracking nightmare. Yes we are have a lot of options in Oz.

[Enzedder]

Do the French and the Irish know that this is a trial to see what effect it has on injuries and transgressions? Why are they not willing to check the evidence after a trial, and then make up their mind?

[Biffer]

Do the French and the Irish know that this is a trial to see what effect it has on injuries and transgressions? Why are they not willing to check the evidence after a trial, and then make up their mind?

Because we all know that this is about the Aussies and the kiwis not wanting to teach their players how to tackle properly.

[Uncle fester]

Do the French and the Irish know that this is a trial to see what effect it has on injuries and transgressions? Why are they not willing to check the evidence after a trial, and then make up their mind?

Because we all know that this is about the Aussies and the kiwis not wanting to teach their players how to tackle properly.

They've done the trial already at non-elite level. Test rugby is not the place to be "trying stuff out to gather data".

[JM2K6]

Do the French and the Irish know that this is a trial to see what effect it has on injuries and transgressions? Why are they not willing to check the evidence after a trial, and then make up their mind?

Well, given you've complained about red cards ruining matches (including in this very thread!), and in their objection to the law changes the French produced the stats to show that >50% of teams suffering a red card still win the games, I don't think the onus is on them to check the evidence

[Enzedder]

Do the French and the Irish know that this is a trial to see what effect it has on injuries and transgressions? Why are they not willing to check the evidence after a trial, and then make up their mind?

Well, given you've complained about red cards ruining matches (including in this very thread!), and in their objection to the law changes the French produced the stats to show that >50% of teams suffering a red card still win the games, I don't think the onus is on them to check the evidence

An on-field decision affects 50% of the games when it is used.

No wonder we want it changed.

[Biffer]

Do the French and the Irish know that this is a trial to see what effect it has on injuries and transgressions? Why are they not willing to check the evidence after a trial, and then make up their mind?

Well, given you've complained about red cards ruining matches (including in this very thread!), and in their objection to the law changes the French produced the stats to show that >50% of teams suffering a red card still win the games, I don't think the onus is on them to check the evidence

An on-field decision affects 50% of the games when it is used.

No wonder we want it changed.

Here’s an idea, coach your players so they don’t keep getting sent off.

[JM2K6]

Do the French and the Irish know that this is a trial to see what effect it has on injuries and transgressions? Why are they not willing to check the evidence after a trial, and then make up their mind?

Well, given you've complained about red cards ruining matches (including in this very thread!), and in their objection to the law changes the French produced the stats to show that >50% of teams suffering a red card still win the games, I don't think the onus is on them to check the evidence

An on-field decision affects 50% of the games when it is used.

No wonder we want it changed.

That's not what that means, no.

1) It's less than 50%
2) You have no idea about whether those teams would have won without the red
3) Any major on field punishment that does not affect the match is by definition worthless

The claim being made by the antediluvian crew is that red cards ruin matches. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

[Guy Smiley]

I haven't really followed this thread as I'd kinda brushed it off as yet another iteration of WR tinkering...

but reducing a RC? yeah nah... we've got quite a good system working with the bunker idea where a YC can be reviewed and elevated to RC while the 10 minutes is being observed. That should be providing all the information we need to manage the seriousness of a RC deliberation... and while I am personally uncomfortable with some RC decisions (because I have some personal inertia regarding change) the long term effects for the player who is actually affected by the decision, let's call them the VICTIM who is often at the receiving end of dangerous or foul play far outweigh the discomfort of seeing a team down to 14 because one of them is either an idiot or a thug.

The Aussies bleat on about the spectacle because they're in a competitive market saturated with heavy promotion for the simple game. Our NZ CEO seems to be following along in the slipstream because he (they) are becoming worried about market competition from the same simple game. In our case, we've just come through the roaring success of another NPC season that drew massive support from fans and fuck all from the national governing body. The Aussies do a different version of the same thing... not fostering ground level participation for the sake of chasing the corporate model with big dollar deals and appeal.

Fuck them changing anything to do with such an important underlying principle as protecting players from dangerous or foul play... regardless of intent.

We had similar discomfort a few years ago with the mandatory card for taking players out in the air. Behaviour has mainly changed around that as a result and we still see plenty of high kicks taken in the air. The spectacle is preserved, the ethos of the game hasn't suffered and players aren't exposed to greater risk of injury. Surely, that is the priority here.

[Kiwias]

We had similar discomfort a few years ago with the mandatory card for taking players out in the air. Behaviour has mainly changed around that as a result and we still see plenty of high kicks taken in the air. The spectacle is preserved, the ethos of the game hasn't suffered and players aren't exposed to greater risk of injury. Surely, that is the priority here.

The high kicks and challenges for the ball were excellent in the AB/England match, proof that a problem can be resolved with sensible action by the authorities.

[Sandstorm]

We had similar discomfort a few years ago with the mandatory card for taking players out in the air. Behaviour has mainly changed around that as a result and we still see plenty of high kicks taken in the air. The spectacle is preserved, the ethos of the game hasn't suffered and players aren't exposed to greater risk of injury. Surely, that is the priority here.

The high kicks and challenges for the ball were excellent in the AB/England match, proof that a problem can be resolved with sensible action by the authorities.

Agreed

[Slick]

The ref mic seemed to go down well and stop a lot of pantomime booing. Although Ireland haven't played yet.